Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The spirit of John Fox lives on?

90 posts in this topic

Posted

The numbers prove DT's fail just as much as QB's in the first round. First round WR numbers are worst and DB are barely above 50%. However DT is thought of as a safer pick around here. Some people also assumes that Patrick Peterson is guaranteed to be a all pro , and AJ Green is the second coming of Calvin Johnson. I am not assuming anything. I acknowledge the fact that anyone we pick could be a horrible failure or a huge success.

Nail on the head. The cautionary tale about why we shouldn't draft Cam is that he could be the next Jamarcus Russell (instead of the next Big Ben or McNair), and the argument for Patrick Peterson is that he is the next Revis, and A.J. Green the next Calvin Johnson, and before that Nick Fairley/Marcell Dareus are the next Warren Sapp, like it's just unfathomable that these other guys can fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Nail on the head. The cautionary tale about why we shouldn't draft Cam is that he could be the next Jamarcus Russell (instead of the next Big Ben or McNair), and the argument for Patrick Peterson is that he is the next Revis, and A.J. Green the next Calvin Johnson, and before that Nick Fairley/Marcell Dareus are the next Warren Sapp, like it's just unfathomable that these other guys can fail.

The main problem with that comparison is the nature of the positions. If any other position doesn't live up to their draft status, they could still contribute some, or just not play as much. You can cover up for the weaker DT, or roll coverage for a weaker CB, move the less performing WR around to create a favorable matchup. What you can't cover up for is an interception-throwing, sack-taking, inaccurate QB that loses games or swallows up a large portion of your salary and not even see the field.

Ultimately, the worst position to fail at is QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The main problem with that comparison is the nature of the positions. If any other position doesn't live up to their draft status, they could still contribute some, or just not play as much. You can cover up for the weaker DT, or roll coverage for a weaker CB, move the less performing WR around to create a favorable matchup. What you can't cover up for is an interception-throwing, sack-taking, inaccurate QB that loses games or swallows up a large portion of your salary and not even see the field.

Ultimately, the worst position to fail at is QB.

Whoever you pick at #1 is going to be paid a lot of money. Maybe it's not QB #1 money, but still it's big money for whatever position you are going to choose. This very franchise has overpaid for a "franchise" defensive tackle who wasn't a horrible player by any means, but it arguably set us back for several years (Sean Gilbert). The Miami Dolphins picked a great offensive tackle at #1 3 years ago and are paying him a lot of money, yet they still are looking for a QB to lead their franchise and could have gotten him if they took Matt Ryan instead. While the terms risk are thrown around a lot when talking about quarterback, one that is not being commonly thrown around is "opportunity cost". So yes, if Peterson, Green, or Dareus/Fairley bust when we pick them, while Newton goes on to succeed I think you are taking an even bigger risk by not addressing the most important position on the field.

But you are right about QB being the worst position to fail at, we ought to know it well since that's what we've seen out of our team for the last 2-3 years and counting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The main problem with that comparison is the nature of the positions. If any other position doesn't live up to their draft status, they could still contribute some, or just not play as much. You can cover up for the weaker DT, or roll coverage for a weaker CB, move the less performing WR around to create a favorable matchup. What you can't cover up for is an interception-throwing, sack-taking, inaccurate QB that loses games or swallows up a large portion of your salary and not even see the field.

Ultimately, the worst position to fail at is QB.

So are you saying we should or shouldn't get a QB? Because short of the salary thing you described our current QB's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So are you saying we should or shouldn't get a QB? Because short of the salary thing you described our current QB's.

No I'm just creating a debate, that no side here is right, nor is any side wrong. I can also contend to what I have said as well. We definitely need stronger performance at the QB position and I welcome Newton with open arms to be our pick. Again, personally I "think" there are more talented players, but not much more than him, so I would be very content with him as our selection. Yes it sounds like our current situation, although JC isnt an interception machine, but he wasn't the first overall pick either.

It would suck if we passed on a QB and they turned out to be a star, but not too much if the guy we select is a star as well. And, just because a player succeeds in one system doesnt automatically mean he would have succeeded in ours. Who here believes had we been fortunate enough to get Matt Ryan a couple years back that he would be the same player here as he is in Atl?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1) Most of us want to draft the best player available to fill a need. Some of us don't think Cam Newton is that player.

2) Some of us would rather have a quarterback who has a bit more experience operating out of the pocket and who is used to leaning on his arm to win games, instead of his legs. That being said, this isn't a major concern for me, since I think he will change his playstyle no matter where he goes.

3) Some of us really don't like that he didn't listen to his coaches.

4) Anyone who wants to tank next season is a fugging moron and not drafting Cam Newton doesn't mean we want to tank next season. There is a VERY good chance that drafting Cam Newton could cause a lower record than drafting Peterson or Dareus, someone who can play right away and likely have a greater short term impact unless they were to bust. The payout with Cam Newton is more likely to be long term, if it happens.

5) Anyone who thinks our offense won't be better this year, even if we changed nothing, is crazy (note: we have changed some things already and we are changing more).

One of the greatest misconceptions about the majority of people who don't want Newton is that we want Clausen to start right now, or we want to go into camp with Clausen, Pike, and Moore and no one else.

I would like to see us bring in a veteran to compete with those four in camp - because the reality is, even if we draft Newton, we have to do this anyway. We are young at quarterback if we draft one or not. We would be well served to find a journeyman that can potentially take over if our young guys, be it Newton, Clausen, or Pike, don't work out and Moore either isn't here or is injured.

If our offense doesn't get better, our quarterback is going to play terribly no matter who it is, period. So whether you want us to draft Cam or not, you better hope that whatever was ailing it last year is a thing of the past... and no, it wasn't just Jimmy Clausen and Matt Moore.

Best comments on the Huddle I heard so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Mav knows of what he speaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Bleys, being a jerk about it doesnt prove your argument.

First of all I never even specified which qb i was talking about. You immediately jumped to Cam.

So where did I say I don't see his faults, or the "forest through the trees" as you put it? I also never said draft a qb just for the sake of drafting one. I stated my impatience with our GM's incompetence regarding qb's.

Now your just making assumptions which YOU created facts. Cute.

I'm done with the QB subject until after draft day. This offseason has just made some folks here pretentious asses..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You would think after all the complaining about the conservative nature of the John Fox era people here would be more apt to take risk. However from a lot of comments and post it seems like John Fox is still here.

Drafting a cornerback , DT at #1?

We need a traditional pocket passing QB.

Complaining that a QB made a play to ice the game instead of taking a knee?

Tanking the year so we can get a better QB(arguably) next year?

Hoping that our horrible QB play from last year was just bad play calling?

Or maybe it's just me reading into things..........

people have just been spoonfed over time that if your team braintrust always plays it safe you'll watch them have plenty of success.

I mean just look at the decision-making suggestions people have that consist of getting back to contender level while stretching commitment and investment until it is literally insignificant relative to previous levels (i.e. trading down because no.1 pick holds just too much value to put into ANY pick, trading for Palmer while somehow getting more picks while restructuring his contract to the absolute least they think he'll play for, etc.) With these people infeasibility is basically nonexistent, as long as it lessens commitment and investment the FO should do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Bleys, being a jerk about it doesnt prove your argument.

First of all I never even specified which qb i was talking about. You immediately jumped to Cam.

So where did I say I don't see his faults, or the "forest through the trees" as you put it? I also never said draft a qb just for the sake of drafting one. I stated my impatience with our GM's incompetence regarding qb's.

Now your just making assumptions which YOU created facts. Cute.

I'm done with the QB subject until after draft day. This offseason has just made some folks here pretentious asses..

obviously I can't see into the future. seeing into the future and making assumptions have nothing to do with anything I've said.

If you don't want me to be a jerk then don't ask me questions you already know the answers... For example, Can you see into the future? No, I can not. Throwing poo at the wall isn't going to help that matter either- No where did I make an assumption and pawn it off as a fact.

if you happen to NOT be done talking about QBs, I recommend you read my latest work.. or if you did read it, try re-reading it, or maybe have someone else read it to you so it will make better sense.

you can find it here: http://www.carolinahuddle.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3073517&postcount=72

Cam has nothing to do with the subject, he's an example. Pretend I just erased Cam's name with a #2 pencil eraser and then filled in any ONE of about a Trillion names...

IF your coach doesn't see what he needs in a QB prospect, you don't draft him. You're saying that we should draft a QB because you have no patience. Well, I think that's a horrible f**king idea and I've explained why. ;)

people have just been spoonfed over time that if your team braintrust always plays it safe you'll watch them have plenty of success.

I mean just look at the decision-making suggestions people have that consist of getting back to contender level while stretching commitment and investment until it is literally insignificant relative to previous levels (i.e. trading down because no.1 pick holds just too much value to put into ANY pick, trading for Palmer while somehow getting more picks while restructuring his contract to the absolute least they think he'll play for, etc.) With these people infeasibility is basically nonexistent, as long as it lessens commitment and investment the FO should do it.

without a doubt, put your entire life savings down on this FACT.. the MOMENT someone mentions "should we sign this veteran", the very next response will always be "yes, to a vet minimum. if not, said player is not worth signing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Are there a trillion possible names?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

people have just been spoonfed over time that if your team braintrust always plays it safe you'll watch them have plenty of success.

I mean just look at the decision-making suggestions people have that consist of getting back to contender level while stretching commitment and investment until it is literally insignificant relative to previous levels (i.e. trading down because no.1 pick holds just too much value to put into ANY pick, trading for Palmer while somehow getting more picks while restructuring his contract to the absolute least they think he'll play for, etc.) With these people infeasibility is basically nonexistent, as long as it lessens commitment and investment the FO should do it.

Sorry, wrong.

It has nothing to do with being afraid, or playing it safe. It has to do with a difference of opinion about the available players.

Some of us believe that the best players available at a need position is Marcell Dareus, or Patrick Peterson, or A J Green. Therefore, those are the players we want to see drafted.

You can disagree with that belief if you want to. What you can't do is deny that we believe it. Saying "you don't really believe that, it's actually because of this" makes you sound like a total idiot. Accepting that it's a valid difference of opinion? Much more sensible.

(don't get what's so difficult to understand about that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites