Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The spirit of John Fox lives on?


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#76 Udogg

Udogg

    Cardiac Victim since 95

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,086 posts

Posted 20 April 2011 - 04:10 PM

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.

#77 Peppers90 NC

Peppers90 NC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,278 posts

Posted 20 April 2011 - 04:21 PM

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?

#78 PantherDude

PantherDude

    Best of luck, Coach Fox!

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,373 posts

Posted 20 April 2011 - 07:46 PM

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.

#79 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,781 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 20 April 2011 - 07:48 PM

Mav knows of what he speaks.

#80 TheRed

TheRed

    California Dreamin'

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,169 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 20 April 2011 - 11:46 PM

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..

Edited by Cyanide, 21 April 2011 - 12:04 AM.


#81 Frash Brastard

Frash Brastard

    The Frashmaker

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,073 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 12:23 AM

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.

#82 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,737 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 12:32 AM

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.carolinah...17&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."

Edited by bleys, 21 April 2011 - 12:43 AM.


#83 Panthro

Panthro

    Bunned

  • Moderators
  • 22,297 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 12:34 AM

Are there a trillion possible names?

#84 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,781 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 21 April 2011 - 12:40 AM

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)

#85 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,737 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 12:45 AM

Are there a trillion possible names?


Yes. in fact there are 4,324,875,218,999 names that exist in the world.


believe it or not, first one ever created was Panthro.


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)


I don't know if you both are talking definitions here or the aspect of fear..

but this is spot on with posts I see on the forum..

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.)


I think the people who always say this have no idea what is really involved in accomplishing such a goal. (getting a vet to sign the minimum we can offer)

Edited by bleys, 21 April 2011 - 12:50 AM.


#86 Frash Brastard

Frash Brastard

    The Frashmaker

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,073 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 01:12 AM

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.


1. Cornerback isn't a pressing need.
2. As talented a WR can be, as long as your QB position is in turmoil the offense will always struggle (ask Calvin Johnson)


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.


So you don't acknowledge that there are people that do this. While you're at it, go ahead and argue that trading down, acquiring a "key" player you have your eye on and making your pick of what is left of what you think is a similar pool of talent left isn't as risky as just going ahead and taking the no.1 pick. You're getting pissy because what I referenced I'm almost sure was posted with your name on it not too long ago. So you think Mike Brown is such an idiot even if Carson Palmer is not bluffing he'll realize that before the draft, for the Panthers' convenience of course.

There's a difference between what a panthers fan's perceived market value of a player and his real market value/the market value of a player by the other team's FO. I'm not sure what Mike Brown's assessment of Palmer's value is, but it's not giving him up and your 4th overall pick for the no.1 overall, like what has been suggested here.

#87 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,958 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 01:15 AM

I'm not sure what Mike Brown's assessment of Palmer's value is, but it's not giving him up and your 4th overall pick for the no.1 overall, like what has been suggested here.


This suggestion was also made by various media folks. I don't see it as likely to happen at all, but I thought I'd mention it wasn't JUST people on this board.

Many of the people who have mentioned that have said "As unlikely as it is, would you do it if you could?" as opposed to "Man no way they don't take this deal!!!"

#88 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,781 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 21 April 2011 - 01:30 AM

So you don't acknowledge that there are people that do this. While you're at it, go ahead and argue that trading down, acquiring a "key" player you have your eye on and making your pick of what is left of what you think is a similar pool of talent left isn't as risky as just going ahead and taking the no.1 pick. You're getting pissy because what I referenced I'm almost sure was posted with your name on it not too long ago. So you think Mike Brown is such an idiot even if Carson Palmer is not bluffing he'll realize that before the draft, for the Panthers' convenience of course.

There's a difference between what a panthers fan's perceived market value of a player and his real market value/the market value of a player by the other team's FO. I'm not sure what Mike Brown's assessment of Palmer's value is, but it's not giving him up and your 4th overall pick for the no.1 overall, like what has been suggested here.

Are there people who "do this"? Derned if I know.

What I dispute is the ability of anyone on here to read their minds and say that they are.

I've posted what I'd like for us to do. Will it happen? Don't know. Neither do you.

It's all just opinions (which is kinda the point of a discussion forum).


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.