Archived

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

Connor Vs. Kuechly

91 posts in this topic

Posted

It makes me feel like we're treading water at this position

yep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You would be more accurate win a Beason vs Luke breakdown.

Comparing Connor/Luke is like those wanting to compare RGIII to Vick. Race is the main driver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I guess Dallas and Philly both want poo as their starting MLB? He is a quality LB .. and our LB core would have been fine with either guy (Kuechly or Connor)

(yeah I hate both teams so it's hard for me to be serious)

The staff didn't think Connor was worth holding on to. He was a so so MLB and nothing else. They likely see Luke as a good OLB / MLB insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

yep

Nope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Because Kuechly is viewed as the single best coverage LB to come out in a very long time. Connor... its not even close, by a long shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The problem is you think Connor = Kuechly. There's really nothing I can do to help you.

If you can't see the difference, then you aren't trying.

na .. that's not what I think .. but thanks for the insight into my own brain lol

Let me say this again .. we would have been fine at LB with Connor .. then we could have used our pick on a much more dire need

I'm not saying they're the same player .. or that we would have had the best LB group in the NFL .. I'm saying it would have been a way for us to strengthen OTHER positions that sucked last year worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

kuechly is better, that's why. he's faster, covers better, and can play any of the LBer positions. connor was good enough, but but kuechly has the potential to be great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So we just going to compare Connor to Luke cause they both white huh lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Let me say this again .. we would have been fine at LB with Connor

Saying it 20 times doesn't make it correct.

You can't look at the draft as only getting good players in the first round, It's an entire class. Maybe there are players at your other positions that the staff likes better and they are optimizing for best overall impact. Maybe Luke was they guy they always wanted.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The Panthers felt so strongly about Kuech they didn't entertain trading back. I'm gonna give this kid every chance just like I did Cam.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You would be more accurate win a Beason vs Luke breakdown.

Comparing Connor/Luke is like those wanting to compare RGIII to Vick. Race is the main driver

You're comparing a guy who has never played a snap in the NFL to one of the greatest Panthers of all time?

I'm not saying he can't be .. but .. he is not in the same realm as Beason .. sorry

Not yet at least

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

na .. that's not what I think .. but thanks for the insight into my own brain lol

Let me say this again .. we would have been fine at LB with Connor .. then we could have used our pick on a much more dire need

I'm not saying they're the same player .. or that we would have had the best LB group in the NFL .. I'm saying it would have been a way for us to strengthen OTHER positions that sucked last year worse

Some people have a hard time following alone.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites