Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Panthers drafted no significant contributors


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#16 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 24,293 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 01:42 PM

Carolina went 12-4 last season....why in the world would you expect immediate impact when our roster is almost identical in regards to starters. I mean, without looking at the list I assume some weak teams or teams with glaring weaknesses would have a lot of guys on that list.

#17 ncbobcat

ncbobcat

    Beer Enthusiast

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,676 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 01:43 PM

I like not needing rookies to start myself.


Wow, it seems that most of you are totally content with the our personnel. What I am basically reading is:

-Returning 99% of starters, obviously no upgrade needed...anywhere

-Pundit basically poo poos our rookie class saying no starters/significant contributors and except in one post, everybody dumps on the article instead of objectively supporting or rejecting the article.

#18 Carolina Crazy V2

Carolina Crazy V2

    !

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,417 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 01:45 PM

Martin and Brown and Irvin could start a couple games by the end of the year.

#19 ncbobcat

ncbobcat

    Beer Enthusiast

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,676 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 01:55 PM

Rookies can contribute and the top of the article even says that Godfrey was one of a handfull of rookies (2-7) to start most of their games last year.

An arugement can be made that:

-Goodson wins 3rd down back role or maybe turns our attack into a 3- headed monster a la the Giants last year.

-Brown unseats Brayton/Johnson as the starting LDE

-Martin beats out Mashall as the starting CB

-Robinson beats out Vincent

-Fiammetta beats out Hoover

Do you want to rely on a team full of rookies? No. But obviously the drafted positions were to challenge, upgrade and add depth. No team...ever...is so talented or has so much depth that their draft was simply to add camp bodies.

Edited by ncbobcat, 21 May 2009 - 02:00 PM.


#20 HSCBandit07

HSCBandit07

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:00 PM

Not even Obama can argue his way through some of those

#21 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,547 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:02 PM

Who the heck is Chad Reuter? :confused:

#22 pdandy1994

pdandy1994

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 585 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:02 PM

the author of that article must be a Buc fan

#23 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,547 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:05 PM

Who the heck is Chad Reuter? :confused:

Here's the answer (from his bio):

Chad swears this whole thing started because of the flu.

One day he's holed up on the couch watching the Sun Bowl, the next day he decides he had better start writing about football on the Internet. Soon the radio interview requests come in and NFL teams are calling for information - all the while he's paying off those student loans for his masters in public administration. His thesis could have been "How to be a Better Bureaucrat," if he had been required to write one.

Now on the downward slide toward 40, Chad is trying to make his way through life without ever having a desk job again.



#24 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,745 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:18 PM

Wow, it seems that most of you are totally content with the our personnel. What I am basically reading is:

-Returning 99% of starters, obviously no upgrade needed...anywhere

-Me and a Pundit basically poo poos our rookie class saying no starters/significant contributors and except in one post, everybody dumps on the article instead of objectively supporting or rejecting the article.

fixed it.

i dumped on and rejected the article as well as sentiments of those (you) who believe it. consider it objective or not.

btw...it's 95% of our starters, not 99% returning.

#25 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,544 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:19 PM

Wow, it seems that most of you are totally content with the our personnel. What I am basically reading is:

-Returning 99% of starters, obviously no upgrade needed...anywhere

-Pundit basically poo poos our rookie class saying no starters/significant contributors and except in one post, everybody dumps on the article instead of objectively supporting or rejecting the article.


You are obviously looking for an uprising but you won't get it. Most of those guys on that list were playing for teams with holes. What holes do we have? Last year Godfrey and Otah started as rookies and Stewart contributed. All three areas were places we had holes. This year we don't have the same holes. What rookies out of any of that list for any team would be unseating our starters. Except for maybe right defensive tackle, what spots are weak enough that a rookie could come in and take over?

Brown Fiammetti, Captain and Robinson will all be contributors but won't start due to better guys in front of them. Might have a few more that weren't drafted such a KR, offensive tackle, some special teamers. That is a testament to a team that went 12-4 and could have won 2 more. We went looking for backups and we found them. This is not bad news or something to get upset about.

#26 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,457 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:19 PM

So are you in disagreement with the article? STs gets you PT, but it doesn't figure into the core of the game. It's one down. Almost all rookies that make the 45 man roster sees time on STs, except starters in some cases because thery are too valuable. We are talikng about the 11 guys on both offense and defense.

Nickel backs, 3rd down backs and rotational players are contributors, but apparently none of the three you mentioned figured to play significant roles according to this guy.



I disagree with the entire concept of the article and the fact the energy it took to write it was wasted by some asshat who thinks he knows anything about what a player who has never touch a NFL field in gametime will do.

I think we are watching a different type of football when you say Special Teams doesn't "figure into the core of the game". Ask Devin Hester if his touchdowns matter better yet find me a football mind who says the old Raiders punter Ray Guy wasn't a Defensive WEAPON.

Nicklebacks see more of the field than any other "reserve" player. How they aren't contributors I can't fathom.

#27 ncbobcat

ncbobcat

    Beer Enthusiast

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,676 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:31 PM

You are obviously looking for an uprising but you won't get it. Most of those guys on that list were playing for teams with holes. What holes do we have? Last year Godfrey and Otah started as rookies and Stewart contributed. All three areas were places we had holes. This year we don't have the same holes. What rookies out of any of that list for any team would be unseating our starters. Except for maybe right defensive tackle, what spots are weak enough that a rookie could come in and take over?

Brown Fiammetti, Captain and Robinson will all be contributors but won't start due to better guys in front of them. Might have a few more that weren't drafted such a KR, offensive tackle, some special teamers. That is a testament to a team that went 12-4 and could have won 2 more. We went looking for backups and we found them. This is not bad news or something to get upset about.


No, I'm looking for debate about whether people agree with the guy or not. He's saying we got no starting talent this year out of the draft. I agree to the extent of the Peppers situation as it may pertain to Brown. Outside of that, we got reserve players because that is the TALENT we got. I think it is asinine to say that you draft reserve players, you draft players with the hope of them being starters. Now, where the article falls short is what happens to our players beyond their rookie year.

I think we are not solid at all 22 spots on the offense and defense. Most positions yes, all...no.



And to the poster that pointed out the 95%, actually it's 95.45455%. I understand you rounded though.

#28 R0CKnR0LLA

R0CKnR0LLA

    Drunk Posting

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,917 posts
  • LocationLas Vegas, NV

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:32 PM

Yeah, it sucks having a solid team where your rookies can't become starters day 1. Man, I wish we were like Detroit where half your rookies are upgrades to the scrubs you have starting.

#29 Udogg

Udogg

    Cardiac Victim since 95

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,172 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:45 PM

No, I'm looking for debate about whether people agree with the guy or not. He's saying we got no starting talent this year out of the draft. I agree to the extent of the Peppers situation as it may pertain to Brown. Outside of that, we got reserve players because that is the TALENT we got. I think it is asinine to say that you draft reserve players, you draft players with the hope of them being starters. Now, where the article falls short is what happens to our players beyond their rookie year.

I think we are not solid at all 22 spots on the offense and defense. Most positions yes, all...no.



And to the poster that pointed out the 95%, actually it's 95.45455%. I understand you rounded though.



You answered your own question.

#30 ncbobcat

ncbobcat

    Beer Enthusiast

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,676 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:48 PM

I disagree with the entire concept of the article and the fact the energy it took to write it was wasted by some asshat who thinks he knows anything about what a player who has never touch a NFL field in gametime will do.

I think we are watching a different type of football when you say Special Teams doesn't "figure into the core of the game". Ask Devin Hester if his touchdowns matter better yet find me a football mind who says the old Raiders punter Ray Guy wasn't a Defensive WEAPON.

Nicklebacks see more of the field than any other "reserve" player. How they aren't contributors I can't fathom.


I agreed on the nickelbacks, that is part of the defense.

Okay I guess STs count for kickers and returners in this case, but if a guy is drafted as a DB and plays every kick as a gunner, that isn't exactly why the guy was drafted. So the only point of contention here is Goodson/Munnerlyn as KRs/PRs. If that is the reason we drafted them and they wind up winning that job, then the draft was successful in that regard and you have a basic disagreement with the article.

I'm pretty amazed with the rose colored glasses here though. I'm fairly objective and would love to think this team has every basis covered, but that's not the case. I simply don't agree that you draft reserves...late on the second day at worst, but even then you hope to find a diamond in the rough.

This guys says, by ommission, the Panthers didn't land any rookie impact players. I again tend to agree.

As far as judging guys before they step on the field as a pro, that's called talent evaluation, and teams devote a lot of time and effort to this analysis. Whether a paid scout, fan, or sports writer; people do it all the time.

Edited by ncbobcat, 21 May 2009 - 02:51 PM.



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.