Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Panthers drafted no significant contributors


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
99 replies to this topic

#13 ncbobcat

ncbobcat

    Beer Enthusiast

  • Joined: 06-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,676
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 21 May 2009 - 01:36 PM

what? they say a team with 21 of 22 starters returning didn't draft a signficant contributor?

DAMN YOU


So the 21 of 22 starters returning are unable to be unseated beacuse they are that good? Call off training camp and except for Martin, Wesley and Marshall who are the only ones vieing for the open spot.

#14 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 21 May 2009 - 01:38 PM

So the 21 of 22 starters returning are unable to be unseated beacuse they are that good? Call off training camp and except for Martin, Wesley and Marshall who are the only ones vieing for the open spot.


well now that i think about it fox does like to bench veterans in favor of rookies....

#15 OneBadassCat

OneBadassCat

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,082
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 21 May 2009 - 01:38 PM

Well we didn't need impact players, except for the defensive line and we got that with Brown. We needed talented depth at RB and we got that Goodson, we got a potential starter down the road with Martin. We added some talent to our d-line rotation with Irvin and Duke Robinson will become a mauler for us within 2 years. These guys can suck my balls.

#16 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,262
  • Reputation: 5,361
Moderators

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

  • Joined: 06-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,676
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

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
  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,438
  • Reputation: 80
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 06-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,676
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 07-January 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,118
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 48,134
  • Reputation: 15,640
SUPPORTER

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:02 PM

Who the heck is Chad Reuter? :confused:

#22 pdandy1994

pdandy1994

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 07-December 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 585
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:02 PM

the author of that article must be a Buc fan

#23 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 48,134
  • Reputation: 15,640
SUPPORTER

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.

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: -28,752
  • Reputation: 8,000
Moderators

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.