Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Some Kuechly and Cam bits from our favorite PFW


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#46 FootballMaestro

FootballMaestro

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:23 PM

i wouldn't be a bit surprised if it was from a legit NFL exec. and i expect it was.

not all of them feel the same way about players. some execs like newton, others don't...but that's not a big deal because the same is said for most QBs in the league. aside from maybe brady, rodgers, and brees i'm sure they all have their detractors.

doesn't really matter though. no reason for panties to be all wadded up.


Believe it or not.

NFL teams were not nearly in disagreement on Cam as the TV folks wanted us to believe.

Everyone knew about Cam's talent and potential. The questions were his character and his pro readiness. And to be quite honest; just like the Panthers did, NFL teams and legitimate scouting service, found out quite easily and quickly that Cam was a leader, a hard worker, was liked every where he played --by both coaches and players, mostly ran when he had to/stayed in the pocket, and made Pro Throws, even in his spread offense at Auburn. That wasn't hard to find out, really.

All the alleged uncertainty we heard from the ESPN's (i.e. TV talking heads), etc., were just to create drama and uncertainly for the draft (even though Mel Kiper himself, who doesn't research players like teams, declared Cam the top picks, weeks in advance, when he realized NFL teams felt the same), or being fed dis-information from NFL teams, hoping to draft Cam (but knowing the Panthers would scoop him up with the 1st pick). It really wasn't close.

We were sold a bill of goods, actually. It was the loud, but wrong 'Chattering Class (trying to create drama and uncertainty with an easy target); vs the silent but correct and positive NFL types on that player, who did the actual research. That's why so many were so wrong, and still can't get over it.

I qualify/reckon, this as more chattering class nonsense.

#47 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,380 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:29 PM

The notion that there's some ongoing conspiracy by media guys to make him look bad is silly.


Conspiracy? No. They just pander to the audience that wants to read about how he is morally deficient.

A conspiracy would require actual hard work.

#48 Nicks To The Colts

Nicks To The Colts

    shitpost around the clock

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,357 posts
  • LocationChapel Hill

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:31 PM

the whole wins = respect argument is driven home by kaepernick kissing his biceps and subsequently getting praised for his leadership.

#49 Gabeking

Gabeking

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,269 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:32 PM

Conspiracy? No. They just pander to the audience that wants to read about how he is morally deficient.

A conspiracy would require actual hard work.



More traffic/views/clicks means more greens, simple as that

#50 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,894 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:33 PM

Bet away, but you may wanna read the article heading again...


Scot. You are smart enough to know how word play works in media.

Here is what it says:

The following quotes are from NFL scouts, coaches and front-office personnel, speaking on the condition of anonymity.


NFL scout can be an ambiguous term, by attaching coaches and front-office personnel you attach a feeling of legitimacy to the quotes. That fact that it is anonymous means that 99% of these quotes they include could be from NFL "scouts".

That is the beauty of anonymity. It allows journalists to get stories they may not otherwise get, but also allows them a lot flexibility in what is really a legitimate source.

#51 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,922 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:38 PM

Scot. You are smart enough to know how word play works in media.

Here is what it says:

NFL scout can be an ambiguous term, by attaching coaches and front-office personnel you attach a feeling of legitimacy to the quotes. That fact that it is anonymous means that 99% of these quotes they include could be from NFL "scouts".

That is the beauty of anonymity. It allows journalists to get stories they may not otherwise get, but also allows them a lot flexibility in what is really a legitimate source.


Again, they don't need to.

Any reporter would tell you that NFL guys speak very freely when they know they don't have to attach their name.

And that's not just this particular feature. Pretty much all NFL reporters and insiders like Glazer, Schefter etc make their money using anonymous quotes from "league sources". The only difference here is that they're not quoting agents.

They've been doing this feature pretty much since I've been reading PFW. They didn't just start it when Newton got drafted.

#52 FootballMaestro

FootballMaestro

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:41 PM

Bet away, but you may wanna read the article heading again...



The notion that there's some ongoing conspiracy by media guys to make him look bad is silly.

There are people in the league who don't like Newton.

So what?


Most of those people are Broadcasters that are too lazy to actually watch film.

I would venture to say, that any one in the NFL that watches film couldn't dislike Newton based off of his play (any more or less than any other elite, young QB). Now they may not like him for other, personal reasons (or perceived fit into their system, etc.). But not for his play.

As far as the media? They do it all the time. That's part of their business. 97% of the people we see on TV (even ex players, scouts, coaches, etc.), have an opinion, favorite teams and players, but haven't necessarily watched Carolina or most other teams games; but will still comment on them. It's entertainment for most of them. And it's the fixation of coveted eyeballs for their corporate bosses.

That's why many times, when you listen to TV Analyst, there's a disconnect. It doesn't matter. They're paid to have an opinion or garner interest. However, if they were real scouts, paid by actual teams, that would be another story. And as some said earlier here; they should get fired for some of the stuff they said (such as Kaep being the 'fastest QB), if they were real scouts. And I agree. LOL

#53 TheRumGone

TheRumGone

    mountain man

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,866 posts
  • LocationAsheville, NC

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:44 PM

and a lot of fans from every single other team in the nfl is saying the same things that we say. "They don't know poo about our team!" but they believe everthing they hear about other teams.

#54 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,936 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:44 PM

Again, they don't need to.

Any reporter would tell you that NFL guys speak very freely when they know they don't have to attach their name.

And that's not just this particular feature. Pretty much all NFL reporters and insiders like Glazer, Schefter etc make their money using anonymous quotes from "league sources". The only difference here is that they're not quoting agents.

They've been doing this feature pretty much since I've been reading PFW. They didn't just start it when Newton got drafted.

agreed. and it's not that big of a deal.

who cares what people in the league say?

it's not like it was even about cam. it was about kaepernick. they haven't seen newton's leadership because they haven't seen him win very often.

it was pretty well known the growing pains that newton went through the first couple years. pretending they weren't there or getting all hostile about it won't change it. he grew up, but it happened at a point where most people quit paying attention, and why should they? we weren't relevant. we didn't have a winning season. we were eleminated from playoff contention.

not all nfl execs watch all teams every week...in fact i doubt many do, not even if their team is going to be facing them. it was an ill informed remark that someone made about cam when talking about kaepernick. doesn't matter who said it anymore than it matters that it was said. pfw just wrote what they were told when they heard someone talk about ck. that's all.

#55 TheRumGone

TheRumGone

    mountain man

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,866 posts
  • LocationAsheville, NC

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:45 PM

espn is on fox news level. they sat on that te'o story for 10 days? why?

#56 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,936 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:45 PM

and a lot of fans from every single other team in the nfl is saying the same things that we say. "They don't know poo about our team!" but they believe everthing they hear about other teams.

they'd be right. i think most people talk out of their asses when talking about teams they don't follow all that much, doesn't matter what your job is in the league, for the most part they're going to be just as ill-informed as the rest of us about other teams.

#57 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,922 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:49 PM

agreed. and it's not that big of a deal.

who cares what people in the league say?


This board, apparently.

Unless they're scouting us for a meeting this season, they aren't necessarily looking that closely.

#58 TheRumGone

TheRumGone

    mountain man

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,866 posts
  • LocationAsheville, NC

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:51 PM

they'd be right. i think most people talk out of their asses when talking about teams they don't follow all that much, doesn't matter what your job is in the league, for the most part they're going to be just as ill-informed as the rest of us about other teams.


exactly that's why i always take these articles, skip bayless, and cowturd with a grain of salt. I don't get upset, I laugh and move on. I remember when Skip Bayless said The Golden Calf of Bristol was a better pure passer than Cam Newton before the draft. I rarely watched Cam play in college, and I am no evaluator, but that was just so blatant it turned me off from pretty much everything i heard on ESPN. If this is ESPN's "most watched" programming, what does that say about the rest of the company? It's dumb to even continue pointing this out like many have done for the past 2 years. Lets just ignore this poo, focus on what we know, debate what we know and have fun doing that. Cause this other poo is just beyond ridiculous.

#59 FootballMaestro

FootballMaestro

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:51 PM

they'd be right. i think most people talk out of their asses when talking about teams they don't follow all that much, doesn't matter what your job is in the league, for the most part they're going to be just as ill-informed as the rest of us about other teams.


Bingo!!

I don't have a problem when a so called "analyst or broadcaster" has a differing opinion on player. My problem is, when they offer these opinions (especially when they're wildly off), when it's obvious they haven't done the research, have a fundamental understanding or actually watched the player or team.

From that point on, you can just ignore the rest of what they say. This happens, waaaay to often in the business. And that's why you have to take a lot of what these people say with a grain of salt. It happens.

#60 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,936 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:55 PM

exactly that's why i always take these articles, skip bayless, and cowturd with a grain of salt. I don't get upset, I laugh and move on. I remember when Skip Bayless said The Golden Calf of Bristol was a better pure passer than Cam Newton before the draft. I rarely watched Cam play in college, and I am no evaluator, but that was just so blatant it turned me off from pretty much everything i heard on ESPN. If this is ESPN's "most watched" programming, what does that say about the rest of the company? It's dumb to even continue pointing this out like many have done for the past 2 years. Lets just ignore this poo, focus on what we know, debate what we know and have fun doing that. Cause this other poo is just beyond ridiculous.

pfw is better than espn and a lot of places out there. doesn't make them infallible, just better.

i follow them the way i follow everything else...eat the meat, spit out the bones.


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.