Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Gettleman expected to release Gamble


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#101 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,138
  • Reputation: 5,290
Moderators

Posted 10 February 2013 - 03:53 PM

If he only had one good year, what did he do his first couple years? What first round picks stick around this long that our only decent?

The D was better because the front seven was better. WE HAVE 2 OF THE BEST DEs in the league. Maybe 3 next year. The steelers have been consistently ranked in the top 5 of pass defense the last couple years and you really cant name anyone in their secondary outside of Polamalu. You can win with mediocrity in the secondary if you can get to the QB consistently, this is well known. Im not knocking it, i like our defense better like this. But Im not gonna discredit Gamble for being a great player tho. He would still be on the team if wasnt for cap issues.

I said he only had one very very good year....which is what he was paid to be.

Gamble hasn't been great. He has had the best CB career in Carolina

#102 Razeyfingers

Razeyfingers

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,665
  • Reputation: 807
HUDDLER

Posted 10 February 2013 - 04:18 PM

The reason our defense was ok was because we adjusted our game plan. If we get rid of Gamble, you are taking away our primary component to isolating a star receiver and shutting him down.

Im surprised that so many of you read past the strategy like this. "Oh well we were fine without him", yeah we were fine when we game planned without him a couple of times, but then again there were teams that exploited the poo out of it and thats what going to happen next year if we lose him. It will be a catastrophe in the secondary if he leaves. . . . . Bet that!

Good coaches will look at our D and go '. . soft spot. . . soft spot . soft spot. . . OH they have no corners who can cover and no safety to save them. Buh bye Panthers, a lttle run run play-action and boom goes the dynamite. '


You have to look at the causes and effects, not just the additions and subtractions of the equation. Good strategists adjust and use the tools they have, thats how battles are won. Without 2O, our strategy is going to press as much as you can with the front 7 and when that fails. . . we're fugged.

#103 Gucci Mane

Gucci Mane

    Trap God

  • Joined: 02-November 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,966
  • Reputation: 1,590
  • LocationKitchen
HUDDLER

Posted 10 February 2013 - 04:19 PM

You asked me what decent DB PROSPECTS were brought in since Gamble has been here. Did you not? 2 second round picks, and Ken Lucas was a top free agent that year, he left Seattle because they didnt want to pay him what he wanted. Look it up, or why would we give him that much money if he was garbage? Its hard for a CB to make plays when teams dont throw their way. Dont you think Richard Marshall was only a nickel back because he was never good enough to be a number 2? Who uses second round picks on players they think cant become starters? He got replaced by Captain, that tells you how good he was. We had Lucas and Marshall and they both sucked. Not on the team today but Gamble was still here till now, "inconsistent" and all.


Im not saying gamble hasnt been our best CB, thats just not saying much... Just because we draft a guy in the 2nd round, doesn't mean they are already "decent NFL DB's". Yea, we hoped and planned them to be but the truth is, no one [prior to this year] has shown any real promise as a starting DB in the NFL. So for Gambe to be our best DB ever is like saying john kasay has been our best kicker.

#104 raleigh-panther

raleigh-panther

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 28-November 08
  • posts: 2,481
  • Reputation: 435
SUPPORTER

Posted 10 February 2013 - 04:46 PM

The reason our defense was ok was because we adjusted our game plan. If we get rid of Gamble, you are taking away our primary component to isolating a star receiver and shutting him down.

Im surprised that so many of you read past the strategy like this. "Oh well we were fine without him", yeah we were fine when we game planned without him a couple of times, but then again there were teams that exploited the poo out of it and thats what going to happen next year if we lose him. It will be a catastrophe in the secondary if he leaves. . . . . Bet that!

Good coaches will look at our D and go '. . soft spot. . . soft spot . soft spot. . . OH they have no corners who can cover and no safety to save them. Buh bye Panthers, a lttle run run play-action and boom goes the dynamite. '


You have to look at the causes and effects, not just the additions and subtractions of the equation. Good strategists adjust and use the tools they have, thats how battles are won. Without 2O, our strategy is going to press as much as you can with the front 7 and when that fails. . . we're fugged.


I don't necessarily disagree; but, I would just say, there are very good teams with very strong DLs (DEs and DTs) which do not have anything more than average cornerbacks.

QBs can't through if they are on their back.

#105 Boltergeist

Boltergeist

    you can't spell Mayock without MC

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,410
  • Reputation: 200
HUDDLER

Posted 10 February 2013 - 04:57 PM

He prob is going to sign with the Pats and be a pro bowler.


I think he'd be a good fit with Cason (provided he re-signs) in San Diego

#106 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,138
  • Reputation: 5,290
Moderators

Posted 10 February 2013 - 05:10 PM

Im surprised that so many of you read past the strategy like this. "Oh well we were fine without him", yeah we were fine when we game planned without him a couple of times, but then again there were teams that exploited the poo out of it and thats what going to happen next year if we lose him. It will be a catastrophe in the secondary if he leaves. . . . . Bet that!

Good coaches will look at our D and go '. . soft spot. . . soft spot . soft spot. . . OH they have no corners who can cover and no safety to save them. Buh bye Panthers, a lttle run run play-action and boom goes the dynamite. '


You have to look at the causes and effects, not just the additions and subtractions of the equation. Good strategists adjust and use the tools they have, thats how battles are won. Without 2O, our strategy is going to press as much as you can with the front 7 and when that fails. . . we're fugged.


Gamble played in 4 games....it isn't like we adjusted for 2 games.

They had all season to do what you claimed....our D go better

#107 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: -28,897
  • Reputation: 7,796
Moderators

Posted 10 February 2013 - 05:35 PM

Gamble played in 4 games....it isn't like we adjusted for 2 games.

They had all season to do what you claimed....our D go better

yep.

again, we weren't any better or worse off with or without him, and this team has had plenty of time to get used to it.

he played last year and the defense was bad. he sat for most of the season and the defense was good. not saying he was the problem, just that he didn't impact things much on or off the field.

he is essentially just a guy. talented, but still just a guy.

#108 Razeyfingers

Razeyfingers

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,665
  • Reputation: 807
HUDDLER

Posted 10 February 2013 - 05:49 PM

Gamble played in 4 games....it isn't like we adjusted for 2 games.

They had all season to do what you claimed....our D go better


we were 7 and 9. . what are you trying to say here?

edit: . . I mean odds n probabilities roll the way they will CRA, the dice fell and thats how they came out this year, but you are seriously putting stress on Ron to game plan without Gamble.


Double edit: you guys talk about how we were ok... yeah, ok we were in some situations but that didnt make the threat of getting OWNED in the secondary any less of a reality

#109 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,138
  • Reputation: 5,290
Moderators

Posted 10 February 2013 - 06:49 PM

we were 7 and 9. . what are you trying to say here?

edit: . . I mean odds n probabilities roll the way they will CRA, the dice fell and thats how they came out this year, but you are seriously putting stress on Ron to game plan without Gamble.


Double edit: you guys talk about how we were ok... yeah, ok we were in some situations but that didnt make the threat of getting OWNED in the secondary any less of a reality


Team sport. That is what records say...

He game planned without him this year.....majority of the year. Again, better without him. Ron can coach up a dang D.

He didn't make bad defensive calls.....he lacked the talent to execute some pretty standard assignments.

Gamble is good. He doesn't make or break anything as has been shown with both Fox and Rivera.

#110 magnus

magnus

    Eternal Gameface

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,389
  • Reputation: 158
HUDDLER

Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:08 PM

It's amazing how being benched for a game makes "Gamble's 2010: Benched." Look at PFF for his 2010. His QB rating and overall stats from 2010 and 2011 were essentially identical. Guy was good this year too (lowest yards per route run for the year when he got hurt).
Then again, the Observer does the same thing. "Hurt two out of the last three years" for missing a couple of games in 2010 as well.

I don't know. To me, not being targeted all season is better than turning the ball over 4 times, but people have always kinda crapped on Gamble for not having gaudy INT stats. He's not irreplaceable, but it's amazing how fans and media have both just written the guy off without even suggesting he might add a year or two to his contract and simply stay. Gross is in essentially the same situation - saves more to cut than Gamble, actually - and is three years older. Has anyone ever just assumed Gross would be cut? Not really. Yet, every two-bit amateur writer will automatically assume Gamble is done.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users