Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Alternate Solutions to the Crowded Backfield


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 SetfreexX

SetfreexX

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • LocationNC

Posted 14 February 2013 - 10:41 AM

Been reading all the comments lately about Stew's re-structure and everyone wanting to cut D-Will. But Williams was our most consistent back, and has been. Stewart has been hurt each of the last couple of seasons and as a feature back can we depend on him to hold up managing the bulk of the carries?

D-Will has always expressed his interest in staying and I don't see why he wouldn't be open to a re-structured deal as well given the signing bonus he received last season...

I'd be curious to know how much cutting Tolbert would free up, in conjunction with a Williams re-structure. As much as I like Tolbert his role was limited until Stew's injury, and I don't think the offense would miss him. Broeckel, or another FA could fill the H-Back role at a cheaper rate.

I just don't think we should split up one of the best rushing tandems if we can work around it, especially witht the commitment we saw to running the ball traditionally the last half of the year. IMO you cannot ignore Williams' production if a re-structure is available.

Just my .02.

#2 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • ALL-PRO
  • 15,498 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 10:51 AM

drink much before posting?

#3 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,737 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:08 AM

Part of the question is how much will the offense change under Shula. if we are going back to more of a running offense, then you could justify keeping 2 guys who are starting quality. But if we are going to continue similarly to what we did over the past 2 years, then it hard to justify keeping both. At this point if you have to get rid of one, then you are almost obligated to get rid of Williams. When the contract was signed it was pretty much understood that he wouldn't play out the whole contract. The biggest issue was to determine at what point we could trade or cut him and not incur too much of a cap hit.

One question I have is how everyone will feel when we cut him and one of our division rivals picks him up. With all the cap space Tampa has at this point, we could be facing him twice a year and hoping he doesn't break the big one on us. It was one thing when we thought that we would cutting him when he was pretty much washed up, but if we cut him now, we would be getting rid of a back who has been very productive for us and a guy who would be motivated to show us we shouldn't have let him go.

#4 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,020 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:12 AM

Tobert is too versatile to cut. He can play halfback or fullback, he can lead block, and he can catch out of the backfield.

Tolbert is a guy we need to keep if we keep elements of the read option in our package (which we should)

#5 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • ALL-PRO
  • 15,498 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:15 AM

Part of the question is how much will the offense change under Shula. if we are going back to more of a running offense, then you could justify keeping 2 guys who are starting quality. But if we are going to continue similarly to what we did over the past 2 years, then it hard to justify keeping both. At this point if you have to get rid of one, then you are almost obligated to get rid of Williams. When the contract was signed it was pretty much understood that he wouldn't play out the whole contract. The biggest issue was to determine at what point we could trade or cut him and not incur too much of a cap hit.

One question I have is how everyone will feel when we cut him and one of our division rivals picks him up. With all the cap space Tampa has at this point, we could be facing him twice a year and hoping he doesn't break the big one on us. It was one thing when we thought that we would cutting him when he was pretty much washed up, but if we cut him now, we would be getting rid of a back who has been very productive for us and a guy who would be motivated to show us we shouldn't have let him go.


I would have hoped we find starting backs in the draft that didn't cost us so much.. as for playing for a rival, that's a chance every team has to take when letting a player walk.

#6 Doyle

Doyle

    Headed to the county line

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,148 posts
  • LocationRiverboat Rivera

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:18 AM

Deangelo is gone guys. Stop kidding yourselves.

#7 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,737 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:25 AM

Deangelo is gone guys. Stop kidding yourselves.


The issue is really how much dead cap space do we want to accumulate for 2014 when we will be worse off under the cap then we are this year. We could realistically end up with 15 million of the 2014 cap space going to pay for salaries for guys who are long gone.

#8 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 25,392 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:38 PM

Been reading all the comments lately about Stew's re-structure and everyone wanting to cut D-Will. But Williams was our most consistent back, and has been. Stewart has been hurt each of the last couple of seasons and as a feature back can we depend on him to hold up managing the bulk of the carries?

D-Will has always expressed his interest in staying and I don't see why he wouldn't be open to a re-structured deal as well given the signing bonus he received last season...

I'd be curious to know how much cutting Tolbert would free up, in conjunction with a Williams re-structure. As much as I like Tolbert his role was limited until Stew's injury, and I don't think the offense would miss him. Broeckel, or another FA could fill the H-Back role at a cheaper rate.

I just don't think we should split up one of the best rushing tandems if we can work around it, especially witht the commitment we saw to running the ball traditionally the last half of the year. IMO you cannot ignore Williams' production if a re-structure is available.

Just my .02.


I think people need to move on from the Fox era.....and Double Trouble represents all that is the Fox way of life.

What production from Williams are you arguing can't be ignored? What he did years ago? He hasn't done much under Ron Rivera. Sure, he can still pop one if given a nice fat hole but he doesn't fit what they want to do (which is why Ron essentially benched him both seasons in favor of a different style as the main RB).

Cam, Tolbert, and Stewart.....just with those 3. There aren't enough carries for Stewart to earn his paycheck running an offense that maximizes all Newton has to offer.

You want Double Trouble?! You want a QB like Jimmy Clausen then.....then there would be carries to justify their contract.

#9 TheRumGone

TheRumGone

    mountain man

  • ALL-PRO
  • 9,454 posts
  • LocationAsheville, NC

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:42 PM

i have a wierd feeling dwill will be back

#10 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 25,392 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:45 PM

With a good OL...

Cam Newton, Mike Tolbert and my grandma could give us a top 5 rush attack overall.

#11 arc

arc

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Locationin orbit

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:16 PM

With our offense, its just not practical to have both D'lo and Stewart. You don't maximize their abilities and talents with 4 guys in a backfield the way we are set up. You have to think something will happen to one of them.

#12 Pimpdaddy

Pimpdaddy

    takin it as it comes

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:34 PM

Godda keep Dlow and figure out how to get him in open space to let him do his thing...we need him.

#13 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,561 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:30 PM

Why don't we run formations that take advantage of both RBs? Wishbone, I formation whatever.

I know this isn't madden but...

#14 Khaki Lackey

Khaki Lackey

    I keeps it real

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,412 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:38 PM

Why don't we run formations that take advantage of both RBs? Wishbone, I formation whatever.

I know this isn't madden but...

Speaking of hypotetical, I've often heard running backs that spit carries complain about not getting into a rhythm. I've also wondered why we don't use one for an entire half, then switch.
Let Stew pound them for half an hour, then put in the fresh and fast D-lo.
I wonder why that isn't feasible?

#15 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • ALL-PRO
  • 15,498 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:45 PM

I think people need to move on from the Fox era.....and Double Trouble represents all that is the Fox way of life.

What production from Williams are you arguing can't be ignored? What he did years ago? He hasn't done much under Ron Rivera. Sure, he can still pop one if given a nice fat hole but he doesn't fit what they want to do (which is why Ron essentially benched him both seasons in favor of a different style as the main RB).

Cam, Tolbert, and Stewart.....just with those 3. There aren't enough carries for Stewart to earn his paycheck running an offense that maximizes all Newton has to offer.

You want Double Trouble?! You want a QB like Jimmy Clausen then.....then there would be carries to justify their contract.


40+ catches in 2011.. Stew definitely fits a different mold this offense is trying to utilize..


Godda keep Dlow and figure out how to get him in open space to let him do his thing...we need him.


a lot of money to pay a scat back you simply try to get in open space...


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com