Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

most overvalued and undervalued carolina panthers per pff


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#11 Leeroy Jenkins PhD

Leeroy Jenkins PhD

    HCIC

  • Joined: 24-January 10
  • posts: 2,079
  • Reputation: 1,034
  • LocationHouston Texas
SUPPORTER

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:28 AM

When the NFL is moving away from emphasis on the running back position and servicable RB's can be found in FA and late in the draft, the contracts given to our aging RBs are laughable at best. To call them overvalued is an UNDERSTATEMENT.

Under the John Fox scheme, where we were a legit running team, they were very important. Hell, I remember seasons where we ran the ball so stubbornly that we were down to our 4th string running back due to injury. Sadly, that offensive scheme run by Davidson is no longer utilized (did I say sadly, I meant thank FSM).

The simple fact that numerous individuals on this board cling to the idea that D-will and J-stew are still necessary to this offense is rediculous. Yes, as fans we love our players, but honestly, we could have cut both of them and invest there salaries in the O-line and make a 4th round draft pick or Armond Smith/Tauren Pool a servicable starter

#12 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,920
  • Reputation: 5,441
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon
HUDDLER

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:35 AM

When the NFL is moving away from emphasis on the running back position and servicable RB's can be found in FA and late in the draft, the contracts given to our aging RBs are laughable at best. To call them overvalued is an UNDERSTATEMENT.

Under the John Fox scheme, where we were a legit running team, they were very important. Hell, I remember seasons where we ran the ball so stubbornly that we were down to our 4th string running back due to injury. Sadly, that offensive scheme run by Davidson is no longer utilized (did I say sadly, I meant thank FSM).

The simple fact that numerous individuals on this board cling to the idea that D-will and J-stew are still necessary to this offense is rediculous. Yes, as fans we love our players, but honestly, we could cut both of them and invest there salaries in the O-line and make a 4th round draft pick or Armond Smith/Tauren Pool a servicable starter


I don't think there are many people on here who:

1. think either DWill or JStew are worth what they are being paid, and
2. believe they are critical to this team's success


However, I am not sure that the very small cap savings that you get from releasing either of them makes cutting them right now a smart decision. Both create substantial dead cap space if cut. Combine that with the amount that would be spent to replace them and the cost-benefit is not so clear cut.

I think that you keep them for another season or two and then let them go. Not because they can't or shouldn't be replaced, but because the amount of cap hit with them and without them (including replacements) is not materially different.

#13 Leeroy Jenkins PhD

Leeroy Jenkins PhD

    HCIC

  • Joined: 24-January 10
  • posts: 2,079
  • Reputation: 1,034
  • LocationHouston Texas
SUPPORTER

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:39 AM

I don't think there are many people on here who:

1. think either DWill or JStew are worth what they are being paid, and
2. believe they are critical to this team's success


However, I am not sure that the very small cap savings that you get from releasing either of them makes cutting them right now a smart decision. Both create substantial dead cap space if cut. Combine that with the amount that would be spent to replace them and the cost-benefit is not so clear cut.

I think that you keep them for another season or two and then let them go. Not because they can't or shouldn't be replaced, but because the amount of cap hit with them and without them (including replacements) is not materially different.


Oh, I agree completely. We have put ourselves in a position where financially, it makes no sense to get rid of them. extremely poor decisions by our front office

#14 Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    OWN the Line of Scrimmage

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • posts: 18,654
  • Reputation: 6,637
  • LocationNC
SUPPORTER

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:39 AM

I think having A good RB is critical to our success, but not 2.

I think Stew is more worth his contract than DLo is his. The addition of Tolbert really baffled me given what we had in the backfield to begin with. I like Tolbert and he showed his worth, but it would be about the same as signing a top level FA LB this season.

#15 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,920
  • Reputation: 5,441
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon
HUDDLER

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:40 AM

Oh, I agree completely. We have put ourselves in a position where financially, it makes no sense to get rid of them. extrememly poor decisions by our front office


No arguement there.

That is why people need to understand that it is going to take several off-seasons for Gettleman to correct the situation we are in.

#16 Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    OWN the Line of Scrimmage

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • posts: 18,654
  • Reputation: 6,637
  • LocationNC
SUPPORTER

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:43 AM

No arguement there.

That is why people need to understand that it is going to take several off-seasons for Gettleman to correct the situation we are in.



But in Madden I re-invented my entire roster to all All Pro's in a matter of minutes...

#17 coralreefer_1

coralreefer_1

    Member

  • Joined: 12-January 09
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 402
  • Reputation: 160
HUDDLER

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:45 AM

I think one factor to "performance based value" is directly dependent on the team as a whole. (a player is only a single link in a chain) While many of the players mentioned played their hearts out, to assess the value of "undervalued" players as a certain number despite being on a 7-9 team leaves alot to be considered.

Greg Hardy with the year he had on our 7-9 team would be PBV at X...but Greg Hardy wit the same year and stats on a team like the 49's or Ravens would have a much HIGHER PBV. Seems the author uses the same yardstick regardless of the performance of the team as a whole.. Although the player himself may have played well, the value should be more associated with how that performance affected the success of the team within the league and its record...not on the value a player "may" have based on how other players with different teams and similar stats stats have performed.

#18 top dawg

top dawg

    The Creative Cat

  • Joined: 11-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,325
  • Reputation: 2,936
  • LocationWITHIN MY MIND'S EYE
HUDDLER

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:13 AM

When the NFL is moving away from emphasis on the running back position and servicable RB's can be found in FA and late in the draft, the contracts given to our aging RBs are laughable at best. To call them overvalued is an UNDERSTATEMENT.

Under the John Fox scheme, where we were a legit running team, they were very important. Hell, I remember seasons where we ran the ball so stubbornly that we were down to our 4th string running back due to injury. Sadly, that offensive scheme run by Davidson is no longer utilized (did I say sadly, I meant thank FSM).

The simple fact that numerous individuals on this board cling to the idea that D-will and J-stew are still necessary to this offense is rediculous. Yes, as fans we love our players, but honestly, we could have cut both of them and invest there salaries in the O-line and make a 4th round draft pick or Armond Smith/Tauren Pool a servicable starter


All I know is that the teams that actually made the playoffs had pretty good RBs for the most part. I could argue that the reason that the Pats haven't been able to win a ring in years is because they haven't committed to the running game, and have tried to do the "serviceable back" thing. Moreover, I suggest the Packers will have a similar problem if they don't change their philosophy. I really don't think that we need two top RB1s on the roster, but to say that both are overvalued is just shortsighted in my opinion.

#19 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,136
  • Reputation: 5,289
Moderators

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:18 AM

All I know is that the teams that actually made the playoffs had pretty good RBs for the most part. I could argue that the reason that the Pats haven't been able to win a ring in years is because they haven't committed to the running game, and have tried to do the "serviceable back" thing. Moreover, I suggest the Packers will have a similar problem if they don't change their philosophy. I really don't think that we need two top RB1s on the roster, but to say that both are overvalued is just shortsighted in my opinion.


Hard to win in the NFL...it terms of winning it all. So many cards have to fall in your favor. Almost need luck.

GB the last 3 years.

Superbowl Champs (10-6)
15-1
11-5

I would say there formula of not giving a poo about who runs for them is working pretty well. Yet from our loser seat we suggest they need to be a tad more like us for success?

Carolina and there stacked backfield hasn't posted a winning record in that time period

#20 top dawg

top dawg

    The Creative Cat

  • Joined: 11-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,325
  • Reputation: 2,936
  • LocationWITHIN MY MIND'S EYE
HUDDLER

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:20 AM

I think that this is an obvious case of the stats not telling the whole story, particularly when it comes to LaFell and Munnerlyn.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users