Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 4 votes

Who's your "prime target"?


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#106 cultclassiccat

cultclassiccat

    flash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 1,655 posts
  • LocationG spot

Posted 03 April 2013 - 05:16 PM

Look at one of the best team last season in Seattle. They were one, if not the smallest group of receivers in the league. Now, they're going to be even better and smaller with the addition of Percy Harvin. Size doesnt matter.


steelers last yr had Wallace, Sanders and Brown doing a good job for them, all are barely 6ft and under.

#107 carolina-chuck

carolina-chuck

    HORNETS 2014

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,678 posts
  • LocationKurby

Posted 03 April 2013 - 05:20 PM

Ok let's look at seattle's WRs:
Phil Bates 6'1"
Jermaine Kearse 6'1"
Charly Martin 6'1"
Sidney Rice 6'4"
Bryan Walters 6'0"
Steven Williams 6'4"

They do have 4 receivers under 6'.... So 4 out of 10 receivers...... Which is strange in today's NFL to your credit. But, did I mention we have 6! 6 out of 9 receivers under 6' and you want to add another!

And please tell me again how size doesn't matter to Pete Carroll



LOL...... worst defense ever. You seriously went on Seattle's page to look at their receviers. Other than Sidney Rice, how many of those guys actually contributed for Seattle last year? Nada. Who the hell is Phil Bates, Jermaine Kearse, Charly Martin (former Panthers), Walters, and Steven Williams? lol

#108 ItsPantone278

ItsPantone278

    ItsPantone278

  • ALL-PRO
  • 1,852 posts

Posted 03 April 2013 - 05:57 PM

moving up to take anyone in the first round would be one of the few things that would get me upset in this draft...esp. since we have so few picks this year.

no more mortgaging the future.


There is no future. The future is now.

#109 JawnyBlaze

JawnyBlaze

    Senior Member

  • ALL-PRO
  • 7,045 posts

Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:15 PM

To be fair, Seattle is not a great example to prove a point about WRs or a passing offense in general. Theirs was one of the worst. They won games with great defense and running the ball.

#110 Leeroy Jenkins PhD

Leeroy Jenkins PhD

    HCIC

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • LocationHouston Texas

Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:25 PM

LOL...... worst defense ever. You seriously went on Seattle's page to look at their receviers. Other than Sidney Rice, how many of those guys actually contributed for Seattle last year? Nada. Who the hell is Phil Bates, Jermaine Kearse, Charly Martin (former Panthers), Walters, and Steven Williams? lol


I am sorry I actually back up the things I say with a little research. How do you approach the "well thought out" posts you make? I assume you base them off of your extensive knowledge of the NFL that you ascertain from sitting on your couch watching sportscenter?

I am sorry our methods for understanding how things work differ. When I want to know something, I go look at statistics and don't base my decisions off my gut feeling.

For example, if you can find one statistic that would explain why height is not an important factor for recievers I would love to hear it. I have already told you how a reciever under 6' did not catch more than 8 TDs last year, your response?? The tall people have good QBs! Seriously man? That is your argument? Then you decide the Seahawks are your next arguing point and well over half the recievers on their roster are over 6'.

So, lets look at the Seahawks recieving yards and TDs last year

6'4'' Sidney Rice 748 yards, 7TDs
5'10" Golden Tate 688 yards, 7 TDs
6'5" Zach Miller 396 yards, 3 TDs
5'10" Doug Baldwin 366 yards, 3 TDs
6'5" Anthony McCoy 291 yards, 3 TDs
6'3" Braylon Edwards 74 yards, 1TD
6'4" Ben Obamanu 58 yards
6'1" Charly Martin 42 yards
6'2" Jermaine Kearse 31 yards
6'6" Evan Moore 6 yards

So, out of 2,700 yards, 1646 were to recievers over 6' or 61%
Not to mention out of 24 TDs, 14 were to recievers over 6' or 58%

So for the 'shortest' team in the league, according to you, over half the recieving stats were still put up by people over 6'.

#111 Herbert The Love Bug

Herbert The Love Bug

    Stripper Name: Bo Dangles

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,567 posts
  • Locationtied to your basement wall

Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:37 PM

I think we have enough offensive weapons now. I'll take a dominant OT or DT in the first and the best available OG/DT/CB/S in the second

#112 Leeroy Jenkins PhD

Leeroy Jenkins PhD

    HCIC

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • LocationHouston Texas

Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:57 PM

steelers last yr had Wallace, Sanders and Brown doing a good job for them, all are barely 6ft and under.


I think it is interesting that teams with obvious lack of WR height tend to make up for it with impressive TE play.

Looking at the Steelers, Mike Wallace only 6' had 800+ yards and 8TDs but Heath Miller 6'5" also had 800+ yards and 8 TDs. These of course were Pittsburgs 2 leaders in receiving statistics. They were followed by 5'10" Antonio Brown with 700+ and 5TDs.

It may also be important to note that the Steelers were 8-8 this year after going 12-4 for two seasons in a row, and if we look back to possible changes in the wide reciever core for an answer to why, the only significant personel difference is the loss of Hines Ward 6'0". Of course, not all the fault would go to the short WRs

#113 Leeroy Jenkins PhD

Leeroy Jenkins PhD

    HCIC

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • LocationHouston Texas

Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:58 PM

Did I mention that Carolina just signed another WR? and he is 6'2"? So clearly the front office believed height might have been an issue as well?

#114 carolina-chuck

carolina-chuck

    HORNETS 2014

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,678 posts
  • LocationKurby

Posted 03 April 2013 - 10:17 PM

I am sorry I actually back up the things I say with a little research. How do you approach the "well thought out" posts you make? I assume you base them off of your extensive knowledge of the NFL that you ascertain from sitting on your couch watching sportscenter?

I am sorry our methods for understanding how things work differ. When I want to know something, I go look at statistics and don't base my decisions off my gut feeling.

For example, if you can find one statistic that would explain why height is not an important factor for recievers I would love to hear it. I have already told you how a reciever under 6' did not catch more than 8 TDs last year, your response?? The tall people have good QBs! Seriously man? That is your argument? Then you decide the Seahawks are your next arguing point and well over half the recievers on their roster are over 6'.

So, lets look at the Seahawks recieving yards and TDs last year

6'4'' Sidney Rice 748 yards, 7TDs
5'10" Golden Tate 688 yards, 7 TDs
6'5" Zach Miller 396 yards, 3 TDs
5'10" Doug Baldwin 366 yards, 3 TDs
6'5" Anthony McCoy 291 yards, 3 TDs
6'3" Braylon Edwards 74 yards, 1TD
6'4" Ben Obamanu 58 yards
6'1" Charly Martin 42 yards
6'2" Jermaine Kearse 31 yards
6'6" Evan Moore 6 yards

So, out of 2,700 yards, 1646 were to recievers over 6' or 61%
Not to mention out of 24 TDs, 14 were to recievers over 6' or 58%

So for the 'shortest' team in the league, according to you, over half the recieving stats were still put up by people over 6'.


Funny how you left out Golden Tate. He's "1" td away from your "8".

I think it's very immature to say you don't want to draft a very good receiver bc his height.

#115 Leeroy Jenkins PhD

Leeroy Jenkins PhD

    HCIC

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • LocationHouston Texas

Posted 03 April 2013 - 11:44 PM

Funny how you left out Golden Tate. He's "1" td away from your "8".

I think it's very immature to say you don't want to draft a very good receiver bc his height.


I think it is ignorant to pretend height is not an important physical characteristic for a receiver. With the addition of Hixon, the probability of drafting a WR in the first is slim to none, so I guess we can end this conversation. It just boggles the mind that you refuse to see how having 6 WRs under 5'10" could be a detriment to our team.

#116 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 26,292 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 12:06 AM

Ideally Star...

If he is gone I would hope there is a team that really wants someone that could allow us to move down and gain a pick to about 20ish and snag Hopkins or Cyprien.

#117 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 26,292 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 12:07 AM

I think it is ignorant to pretend height is not an important physical characteristic for a receiver. With the addition of Hixon, the probability of drafting a WR in the first is slim to none, so I guess we can end this conversation. It just boggles the mind that you refuse to see how having 6 WRs under 5'10" could be a detriment to our team.


Hixon has no impact on what we do with our draft

#118 Leeroy Jenkins PhD

Leeroy Jenkins PhD

    HCIC

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • LocationHouston Texas

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:17 AM

Hixon has no impact on what we do with our draft


I was unaware that adding free agents wouldn't affect our team needs and therefor HAVE A DIRECT FUKKIN IMPACT on our draft...... I swear sometimes, you people.......

#119 DaveThePanther2008

DaveThePanther2008

    Gonna live and die as a faithful Panther Fan

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,494 posts
  • LocationMelfa

Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:56 AM

We've signed two FA WRs. I believe our targets for #14 will be Defense. I would love to see Star but since he has been cleared 100% I don't see him around at 14.

Vaccaro @ 14
Hankins @ 44

#120 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 26,292 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 06:31 AM

I was unaware that adding free agents wouldn't affect our team needs and therefor HAVE A DIRECT FUKKIN IMPACT on our draft...... I swear sometimes, you people.......


Again, Hixon has no impact and influence in what we do in the first round.

I mean seriously?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com