Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

This draft was a idictiment on Chud and his Playcalling.


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 koolkatluke

koolkatluke

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,847 posts
  • LocationNonya

Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:34 PM

Obviously the FO and the coaching staff. Thought our offensive problems had more to do with the scheme then the players. While most saw the parade of WR and thought that Cam needs more weapons. Well that's just not the teams opinion. Gettlemen said he felt like some young players needed to step up and if you look at the roster the most young guys are at the WR position.

Only one offensive skill position player drafted a scat back. So IMO this draft was not about a lacking of offensive weapons. But a lacking in the use of the weapons already on the roster.

#2 Ruff

Ruff

    Formerly Know As RufftownRepresent

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,020 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:40 PM

Agreed. At least, that's definitely the way it seems on the surface. Maybe that's what Scott Turner was allowed to go, as well? They believed that the style of offense Chud and his crew were wanting to use was not something that needs to be on this team/fits our team?

#3 Saxist Fed

Saxist Fed

    halt the tomfoolery

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Locationthe.black.lodge

Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:42 PM

Chud sure didn't know how to utilize the RBs and balance the loads.

I'm hopeful Shula can do better and this OG can bolster the line

#4 MechaZain

MechaZain

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:50 PM

I think it's a bit of both. Our o-line was undoubtedly lacking (bigger problem than finding Smitty's heir IMO) but an offensive scheme can be designed to get around that with quicker throws and whatnot so I'm hoping that's the plan from up top.

That said, if the secondary isn't addressed in free agency I'm worried. Rest of the D is solid now and we can cover up our offensive weaknesses, but none of that matters if we continue to get blown up in the air

#5 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,906 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:55 PM

Problem is we have an old school Fox offensive roster around our QB.

Ultimately people are critical we don't have Cam running what Fox did all those years. Reality is people want Foxball minus the 3rd down draw....

Biggest issue remains the same....GM and coaching staff are on different pages with different views on O

#6 Frizzy350

Frizzy350

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,076 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:59 PM

I think we are going to see Barner a decent amount in the slot. Smith can still shoulder the load, lafell may even step things up a bit too and I think Hixon is going to be a HUGE upgrade from Murphy.

#7 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,906 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:01 PM

Chud sure didn't know how to utilize the RBs and balance the loads.

I'm hopeful Shula can do better and this OG can bolster the line

No holes to run them last year....you wanted them to run Williams for no gain more?

#8 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,318 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:02 PM

Sometimes people over think things to much. It could just mean that our staff is not happy with our defensive and offensive line play, or that they think the best players available were those positions, or some combination thereof. It might not be an indictment of anyone other than last years array of dt's.

#9 koolkatluke

koolkatluke

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,847 posts
  • LocationNonya

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:03 PM

I think it's a bit of both. Our o-line was undoubtedly lacking (bigger problem than finding Smitty's heir IMO) but an offensive scheme can be designed to get around that with quicker throws and whatnot so I'm hoping that's the plan from up top.

That said, if the secondary isn't addressed in free agency I'm worried. Rest of the D is solid now and we can cover up our offensive weaknesses, but none of that matters if we continue to get blown up in the air


1. That is a sick fuging sig. What the fug is that? Is that Steve/Chupacabra mutation something you've made?? God I was eating when I saw that poo. That poo stop that activity for me.

2. They've brought in some secondary guys and I think that young guys stepping up line also includes the CB's. Drayton Florence is starting at 1 position. Captain at nickle and a competition at every other spot. I also think they love DJ Campbell at SS and Godfrey at FS. But Mitchell will challenge at SS.

#10 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,906 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:07 PM

Sometimes people over think things to much. It could just mean that our staff is not happy with our defensive and offensive line play.


Yep...Rivera has had poo at DT for 2 seasons now. G play imploded our O too often last year.

I don't think drafting those to HUGE holes also somehow means all these other things. I think people put too much in to Gettlemen's bs talk a pressers. Of course he is going to compliment and talk about potential on the roster to step up....knowing that everyone in that room knows his remaining holes (which is why they ask him about them).

If a reporter ask if they are comfortable going into a season with our joke of a secondary.....and they say yes. People do realize, that is just a politically correct answer....

#11 koolkatluke

koolkatluke

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,847 posts
  • LocationNonya

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:11 PM

Problem is we have an old school Fox offensive roster around our QB.

Ultimately people are critical we don't have Cam running what Fox did all those years. Reality is people want Foxball minus the 3rd down draw....

Biggest issue remains the same....GM and coaching staff are on different pages with different views on O


No that not the problem. You don't have to play Foxball or Chud ball with this lineup. Just a combination of the 2.

You can't have all that money in the RB group and only run the ball 17 times with Cam getting 7 of those carries.

You talk about our lineup being so lacking with WR.

But Cam has pass for the most yards of any QB in their 1st 2 years and leads the league in pass plays of 20 yards or more. He also is top 5 in yards per pass plays.

Somebody is catching these passes people.


Hell It took Luck 100 more attempts to beat Cam's passing yards record.

#12 Sod

Sod

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 161 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:11 PM

Agreed. Not to mention just because you look at a lot of wide receivers doesn't mean you're going to take one maybe they were hoping one would stand out and it didn't or maybe one did such as Hopkins but he wasn't available in the second

#13 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,906 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:16 PM

No that not the problem. You don't have to play Foxball or Chud ball with this lineup. Just a combination of the 2.

You can't have all that money in the RB group and only run the ball 17 times with Cam getting 7 of those carries.

You talk about our lineup being so lacking with WR.

But Cam has pass for the most yards of any QB in their 1st 2 years and leads the league in pass plays of 20 yards or more. He also is top 5 in yards per pass plays.

Somebody is catching these passes people.


Hell It took Luck 100 more attempts to beat Cam's passing yards record.


You say it isn't the problem then post an perfect example why it is a problem...

You drafted Cam Newton....boom, now you don't have an offense where you need RBs to pound all game. You need different talent to suit an offense geared toward him. Newton 100% deserves those 7 carries a game....and he has proven why. Most dangerous part of the rush attack and that is with 2 great runners....the mismatch he creates is comical.

Cam could be better...he should be. The fact he produces offense doesn't mean our weapons are good enough around him. A LOT of plays have been left on the field the last 2 years

#14 iamhubby1

iamhubby1

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,182 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:17 PM

Problem is we have an old school Fox offensive roster around our QB.

Ultimately people are critical we don't have Cam running what Fox did all those years. Reality is people want Foxball minus the 3rd down draw....

Biggest issue remains the same....GM and coaching staff are on different pages with different views on O

That is just not true. We don't want Foxball, we want a balanced Offense that utilizes all our weapons. Cam got hit way too much last year. I know you think he is an athletic tank and we need to utilize him all we can. I happen to think he can be just as effective without all those extra hits. If we can improve on how we finished up last year, we can be very effective. Go ahead. Think positively. It feels good..........Cam has already proven he is a threat. The threat of his threat is enough to threaten Defenses. He doesn't have carry the load anymore. That should work to our advantage as well.

#15 Saxist Fed

Saxist Fed

    halt the tomfoolery

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Locationthe.black.lodge

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:23 PM

No holes to run them last year....you wanted them to run Williams for no gain more?


The first half of last year, it was obvious we weren't utilizing Stewart or Tolbert properly and on top of it weren't even using Olsen enough. We picked it up toward the mid/end of the season but its beyond blocking. I'm not talking about the success of the runs but how we used the guys we had in given circumstances.


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.