Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Smitty's OTA observations


  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#121 csx

csx

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,135 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 09:22 AM

I'm not defending Hurney, he was terrible for years.

#122 prowler2k8

prowler2k8

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 536 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 10:57 AM

I'm not defending Hurney, he was terrible for years.

 

Understandable, but I can't agree that Marty was terrible. He usually struck gold in the first round as Peppers, Gross and Davis could attest. A few of the later round picks like Munnerlyn have worked out also. Hurney's failures appear to be 1) an inability to plan for the future, as he too readily traded away valuable draft picks to win now; 2) his loyalty to veteran players, which prompted the outrageous contracts handed out to Delhomme, Williams and Beason although they have handicapped the team's finances; and 3) his relationship with JR may have been more of hinderance in the long run, as it has been suggested that JR's concern about public perception during the lockout is what prompted the spending spree in 2011 and Hurney was hesitant to do anything to slow down the process.  

 

Its obvious with Gettleman there is much needed changing of the guard and it will take time to clean up the mess created by the former regime.



#123 Snake

Snake

    swagaholic

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,556 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 11:50 AM

What we have isn't comparable to what those teams had on the field as receiving threats last year.

GB - was the best corp top to bottom - big edge
NE - Welker and there TEs - slight edge

We are setup to be a running team? I agree we have a surplus of RBs....but we aren't a running team. We have a franchise QB and are a Newton lead attack....not a RB reliant and focused team.

 

The only reason GB has the best WR corp is because of a man named Aaron Rogers. That team only has role players on it and there is no true dominate WR, only a dominate QB.  Same was said in Indy when Manning was there and when Manning left no WR dominated with Painter a QB. NE has no slight edge on the Panthers that just your bias and you trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. As far as a running team goes, yes we are. We still have a Oline that is better at punching holes in the ground game than a line that will hold there blocks on passing downs. You could argue we do not have FB but they are a dieing breed and so is the I-form.



#124 Snake

Snake

    swagaholic

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,556 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 11:54 AM

The way you get two receivers with over a thousand yards is to not feature a good TE or not have a running QB while showing a lot of option plays. There are only so many plays in a game.

 

Or not have a ground game. In that instance the TE becomes your 5-6 yard back while your WRs are clearing out for him.



#125 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 24,648 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 12:16 PM

The only reason GB has the best WR corp is because of a man named Aaron Rogers. That team only has role players on it and there is no true dominate WR, only a dominate QB.  Same was said in Indy when Manning was there and when Manning left no WR dominated with Painter a QB. NE has no slight edge on the Panthers that just your bias and you trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. As far as a running team goes, yes we are. We still have a Oline that is better at punching holes in the ground game than a line that will hold there blocks on passing downs. You could argue we do not have FB but they are a dieing breed and so is the I-form.

Greg Jennings is legit.  Jordy Nelson is legit.  Cobb has GREAT talent.  Driver was a rock.

 

....and Aaron Rodgers doesn't own many single game Packer records.  Matt Flynn has a few....throwing to that stud cast.  

 

as far as NE goes....Welker is a beast in the slot.  Was a beast even w/ Cassel.  And Gronk and Gonzalez poo all over our 2nd and 3rd options.

 

We are a Cam Newton lead attack...not a RB attack.  We have talent to be one if we wanted to be one...but we haven't been under Rivera.  Not in terms of a running means you rely on your RBs to be your offense.



#126 Fox007

Fox007

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 12:26 PM

It's ok guys it's just OTAs. I mean if they can't be good in shorts, they will definitely be good when the real games start. /huddle logic



#127 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,724 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 12:37 PM

Last year...

Packers have has arguably the most praised and deepest WR corp in the NFL the past few seasons. There was some shakeup this offseason....but they had what many dubbed the best group in the NFL. Most NFL fans could come up with Jennings, Nelson, Driver at a minimum. Cobb and Jones as well.

The Pats are always slightly ahead of the curve. Gronk and Gonzalez are basically recievers, Welker, Elderman, Lloyd, Branch.

Ravens...Boldin and Smith.

The other two are running teams that added mobile QBs on top of it....

I wouldn't say those teams just had role players....outside of the running teams


You could argue Greg Olsen is basically a receiver. He's not always lined up at the end of the line. Having two phenomenal receiving options plus role players is what I'd like in an ideal offense. The Panthers have that in Smitty and Olsen IMO. The rest is icing on the cake.

#128 MHS831

MHS831

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,967 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 12:39 PM

Look at WR from Gettlemen's perspective.  The Panthers had to take Star when he was there at 14--a player who has been out of the league since about 2010 was probably topping the depth chart and Star had top 5 talent. And there was no quality depth behind Dwan Edwards--a player the Bills waived last year, so we were not loaded at under tackle either.  Short was criticized because he took plays off, causing his stock to drop into the second round.  He was ALWAYS on the field for Purdue, fighting double teams--Gettlemen thinks he had first round talent, which he did in 2011.   Yes, a WR would have been nice, but at least we have players with experience and upside there--DT had nothing.

 

DTs are involved in every play, rushing the passer or stuffing the run. WRs might impact 6-7 plays a game.  Inside out is a smart approach. 

 

Having stated that, lets get off the "Why didn't we draft a WR?" question.  We had 5 picks.  Two to address the biggest 2 needs on the team: Nose and under tackle.  They are not the same position.

 

So the fourth round of the draft was unlikely to produce a WR who could beat out Gettis/Hixon/Ginn/Pilares.  So we should have grabbed one in free agency.  WRs in free agency are overpriced--the good ones usually do not get there.  Besides, we had huge needs in the defensive backfield and we were $16 million over the cap.   WR in free agency was not an option either, if you think about it.

 

So, if you are the GM, you build the DT and DB positions, keeping you in games.   NOW, we have $10 million to spend, but there is not a single player who upgrades the position.  We will watch the wire, but the smart move is to let the players you have compete.

 

How many of our WRs are on the last year of their contracts?

Edwards

LaFell

Gettis

Hixon

Ginn

 

That leaves Smitty, Pilares, and Adams. 

 

Gettlemen will go after a #1 WR for 2014 because Smith will drop to the #2/slot as he ages.  This should bother Lafell.  If Lafell has the same kind of year he had in 2012, he will not get a second contract from us--he shouldn't.  Compare his numbers with the rest of the league and in relation to the number of yards Cam has thrown for since he got here.  Underperformance for a #2 WR.

 

We will go with these WRs and cream needs to rise.  If not, WR will have a different look in 2014. 

 

 



#129 MHS831

MHS831

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,967 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 12:40 PM

Look at WR from Gettlemen's perspective.  The Panthers had to take Star when he was there at 14--a player who has been out of the league since about 2010 was probably topping the depth chart and Star had top 5 talent. And there was no quality depth behind Dwan Edwards--a player the Bills waived last year, so we were not loaded at under tackle either.  Short was criticized because he took plays off, causing his stock to drop into the second round.  He was ALWAYS on the field for Purdue, fighting double teams--Gettlemen thinks he had first round talent, which he did in 2011.   Yes, a WR would have been nice, but at least we have players with experience and upside there--DT had nothing.

 

DTs are involved in every play, rushing the passer or stuffing the run. WRs might impact 6-7 plays a game.  Inside out is a smart approach. 

 

Having stated that, lets get off the "Why didn't we draft a WR?" question.  We had 5 picks.  Two to address the biggest 2 needs on the team: Nose and under tackle.  They are not the same position.

 

So the fourth round of the draft was unlikely to produce a WR who could beat out Gettis/Hixon/Ginn/Pilares.  So we should have grabbed one in free agency.  WRs in free agency are overpriced--the good ones usually do not get there.  Besides, we had huge needs in the defensive backfield and we were $16 million over the cap.   WR in free agency was not an option either, if you think about it.

 

So, if you are the GM, you build the DT and DB positions, keeping you in games.   NOW, we have $10 million to spend, but there is not a single player who upgrades the position.  We will watch the wire, but the smart move is to let the players you have compete.

 

How many of our WRs are on the last year of their contracts?

Edwards

LaFell

Gettis

Hixon

Ginn

 

That leaves Smitty, Pilares, and Adams. 

 

Gettlemen will go after a #1 WR for 2014 because Smith will drop to the #2/slot as he ages.  This should bother Lafell.  If Lafell has the same kind of year he had in 2012, he will not get a second contract from us--he shouldn't.  Compare his numbers with the rest of the league and in relation to the number of yards Cam has thrown for since he got here.  Underperformance for a #2 WR.

 

We will go with these WRs and cream needs to rise.  If not, WR will have a different look in 2014. 

 

 



#130 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 24,648 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 12:55 PM

You could argue Greg Olsen is basically a receiver. He's not always lined up at the end of the line. Having two phenomenal receiving options plus role players is what I'd like in an ideal offense. The Panthers have that in Smitty and Olsen IMO. The rest is icing on the cake.

 

I consider him a WR....

 

But Smith is too old.  Not too old to be

 

Look at WR from Gettlemen's perspective.  The Panthers had to take Star when he was there at 14--a player who has been out of the league since about 2010 was probably topping the depth chart and Star had top 5 talent. And there was no quality depth behind Dwan Edwards--a player the Bills waived last year, so we were not loaded at under tackle either.  Short was criticized because he took plays off, causing his stock to drop into the second round.  He was ALWAYS on the field for Purdue, fighting double teams--Gettlemen thinks he had first round talent, which he did in 2011.   Yes, a WR would have been nice, but at least we have players with experience and upside there--DT had nothing.

 

DTs are involved in every play, rushing the passer or stuffing the run. WRs might impact 6-7 plays a game.  Inside out is a smart approach. 

 

Having stated that, lets get off the "Why didn't we draft a WR?" question.  We had 5 picks.  Two to address the biggest 2 needs on the team: Nose and under tackle.  They are not the same position.

 

So the fourth round of the draft was unlikely to produce a WR who could beat out Gettis/Hixon/Ginn/Pilares.  So we should have grabbed one in free agency.  WRs in free agency are overpriced--the good ones usually do not get there.  Besides, we had huge needs in the defensive backfield and we were $16 million over the cap.   WR in free agency was not an option either, if you think about it.

 

So, if you are the GM, you build the DT and DB positions, keeping you in games.   NOW, we have $10 million to spend, but there is not a single player who upgrades the position.  We will watch the wire, but the smart move is to let the players you have compete.

 

How many of our WRs are on the last year of their contracts?

Edwards

LaFell

Gettis

Hixon

Ginn

 

That leaves Smitty, Pilares, and Adams. 

 

Gettlemen will go after a #1 WR for 2014 because Smith will drop to the #2/slot as he ages.  This should bother Lafell.  If Lafell has the same kind of year he had in 2012, he will not get a second contract from us--he shouldn't.  Compare his numbers with the rest of the league and in relation to the number of yards Cam has thrown for since he got here.  Underperformance for a #2 WR.

 

We will go with these WRs and cream needs to rise.  If not, WR will have a different look in 2014. 

Considering we just paid Dwan.....drafting Short didn't then fill the biggest remaining need on the team.   IMO. 



#131 La Pantera

La Pantera

    humpin' habanero

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,687 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 01:07 PM

Considering we just paid Dwan.....drafting Short didn't then fill the biggest remaining need on the team. IMO.


Short may not have been the biggest need,but 3 tech was a need none the less. And at that point in the draft there wasn't a WR worth taking esp over KK.


I can't argue that WR isn't a HUUUGE need. Because it is. Our only real chances of landing one was to pass on Star OR trade back into the 1st to grab one. Neither should've or did happen. I look for a double dip at WR next season. One in FA and one in the draft.

#132 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,394 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 02:39 PM

KK and Star, assuming both become franchise players down the road, will serve this defense well..  Both can play NT and get after QB.  Obviously their job description may officially be one of NT and the other UT, but I think most fans will appreciate the "double dip" of versatility down the road.  

 

success rate at this point is in question, but that's true for whoever you pick up... 



#133 XClown1986

XClown1986

    I'm Rick Grimes, Bitch

  • ALL-PRO
  • 2,020 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 02:42 PM

Holy hell can we just get to preseason before we decide what the problem areas really are?!

 

Fact: No one knows poo right now. No one.

 

Fact: The draft is over and bitching about it now is pointless.

 

Fact: The offseason on the message boards is worse than having to watch Lifetime with my girlfriend (and that is fuging awful).



#134 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,394 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 02:57 PM

Holy hell can we just get to preseason before we decide what the problem areas really are?!

 

Fact: No one knows poo right now. No one.

 

Fact: The draft is over and bitching about it now is pointless.

 

Fact: The offseason on the message boards is worse than having to watch Lifetime with my girlfriend (and that is fuging awful).

 

+1



#135 AggieLean.

AggieLean.

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,279 posts
  • LocationChattanooga, TN via Winston-Salem, NC

Posted 03 June 2013 - 04:04 PM

Hixon is an upgrade over Murphy? I'm looking at the stats, and just not seeing it. If anything, I think it's a wash. I mean, I guess you can say the offense has been upgraded if you expect Lafell to take the next step, and the oline to be improved. I'm still hesitant about both, especially that oline. I know alot of ppl point to Kalil coming back as a reason for optimism, but that line was garbage for the few games Kalil was in there.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com