Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Jay Gruden: 'Foolish' to make RGIII a pocket passer


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#25 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 47,944
  • Reputation: 15,516
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 25 January 2014 - 03:23 PM

Luck does need to bring down the INT's, but it happens, and he still has a very bright future.

 

Comparisons between Luck, and Griffin right now are rather pointless. Both had immediate success, but only one is getting a new head coach in just his third season. Continuity is huge for a young QB, time will tell if Griffin can get back to where he started. He's got the talent.

 

Talent was never an issue.

 

The big question mark with Griffin was, and still is, durability.



#26 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 47,944
  • Reputation: 15,516
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 25 January 2014 - 03:24 PM

I think he's right, but they have to find ways to protect him when he does take off.  I just don't know if that's possible, he's kind of a small dude.  But you can't just neglect the fact he's dynamic outside the pocket.  You have to find ways to use that without killing him, though.

 

I really liked him coming out of college so I hope Gruden can figure out a way to keep him on the field and upright. 

 

How successful would you say the Panthers have been on that front?
 



#27 PanthersClinic

PanthersClinic

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 05-January 13
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 969
  • Reputation: 461
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2014 - 03:47 PM

^ why everyone here want RG3 to fail and Luck to succeed? What's the inside story on that? Am I missing something!

 

I don't see it that way. People seem to obsess over RG3 and Luck both. For or against.

 

When's the last time there was a thread about Ryan Tannehill? He threw for more yards than either Rg3 or Luck this year. He also torched the Panthers secondary.

 

The RG3 and Luck threads mostly have nothing to do with football and is more soap opera than sports.



#28 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,152
  • Reputation: 2,341
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2014 - 04:15 PM

How successful would you say the Panthers have been on that front?
 

 

At protecting Cam?  He's gotten down a little more this season than in the past, but Cam's so much bigger than RG3 that the risk is a little less



#29 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 47,944
  • Reputation: 15,516
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 25 January 2014 - 04:25 PM

At protecting Cam?  He's gotten down a little more this season than in the past, but Cam's so much bigger than RG3 that the risk is a little less

 

It's still not a good situation when your quarterback is your leading rusher, no matter how big he is.
 



#30 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,152
  • Reputation: 2,341
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2014 - 05:06 PM

It's still not a good situation when your quarterback is your leading rusher, no matter how big he is.
 

 

Well, Cam wasn't our leading rusher, and if you combine Dwill and Stew's numbers, we actually had 1000 yards from our primary RB. Cam had fewer than half their carries.  We run very few designed runs, which is good.

 

If not for the struggles on the OL and our receivers getting open, the disparity in favor the RBs would have been even greater.

 

But one of Cam's greatest strengths is his athleticism and ability to break a play open.  Don't take that threat away, imo (which I don't think we intentionally did that much).



#31 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 47,944
  • Reputation: 15,516
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 25 January 2014 - 05:08 PM

Well, Cam wasn't our leading rusher, and if you combine Dwill and Stew's numbers, we actually had 1000 yards from our primary RB. Cam had fewer than half their carries.  We run very few designed runs, which is good.

 

If not for the struggles on the OL and our receivers getting open, the disparity in favor the RBs would have been even greater.

 

But one of Cam's greatest strengths is his athleticism and ability to break a play open.  Don't take that threat away, imo (which I don't think we intentionally did that much).

 

it's definitely not by design that Newton ran as much as he did.

 

We essentially became the Eagles with Randall Cunningham back when Buddy Ryan used to say "you just make two or three big plays a game and my defense will take care of the rest."

 

Not a winning formula, and not one I want to see again next season.
 



#32 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,152
  • Reputation: 2,341
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2014 - 05:23 PM

it's definitely not by design that Newton ran as much as he did.

 

We essentially became the Eagles with Randall Cunningham back when Buddy Ryan used to say "you just make two or three big plays a game and my defense will take care of the rest."

 

Not a winning formula, and not one I want to see again next season.
 

 

injuries and ineptitude.  it wasn't by design, so I'm not terribly worried.



#33 footballisasport

footballisasport

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 06-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,506
  • Reputation: 780
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2014 - 09:51 PM

it's definitely not by design that Newton ran as much as he did.

 

We essentially became the Eagles with Randall Cunningham back when Buddy Ryan used to say "you just make two or three big plays a game and my defense will take care of the rest."

 

Not a winning formula, and not one I want to see again next season.
 

 

It is by design if your team recognizes that it has weaknesses since the beginning of the season and the only person they can turn to seriously help them is the QB.

 

I agree with you. I shouldn't be made a habit, but it's definitely a plus for this team.



#34 footballisasport

footballisasport

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 06-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,506
  • Reputation: 780
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2014 - 09:54 PM

It's no secret, I don't like the way they try to sell Luck to us. I'm a true believer in letting the game take care of itself. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when that's not respected. I think they're corrupting the game doing that and it's not sustainable in the long term. This is no kid thought right there.

 

U are indeed a dying breed. 



#35 footballisasport

footballisasport

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 06-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,506
  • Reputation: 780
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2014 - 10:01 PM

Curious as to where you guys are getting the "general consensus" about RGIII and Luck?

 

I freaking hate Luck... he's a neck beard goof ball.  I've kind of seen that as the general huddle consensus.

 

I actually kind of like RGIII but he won't last.  Unlike Cam, he doesn't know how to avoid contact and he's no where close to Cam's size.

 

Honestly Gruden's approach is probably the right one, but he's gonna get hurt, mainly because like Vick, he throws himself around too much.  

When I read RG III's background, I knew the media was only pitting him with Luck because they knew he wasn't 100% health and long lasting. They made him the the anti-Cam because he was never close to the specimen Cam is but they are both black and folks would simply buy into believe that he was and in turn making Luck just as equal to or better than Cam. 

 

I keep telling you folks today's media is nothing but pure psychology. 



#36 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 47,944
  • Reputation: 15,516
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 January 2014 - 09:23 AM

injuries and ineptitude. it wasn't by design, so I'm not terribly worried.


I am if those things don't get fixed.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users