Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Bring back Lafell?


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#31 thomas96

thomas96

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,687 posts

Posted 02 March 2014 - 10:01 PM

No. He's nothing more than a solid blocker. He isn't a veteran leader or anything, he's really just a complete joke. Let him walk no matter the price.



#32 kman72

kman72

    Sports Maniac

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,061 posts
  • LocationNC

Posted 02 March 2014 - 10:06 PM

Wouldn't hate it but would have to be for very cheap. While he frustrates me in passing game at times he still is a decent player and a very good blocker. If he came back near minimum and we played him more on run downs wouldn't mind.



#33 TheMaulClaw

TheMaulClaw

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,919 posts
  • LocationCharleston SC

Posted 02 March 2014 - 10:43 PM

2442057-1627833308-mj-la.gif

 

What's that....MJ's response to his team having a chance at the playoffs?



#34 jayflip

jayflip

    vaya con dios

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,704 posts
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 02 March 2014 - 11:04 PM

Oh Wee Mayne.
Lots I hate up in here. I do understand the frustration 11 gives out, but if he's cheap and we're still trying to actively upgrade the WR corp, he'd be a decent keep for us. Like a few others have said, he knows the system and is a great blocker, plus he kinda somewhat produces in the passing game. If he's back, he should be a 3rd or 4th WR for us. We already need a new number 1, a potential number 2. re-signing Ginn as a situational WR is a hopeful as well, and Smitty should be a role player going forward. That's a ton of uncertainty revolving around our WR core... So yeah, if the price is right, at least we know we'd be getting a solid yet unspectacular LaFell to help us out.

#35 PandaPancake

PandaPancake

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,489 posts
  • LocationGreeley, Co

Posted 02 March 2014 - 11:54 PM

Ban the OP for his insolence.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app



#36 CajunTuffguy

CajunTuffguy

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 499 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 12:54 AM

We can't afford him.  This dude will command almost infinity billion dollars on the open market!



#37 MasterAwesome

MasterAwesome

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 01:26 AM

You guys are ridiculous...if I hadn't watched a Panthers game before, I'd think LaFell was a colossal bust reading these comments in here. He's a good #3, serviceable #2, and a terrible #1 (albeit with small sample size). Does every WR on our roster have to have #1 WR potential? LaFell is good depth who knows the playbook, has a lot of starting experience in the system, excels at blocking (for a run-first team), is durable, no issues in the locker room...and yet the hate he gets is on par with Byron Bell. But at least people seem to be on board with re-signing Bell as depth...any mention of re-signing LaFell just gets laughed off.

You can't argue about how terrible he is and then say he's gonna get a good-sized contract somewhere...if he's as bad as everyone says, no team is gonna offer him a decent contract. He has more value to us than any other team so I think he'll accept a modest contract to stay here.

#38 TheRed

TheRed

    California Dreamin'

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,267 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 03 March 2014 - 01:40 AM

You guys are ridiculous...if I hadn't watched a Panthers game before, I'd think LaFell was a colossal bust reading these comments in here. He's a good #3, serviceable #2, and a terrible #1 (albeit with small sample size). Does every WR on our roster have to have #1 WR potential? LaFell is good depth who knows the playbook, has a lot of starting experience in the system, excels at blocking (for a run-first team), is durable, no issues in the locker room...and yet the hate he gets is on par with Byron Bell. But at least people seem to be on board with re-signing Bell as depth...any mention of re-signing LaFell just gets laughed off.

You can't argue about how terrible he is and then say he's gonna get a good-sized contract somewhere...if he's as bad as everyone says, no team is gonna offer him a decent contract. He has more value to us than any other team so I think he'll accept a modest contract to stay here.

 

To be considered a serviceable #2 receiver, one has to actually show up consistently, and actually produce in the event that the #1 receiver is out. Lafell put up 13 yards when Smith went out early in the first quarter against the Saints in week 16, and then he put up exactly zero yards in week 17 against the Falcons while Smith was out again, and he had zero TD's through the final 5 games of the season.

 

It's pretty telling that the most people can say about him in this thread is that he's a good blocker.

 

If he is willing to sign for #3/4 receiver money on an incentive laden cheap 2 year deal, sure. If he wants more? Let him get it elsewhere. This is coming from someone who has defended him on numerous occasions, and thought he would shine in a contract year given the opportunity.



#39 nagai

nagai

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,207 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 01:48 AM

I doubt he'll demand number 2 money. He is smoking something serious if he does. It's in the best interest for both parties to return for chump change.



#40 panthers90

panthers90

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,022 posts
  • LocationFremont, CA

Posted 03 March 2014 - 02:03 AM

Him and Cam have chemistry on the field. Don't know why we wouldn't want him back for cheap...



#41 MasterAwesome

MasterAwesome

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 02:58 AM

To be considered a serviceable #2 receiver, one has to actually show up consistently, and actually produce in the event that the #1 receiver is out. Lafell put up 13 yards when Smith went out early in the first quarter against the Saints in week 16, and then he put up exactly zero yards in week 17 against the Falcons while Smith was out again, and he had zero TD's through the final 5 games of the season.

 

It's pretty telling that the most people can say about him in this thread is that he's a good blocker.

 

If he is willing to sign for #3/4 receiver money on an incentive laden cheap 2 year deal, sure. If he wants more? Let him get it elsewhere. This is coming from someone who has defended him on numerous occasions, and thought he would shine in a contract year given the opportunity.

 

Like I said...he's a serviceable #2 receiver and would be a terrible #1 receiver (as evident by his lack of any production whatsoever in the last 2 games of the season).  I guess our definitions of a #2 receiver differ from one another.  I consider a serviceable #2 receiver one that can give you decent production as long as he has a #1 receiver opposite of him who can take away a little extra coverage.  How can you fault LaFell as a "#2 receiver" for his lack of production in the final 2 games when our #1 receiver went down?  By definition, in those final 2 games he was no longer even a true #2 receiver.  Maybe your criteria for a #2 receiver is one who simply lines up on the outside.  For me, a #2 receiver cannot exist without a true #1 receiver.  I define a #2 receiver by their talent, not their position on the depth chart or their playing time/location on the field.  That's why I consider teams like the Falcons to have two #1 receivers instead of arbitrarily labeling White as their #1 and Jones as their #2 or vice versa.  In the final 2 games of the season, we didn't have a true #1 receiver and so we didn't have a #2 receiver by default.  By calling LaFell a "serviceable" #2 receiver, I'm basically saying he doesn't look out of place when he's out there alongside Steve Smith on passing plays.  He makes some plays, but his production is pretty modest.

 

And who's to say he isn't consistent?  613, 677, 627...those are his yardage totals the last 3 years, with his TDs going up 1 each season.  He has had 2 100-yard games in his career, so his yardage isn't being inflated by a couple monster games here and there.  For the most part, he's consistent at getting you about 40ish yards a game which isn't terrible for a run-first offense with an extremely balanced passing attack like ours where the targets simply just aren't there.  I think he hit his ceiling early, hence why his numbers have pretty much stabilized.

 

0 TDs in the last 5 games of the season....what's your point exactly?  Steve Smith has had 4 TDs in each of the past 2 seasons.  LaFell's 5 TDs was tied for 2nd on the team (Olsen had 6).  Do you want him to get 1 TD every third game of the season so it's more balanced?  I wonder if people were worried about Calvin Johnson's 5 TDs in 2012, particularly when he went a stretch of 5 games himself without a TD reception...it's professional football, you're never gonna get 100% consistency out of anyone.  And please don't drop some line like "are you really comparing Brandon LaFell to Steve Smith and Calvin Johnson?"...that is such a cop-out.  I'm just trying to dissect each knock you've made on LaFell and saying why I think you're blowing it out of proportion.  Going 5 games without a TD is not unusual in the NFL for a #2 receiver.

 

You're nitpicking anyway, if I simply said he was a good #3 receiver then my point still stands.  He's quality depth and he shouldn't require a big contract by any means.  Steve Smith is the only receiver still under contract with us at the moment...do you want to send Cam out there next season with 1 receiver with whom he has any kind of repertoire with?  LaFell has value to us. There are two ways this could play out:

1) He gets a good-sized contract somewhere else, proving that some professional coaches and scouts who undoubtedly watched tons of film on him before pulling the trigger on a contract offer thought he was a good enough player to warrant that contract (contradicting the general consensus around here).

2) He signs a modest cap-friendly contract here.

 

You really think Dave freaking Gettleman is gonna overpay a player like LaFell with our cap issues?  When he's been so hard-nosed in negotiations thus far?  And possibly considering cutting Steve Smith for those very same cap issues?

 

TL/DR; I basically just agree with what you said in your last paragraph...which is what I was saying anyways in my initial post.  I think he'll get a cheap contract here.  I just think it's ridiculous that the OP simply asked if we should bring LaFell back on a team-friendly deal, and almost half the people in this thread laugh it off like it's such a preposterous idea.  People tear down LaFell as a joke of a receiver, and can then humor the idea of a team offering him legit WR2 money.  Which is it?  He can't be terrible and then have a team throw a good contract at him...do coaches not watch tape on a player before they sign him or something?

 

Damn I think even my TL/DR needs its own TL/DR...apologies.



#42 Carolina Crazy V2

Carolina Crazy V2

    !

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,417 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 03:13 AM

I'll bring him back if he'll play left tackle. Dude can't catch the ball, but he's a hell of a blocker. 



#43 TheRed

TheRed

    California Dreamin'

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,267 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 03 March 2014 - 03:13 AM

Like I said...he's a serviceable #2 receiver and would be a terrible #1 receiver (as evident by his lack of any production whatsoever in the last 2 games of the season).  I guess our definitions of a #2 receiver differ from one another.  I consider a serviceable #2 receiver one that can give you decent production as long as he has a #1 receiver opposite of him who can take away a little extra coverage.  How can you fault LaFell as a "#2 receiver" for his lack of production in the final 2 games when our #1 receiver went down?  By definition, in those final 2 games he was no longer even a true #2 receiver.  Maybe your criteria for a #2 receiver is one who simply lines up on the outside.  For me, a #2 receiver cannot exist without a true #1 receiver.  I define a #2 receiver by their talent, not their position on the depth chart or their playing time/location on the field.  That's why I consider teams like the Falcons to have two #1 receivers instead of arbitrarily labeling White as their #1 and Jones as their #2 or vice versa.  In the final 2 games of the season, we didn't have a true #1 receiver and so we didn't have a #2 receiver by default.  By calling LaFell a "serviceable" #2 receiver, I'm basically saying he doesn't look out of place when he's out there alongside Steve Smith on passing plays.  He makes some plays, but his production is pretty modest.

 

And who's to say he isn't consistent?  613, 677, 627...those are his yardage totals the last 3 years, with his TDs going up 1 each season.  He has had 2 100-yard games in his career, so his yardage isn't being inflated by a couple monster games here and there.  For the most part, he's consistent at getting you about 40ish yards a game which isn't terrible for a run-first offense with an extremely balanced passing attack like ours where the targets simply just aren't there.  I think he hit his ceiling early, hence why his numbers have pretty much stabilized.

 

0 TDs in the last 5 games of the season....what's your point exactly?  Steve Smith has had 4 TDs in each of the past 2 seasons.  LaFell's 5 TDs was tied for 2nd on the team (Olsen had 6).  Do you want him to get 1 TD every third game of the season so it's more balanced?  I wonder if people were worried about Calvin Johnson's 5 TDs in 2012, particularly when he went a stretch of 5 games himself without a TD reception...it's professional football, you're never gonna get 100% consistency out of anyone.  And please don't drop some line like "are you really comparing Brandon LaFell to Steve Smith and Calvin Johnson?"...that is such a cop-out.  I'm just trying to dissect each knock you've made on LaFell and saying why I think you're blowing it out of proportion.  Going 5 games without a TD is not unusual in the NFL for a #2 receiver.

 

You're nitpicking anyway, if I simply said he was a good #3 receiver then my point still stands.  He's quality depth and he shouldn't require a big contract by any means.  Steve Smith is the only receiver still under contract with us at the moment...do you want to send Cam out there next season with 1 receiver with whom he has any kind of repertoire with?  LaFell has value to us. There are two ways this could play out:

1) He gets a good-sized contract somewhere else, proving that some professional coaches and scouts who undoubtedly watched tons of film on him before pulling the trigger on a contract offer thought he was a good enough player to warrant that contract (contradicting the general consensus around here).

2) He signs a modest cap-friendly contract here.

 

You really think Dave freaking Gettleman is gonna overpay a player like LaFell with our cap issues?  When he's been so hard-nosed in negotiations thus far?  And possibly considering cutting Steve Smith for those very same cap issues?

 

TL/DR; I basically just agree with what you said in your last paragraph...which is what I was saying anyways in my initial post.  I think he'll get a cheap contract here.  I just think it's ridiculous that the OP simply asked if we should bring LaFell back on a team-friendly deal, and almost half the people in this thread laugh it off like it's such a preposterous idea.  People tear down LaFell as a joke of a receiver, and can then humor the idea of a team offering him legit WR2 money.  Which is it?  He can't be terrible and then have a team throw a good contract at him...do coaches not watch tape on a player before they sign him or something?

 

Damn I think even my TL/DR needs its own TL/DR...apologies.

 

When I mentioned consistency, I was referring to a game by game basis. One week he will look like like a #2, and the next he will look like he's never played the position before in his life, running routes poorly, dropping easy passes right in his hands, and tipping passes to defenders.

 

We know what he is, and what he isn't. He did no more in a contract year where he could basically control his own asking price than he has the rest of his career. So his value here has already been determined. If some other team wants to throw a lot of cash at him, so be it.

 

So again, if he is willing to sign for the right deal, I'm fine with re-signing him.



#44 NFLFangirl19

NFLFangirl19

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 05:54 AM

Absolutely NOT! W/ Smith, Ginn & two other new guys in the pic what is the need for him? I mean it wouldn't necessarily harm us to keep him around but don't we gain a/b 2mill in cap space by cutting him?!...Good Riddance laFail

#45 d-dave

d-dave

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 06:22 AM

If we need WR help, he'll be back. While he was borderline acceptable, he is a proven commodity. He's not an unknown player. I'm OK if he comes back for a year at the minimum.

Sent from my VS980 4G using CarolinaHuddle mobile app




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.