Jump to content


Frizzy350

Member Since 25 Jan 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 02:03 AM
-----

#2872175 Cam and high throws.

Posted by Frizzy350 on Yesterday, 05:57 PM

It is actually generally a good idea to throw the ball on the "high end" of the spectrum.  Not every pass is going to be perfect and missing high is the safest place you can miss.

 

If you overthrow tight coverage to the sideline, you eliminate any chance of a pick and give the receiver a CHANCE to make a play on it.  CBs are generally shorter than wide outs.  Overthrows on deep routes generally go behind anyone on the defense.  It is only an issue on screens, swings and short throws (which cam made serious progress with last year).

 

Another large factor is interior pressure.  When you can't step into your throw the entirety of your mechanics break.  You can't generate the raw flat power you need in the NFL that you generate with your lower body.  As such, you can either choose to be sacked or make an "arm" throw that will require more trajectory to make it to your man.

The above is what really gives Russel Wilson an edge as a quarterback due to his baseball experience.  As a fielder you need to be able to contort your body to supplement the multitude of odd angles you field the ball at and make a crisp throw immediately following.  These motions are completely against conventional quarterbacking mechanics, but can be invaluable when you need to run around like a chicken with your head cut off and get limited room to pass.




#2866273 Blue Chips

Posted by Frizzy350 on 27 July 2014 - 08:37 AM

We decided not to add in FB, P, or K. Even as a rb he would not make it. Dlo is a legitimately great RB, I don't see why people fail to see it.

 

 

Difficult to see with a line as poor as ours.




#2866260 Blue Chips

Posted by Frizzy350 on 27 July 2014 - 08:00 AM

TD could very well be the best coverage linebacker in the game.

 

In terms of 4-3 OLBs, he's very high up there.  The pass rush specialist OLBs (Hali, Houston, Ware,etc) are all very good at what they do, but their primary function is to be a pass rusher rather than playing linebacker.

 

The only guy who gets nation recognition as a typical OLB is Lavonte David.

 

Heck many of us can and will debate Davis is currently better than Luke (and yes, there is some legitimacy to that argument, IMO).

 

I'd definitely throw Star in at top 10 at his position.  In terms of run-stuffing space eaters, there aren't many better than him.

 

You need to factor in the roles these guys play rather than just looking at what the depth chart labels them as.  




#2854158 Silva's Pre-Camp Team Rankings (Panthers: 17th)

Posted by Frizzy350 on 16 July 2014 - 01:26 PM

Without a doubt the most realistic and well thought out breakdown from a big media outlet this offseason. Going 12-4 is never easy no matter how strong your roster is perceived to be. Chances are we will take some form of a step back, but theres no way we are irrelevant next year.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app


#2849744 Target sees the Redskins end game

Posted by Frizzy350 on 13 July 2014 - 10:06 PM

The people had a name--Cherokees or Navaho- but to classify them as a skin color is bigoted--It was probably not meant to be a negative comment, but it was a stupid one (even 100 years ago or whatever).  I agree that the Cleveland Indians is also disturbing, but not because they were misnamed, because that logo is demeaning.

 

I do not see how misnaming a race is more offensive than classifying it by skin color.

 

I didn't coin the term "African American" but I tend to agree that it is misleading. However, I don't know of any black people not of African origin to be offended if called it.  I do, however, think they would be offended if we called them blackskins--as they should.

 

You do realize the term "redskin" isn't even related to the color of their skin.  It was used to describe native american warriors that wore red war paint. Regardless, on we go.

 

I like that you point out that there were at least two native american tribes (of course there were way more than that, and in the interest of time I understand why you wouldn't list more) that had actual names and as such should be represented through one of said names because placing them all under one umbrella term that physically describes the color of their skin is "offensive".

 

Why is it then that we don't refer to actual African Americans by the name of the African tribe they hail from?  Or heck just AN African tribe?  They have names too.

 

This is a cyclical political power grab. The politically correct term for African Americans at one point was *****(spanish for black), at another point was colored, at another point was black, etc.  Somebody wants to get attention, they pick race and point out flaws in the current nomenclature, then lobby for a new term.  Quick way to get your name on the map (and oftentimes be labeled a "hero").

 

Us dumb sheep sit here and back them up saying "ohh but its offensive and because you say the word it makes you a racist/bigot despite your context".  I don't get offended when people call me white despite the fact that I'm a Croatian.  That would be because it is an indisputable fact that my skin is white; just like the sky is blue and grass is green.

 

I've wasted 15 minutes of my day logically raping the huddle over this.  How much of your time are you going to spend harping on this?  This is time that could be used to:

1. Find a better job.

2. Cook a kick ass meal.

3. Have sex.

4. Spend time with your family.

5. Give a poo about real issues that effect your ability to do the above.

 

Have a wonderful Monday everyone : ).




#2848896 Target sees the Redskins end game

Posted by Frizzy350 on 13 July 2014 - 01:38 PM

Any reference to skin color is offensive.   If you have a thick skin about what other races should and should not tolerate, good for you.  That makes you a bigot.

 

"But a comedian once said...."  good argument.

 

A visual description of a person is offensive?  I'd argue it's less offensive than the term "Indian" (Cleveland Indians).  American Natives were incorrectly given this name when settlers came to the Americas thinking they landed in India.

 

Heck the term African American is pretty damn misleading and is used to describe any black person in America.

White people are born in Africa, why is it that if they legally migrate to America they aren't African American?

What do you call a black person who lives in the UK?

This term also assumes all black people who live in the United States have lineage back to the continent of Africa, despite the fact that black people come from many different places like Haiti, Jamaica, the Caribbean, Trinidad, etc.

 

Offense is derived from context.  Constantly bickering about the proper nomenclature is a power grab utilized to manipulate and distract people from participating in discussion on actual problems in the US (and elsewhere).

 

In fact forcing a name change sounds an awful lot like the assimilation Native Americans were forced through.  When we had Natives attend English speaking schools, gave them English names, forced our religion(s) upon them and tore them from their previous way of life. 




#2845865 Four Teams have Expressed Interest in Andre Johnson

Posted by Frizzy350 on 11 July 2014 - 12:28 AM

I just meant if we were to pick up AJ then we'll have to restructure the deal so it's backloaded, since he said so himself he wouldn't take a pay cut but restructure up front to help teams this year get under the cap.  That's all well and good for this year... but then a year or two down the line we're in the same situation trying to juggle a lot of good, young player's contracts at one time with one aging overpaid veteran.

 

To be fair I shouldn't even be in this thread. I don't see us making any form of a move on AJ unless he AND the Texans make us an offer we can't refuse (a 5th+ round pick, no more than 3 mil a year).

 

If he wants what is on his current contract, no way we even entertain that idea.  We have too much talent that is younger, better and more deserving of that money.

 

If we are willing to spend that money on a big name receiver I think it makes more sense to make a play next offseason in free agency.

 

Even so, I still don't see a wide receiver as what makes or breaks this team.  If this was a stud olineman in the twilight of their career, this would have my attention.  So long as Cam is protected this year our wideouts will surprise everyone.  We have a nice mix of youth, vets, possession guys, red zone guys and speed guys.  Once preseason is over the coaching staff will (hopefully) have an idea on how to put these guys in positions to succeed.




#2836471 Luke Getting A Little Love on Reddit (Top 100)

Posted by Frizzy350 on 30 June 2014 - 08:27 PM

Sorry but Keek is better than both of the niner's ILBs.

 

Davis is better than David, although David has a very bright future.

 

 




#2832334 NE @ CAR: 7th best game of 2013

Posted by Frizzy350 on 26 June 2014 - 09:05 PM

My young heart had a tough time taking that game.

For some reason I thought we had the second saints game.  Just by how cocky Peyton was with his calls at points in the game, I knew it would backfire, yet I also knew he'd keep doing it because it wasn't as effective as he wanted.

 

The Pats game I was running around like roided out orangutan.  The CJ leg whip, the uncalled holds, the bitchslap smitty gave to Aqib (further noting the fact that once Smith owns ur ass, he owns it for life #dhall #fredsmoot) and Cam's insane runs... that game had it all.




#2830117 Luke getting some SNF love this year

Posted by Frizzy350 on 25 June 2014 - 02:41 PM

The NFL and ESPN have really been pushing the Luke brand the past year or so.  Not that I'm complaining or anything, just crazy how they've latched on to him the way they have.  Can't remember them ever hyping up one of our players as much as they have Luke.

 

He's the perfect counterpoint to Cam.

If you don't like Cam for one of the countless reasons, chances are you will like Luke as he comes off as the total opposite.




#2828242 More WR hate for the WR Corps

Posted by Frizzy350 on 23 June 2014 - 06:09 PM

I disagree. There's no team in the NFL that is going to be glad to see us on their schedule. Our offense might not be flashy or prolific in scoring, but it is going to be punishing and efficient. We are going to pound downfield, eat up clock, rest our top shelf defense while tiring theirs out, and when we get into the redzone, we will be sending out a 6'5" giant, two sure handed veteran possession receivers and a great pass catching TE.



Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

 

Don't forget about the oversized swiss army knife Toldozer in the redzone.

Or the biggest red-zone threat the NFL has seen since he stepped on the field... our freak known as Cam.




#2819163 Saw Jonathan Stewart at the road show today.

Posted by Frizzy350 on 13 June 2014 - 06:58 PM

Didn't wanna risk injuring his wrist.

 

*hides from huddle*




#2818388 The bright side

Posted by Frizzy350 on 13 June 2014 - 12:38 AM

No one has forgot about 2010 and 2011 was like and it seems to me as if you forgot our defense wasn't too 5 in the league this years either we were giving up 4 tds a game so we pressed more...now that we have a top notch d it doesn't really hurt to take shots becuz you know your d will have your back, making suggestions not downing the team or Shula so don't get your panties in a wad...we jus were a little to predictable, when it came down to it everyone knew what we were doing, only on rare occasions did Shula Actually change it up a bit...I think that's what bit us in the ass int San Fran game their d knew we were going up the gut when a simple play action might of worked...jus wanna see more out of them on first and second down so the o doesn't have to works so hard on third and 4th...love the philosophy but don't like the implementation, if it wasn't Ron getting aggressive Shula would have sit back and handed some of those wins back

 

Sentences exist.  This is a difficult post to process.

 

I don't think the predictability of our offense is any different than what Seattle or San Fran runs.  The biggest difference between us and those guys is having receivers who make big plays and having better offensive linemen.

 

We (like most of the NFL) don't have the firepower to run an offense like New England, Denver or New Orleans.




#2812867 49ers playoff game

Posted by Frizzy350 on 07 June 2014 - 05:48 PM

We should also tell them to tell the safeties not to run full speed at a wr bc incase they drop the ball and u can't instantly stop you'll get flagged just like mike Mitchell. Man that call pissed me off


Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

 

If Mitchell didn't him he might've caught that too.

 

Last I checked if the ball gets touched defensive players can contact/hit whoever they want.




#2811081 MMQB Ranks the running Qbs.

Posted by Frizzy350 on 06 June 2014 - 12:04 AM

He's comparing a quarterback who had as he states 2 designed runs (0 successful) to other quarterback's with 37-59 designed runs.

 

Why is Luck even in this article?

 

Because like...

 

if your like sacked...

 

then like, you were running...

 

so it like counts or something

 

 

I'm so stoned

 

-Andy Benoit






Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.