Jump to content


magnus

Member Since 29 Nov 2008
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:05 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Let's play a game

23 November 2014 - 09:54 AM

well, this is fairly easy.   First round, you don't possibly move off KB so you can get Bitonio later (I hear they really did like Bitonio but there's no way you pass up KB). 

 

SO the 2nd becomes, Ealy or Morgan Moses?   I figured Moses to be the pick at the time so I'd have been OK with that.  Moses really dropped the last few weeks of the draft, but his technique is pretty sloppy.  He played last week, and he had some great stuff out there, and some problems.  Now that's his first real action of the year, so consider that.  In reaction, Ealy was a luxury pick, and in hindsight it was a huge need and he hasn't even really filled it yet (he will go on to be a good player, though). 

 

The 3rd rounder being a guard, it's hard to take that away.  Turner has been solid, he moves well, he's what the team needs at G and they couldn't afford to end up the way they had in '13 at RG.   You could argue that the third, fourth could've been Hurst at OT instead, and I'd have been fine with that then or now. 

 

I knew before doing this your point was, he tried to do something about OT and couldn't, instead of "didn't".  And I agree.  Gettleman wanted an OT.   It didn't work out that way.    I do think, throwing a flyer on Hurst in 6 would've left the team better off, but they had to have had their reasons not to draft him or try to pick him up in UDFA. 


In Topic: Great article on Cam's future in Observer today

23 November 2014 - 09:44 AM

Bottom line is he wants to come back and we want him to be here.

There is no reason a deal should not get done.

Until a deal is done, people will wonder why a deal isn't done.   And once a deal is done, people will move on to complaining that he's not living up to his deal.  It's a no-win. 

 

Dickson was worth a try.  I don't mind that.  Could they have done more with his 'weapons'?  I don't know.  He's got two really good guys, and if guys like Dickson, Cotchery are behind that pair, great.  You need roleplayers.  That Dickson didn't do a lot with his, what, 20 targets?  That's not the problem.  The line is. 


In Topic: Gary Kubiak

23 November 2014 - 09:41 AM

well yes, technically Chud's deal was not over, but the league in general doesn't really bother with worrying about what will happen between January and March on coaches that don't have a year left. Both Chud and Shula had reportedly chosen not to extend the year prior so they'd have flexibility (coaching free agency was something I fully expected to blow up in the Parcells - Tampa thing in 2002 that never did, which almost let us get Charlie Weis except for money, and instead saddled us with Henning). 

 

Koetter is an interesting one.  He's not going to be a high powered OC that everyone will immediately fall for, but he'd bring continuity (he's a numbers guy too), a little more hurry up, maybe you could convince Shula to remain as QBs coach (which would irrationally piss a lot of people off),   Kromer, definitely as OL, maybe as an OC under a good offensive HC.  

 

I think I'd rather not go with Tice or Nolan, it's just stigmatic.   While I myself had always wanted to get Rivera an assistant head coach, I don't envy the idea of having a name guy over his shoulder that hasn't had longterm success.  Neither of those guys strike me as excelling as assistants, so it becomes an Art Shell thing.  You remember him as a former head coach while he's an assistant, so you assume he's a good assistant instead of seeing results.  

 

Nolan also hasn't done much good with a 4-3 and I don't want to be 3-4, but if I were, one gap all the way. At any rate the idea was to get someone to help Ron make the clock decisions, the stuff he struggled with in '11, '12, and then excelled at in '13 ('14's irrelevant, being in only a certain amount of close games).

 

I definitely did see Bobby April on that soon to be cut Raiders staff, In a post-Rivera world, I'm definitely not against that. 

 

 

 

 

oh!  I remembered another name that the press had floated on 2011 for OC, when they were still in the hiring process for HC (all defensive).  Clements, maybe Musgrave, but I remember now that Jay Gruden was being pushed.  I am hazy on Musgrave still, but I'd had it written down.  I think that's just an odd novelty, Musgrave. Gruden really kinda looks like he'll be out there again, and that would be interesting.   He has Brian Baker with him, and I'd like him back, but that staff is woefully undertalented.  I'm sure Sean McVay will grow, but he's way too young to be both OC and QBs coach, Haslett is ineffective, and most of the position coaches look more like green coaches who used to play, than guys who are all-in on all-day film on a Monday.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know.  I'm coming around to Kubiak a little, but prefer Clements. And I'm not in love with them being WCO.  I really don't even know how I feel about a head coach calling plays. 


In Topic: Gary Kubiak

22 November 2014 - 10:48 PM

Spags?  As DC?  I guess he'd be more free to go, same as Chud or other guys with that bizarre "special assistant" type role.  He's been a disaster at times, minimal tape as a full-on DC, but there's some continuity there, running the Jim Johnson stuff that McDermott does, and he's due for something good to happen.  If the theoretical new head coach was a taskmaster and involved in all phases, maybe, because Spags is a spazz (at least, via Saints players) who no one liked. 

 

But, I also see there's a lot of buzz around Spags going back to NYG too.  Seems they're not that happy with Fewell.  Giants players must already be used to dealing with a pain in the butt coach. 

 

The Chargers didn't let Carolina have Chud.  Chud didn't renew the year before, so he came free. Shula did the same thing, where as most assistants renew with a year left.  That's the only way Rivera got either guy.   Which, is a discouraging thing of reading a lot of reactions to reading a coach's former history (especially on tenured Carolina coaches a year or two in), is that most people don't seem to grasp that most coaches get fired all the time. 

 

 

Kubiak and Morhinweg would be OK because Kubiak would call it.   Still not totally sure what happened in the Andy Reid camp - which it seems to have worked out fine for KC - that Childress and MM were available but Pederson is OC, Childress is one of those 'special projects' guys and MM was set adrift.  Mornhinweg, it's hard to argue a ton of success in NYJ.   But he's had only so much to work with, so is he a guy who does well with a good WCO coach above him only? 

 

 


In Topic: Gary Kubiak

22 November 2014 - 04:12 PM

Gotta love retreads.

He should certainly be in the mix in the unlikely event Richardson hands Rivera 15 million dollars to leave Carolina.

Which is just something I can't see happening.  Might some changes come? Sure.  But that's a lot to deal with, and JR's had to hear all year about Smitty getting paid to be with someone else.

 

 

I don't know if I'd run the WCO here (that's a separate thread, but, not a good fit), but I like the McCarthy and Andy Reid flavors better at this point (i.e., more spread, more progressive, less dependent on base personnel, packaged plays, etc). 

 

I don't mind Kubiak himself.  Fired because of one rotten year. But, Gary didn't have great teams until he had Wade Phillips' defenses.  If you're banking on this defense being good, then not that big a deal, the GM will advocate to have strengths stay strong on D, but otherwise your counterpoint at DC really has to be a good hire. 

 

I also wouldn't put an amazing amount into Kubiak getting Dennison, others.  The Ravens can be more accomodating than other teams, but they'll still want to protect their own interests first, and if they want Dennison, they can block him. There aren't a ton of WCO teams turning players over, so like with any prospect, it matters who he could pull together.


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com