AU-panther

Two different LBs asked to do different things in different defenses. Both all-time greats. If anything, Urlacher and Luke are probably more similar in what they were asked to do.

Not sure if you can really make that assumption. Corral really wasn’t asked to process in college, large part of the reason he fell in the draft. That doesn’t mean he can’t, just means he hasn’t.

sounds like excuse making for him. Fact is from clean pockets he has been one of the worst QBs in the league over his career. Also cherry picking makes it sound like that is a small sample size and in reality its not. His no pressure plays are probably greater than his pressure plays.

because his line didn't play bad every snap. You can go back and look at the plays when he did have protection.

There is actually history that shows us how he plays from a clean pocket. Panthers QB Sam Darnold's clean pocket and red zone numbers are troubling (msn.com) He is one of the worst in the league. Maybe this year will be different but this idea of using it as an excuse for him is just wrong based on past history.

Thank you People are treating this like Madden and just looking at throw power and run speed. Both players have enough physical tools to play QB in the NFL. If you want to break down the physical differences its probably something like: Sam has the better height and wight. Matt is the better runner. Sam probably has the stronger arm. Matt the quicker release. Matt is probably the more accurate overall. At the end of the day though both guys have enough tools to play QB in the NFL Biggest issue with Correll is the system he came from. Sam did pro things in college, Matt not so much. Things like looking off safeties and going through progressions. Fans need to be patient with Matt, just like everyone was saying Willis would take longer to develop than Pickett, Matt is probably closer to Willis in the regard.

There was talk that he liked Fields more than the coaches. You are making it sound like Tepper specifically said to take Sam instead of Fields because he was only interested in winning as soon as possible. Things don't' usually work that way. Owners set direction. Tepper wants to build a winning team, that is what everyone wants. Staff decides Sam + keeping pick 8 helps the team more, both in the short term and long term than picking a QB a pick 6. That isn't necessarily an impatient move, it might be a wrong move, but that doesn't mean its an impatient move. It means your football people choose wrong.

So anything more than a full tank is viewed as an overbearing owner who is impatient. lol

Impatient? If anythign he has been too patient. You could make the argument that he kept RR too long, Hurney too long, and a very good chance Rhule too long. Could we have took a super conservative approach, of course. I was one of the biggest advocates for it, I would have started Grier, never signed Teddy, never signed Sam, and had a lot more draft picks and cap space. Just because you don't do the super conservative route doesn't automatically make you impatient, there is a middle ground there. Football coaches and GMs get paid to try and win, although most of us didn't' agree with Teddy and Sam I'm guessing they thought they were good ideas. That is a sign of a desperation that is more of a sign of just bad choices. If anythign he was probably let his football people do their job to a fault.

Humbled on what? Signing Teddy? Signing Sam? I seriously doubt either of those were his ideas. My guess is his "football people" came up with those ideas, and like almost any owner he was probably heavily involved in the discussion for said QB, but I don't see him playing GM like a Snyder or Jones is often thought of. I

So Tepper is the one looking making sure that the team doesn't do anything desperate, which is so much different than the narrative that a lot of people around here want to create. Also, he seems to be part of the decision process, but at the same time he lets his people do their jobs. He seems to be more concerned in making sure the process is well thought out.

There are teams that have a draft and don't develop approach?

I actually like this pick where we picked him. He is almost the best compromise among the QB prospects. He has more "tools" than say Pickett, but then he has better accuracy metrics than some of the guys with the big arms like Howell and Willis. His biggest question mark is the fact he ran such a limited system, not only single reads but pre-determined reads. Was that because he can't do more or because the system didn't' ask him to do more? In the third round it's a low risk play that gives a coach some tools to work with.

It doesn't even have to be that direct, or even Tepper picking sides. It could be more Tepper setting a directive. Basically it could be as easy as Tepper telling both of them that we aren't overspending on a FA QB like we have in the past, and also we aren't over drafting a QB in the draft. Outside of that, you 2 figure out how to build this team the right way.

Brandon Smith is a high RAS score guy who fits the profile of what has been drafted in previous years when Rhule was supposedly more in charge. Ultimately, I think a lot of people around here are choosing to believe what they want to believe with probably none of us really knowing for sure, this year or in previous years. Everyone wants all of this to be so concrete when in reality the chances are that it is not. There is a very good chance that Fitt might have made some of the final calls on some of the players last year and Rhule some this year. Just because Rhule has "final say" doesn't mean he didn't go with any of Fitts idea this year. Likewise Fitt might be running more of the show this year but that might not stop Rhule from getting his way on a certain pick.

There is actually a third scenrio that could be in play here: Fitterer and Morgan could be running the show, not Rhule, based on direction from Tepper.

Doesn't matter at this point, but for all of the armchair GMs, did we pick the correct LT? By most accounts Ekwonu was regarded at the best run blocker, Cross the best pass blocker, and Neal was the most athletically gifted. Ekwonu seemed to be the top tackle on most boards, although I did see Cross on some, namely PFF. You could make an argument for Ekwonu based on the fact his floor might be higher in that worst case he is a great guard. You could make an argument for Cross based on the fact pass blocking is the most important aspect of tackle play in today's NFL. You could make an argument for Neal based on the shear potential. Chances are, all three of these guys won't turn out great, would you have picked a different one? Also the fact that James Campen is on our staff now does make me feel better about the pick

I would totally agree with this. I give the Ravens a lot of credit for their trade of Hollywood Brown. They basically spent a 1st round pick on him, got 3 years of production out of him, and flipped him for another 1st round pick. Worst case they take the $20M+ they save by not paying him and use that to pay a FA WR.

We picked a very highly rated prospect, at probably our second greatest area of need, that also happens to be a highly valuable position, that's never a bad thing. I also agree that you would think his floor is a very good guard, but I also thought the same about Greg Robinson in 2014 so you never know. Overall it was probably the best decision we could make. In theory could a trade down might have netted more assets long term, probably, but there is no telling what was really offered. For a front office and coaching staff that at times seems desperate it was a very sound decision.

There is very good chance though that they don't have all 3 LTs rated as top shelf. Us fans would be happy with any of the top-3 LTs, but in reality, the Panthers and most likely other teams might have a gap between OT2 and OT3. I've said for awhile that going D is a very real possibility. All the QB talk might be smokescreen, OT1 and OT2 could very easily go before we pick, we might not be crazy about OT3. Also BC might factor into this. We might start convincing ourselves that he can be a decent LT. The fact Rhule is probably trying to win now might play into this also. What helps us win more this year, going from BC at LT to OT3 or adding a stud DE?

I see both sides, I really do. You don't want to waste a pick on a guy you think has zero chance of making it but at some point a QB is almost always a riskier choice that one or more non-QBs. For those that don't want to gamble on a QB this year, did you feel the same about Cam? Also in the last 10 years how many QB would you have been ok gambling on? Luck, Lawrance... Even though we were not in position to pick one of them, they went before our pick. In the last 10 years how many QBs that were available to pick at our spot were you willing to gamble on? Very true, fans have convinced themselves they are trading a 100% of being great for a 1% chance of being great. Also people need to remember that although the LT probably does have a greater chance of being good, but even if they are they really only help your team a little bit compared to what being right on the QB does.

and how exactly did he make the impact?? Just because you made a tackle close to the line of scrimmage doesn't mean he is making a big impact if another LB would have made the same. Under your logic if he makes a tackle 2 yards past the LOS he is making more of an impact than if he making a tackle 5 yards past the LOS. That is incomplete logic. What if that tackle he makes at 2 yards past the LOS another LB would have made one yard past the LOS then its not really impressive. Then what if that tackle 5 yards past the LOS another safety would have made 6 yards past the LOS? All of a sudden the tackle further back is more impressive. You can't just look at where a tackle is made to judge a player. There is so much more that goes into it. Its all relative to how a replacement player would have produced in the same situation.

More solo tackles in year 2. More tackles for loss in year 2. Same number of sacks. Same QB hits. The numbers don't back up the idea that he was more productive year 1.

Oustside of two freak plays what else did he do so much better in his rookie season?

That is my point exactly, you are rating entire seasons off of 2 splash plays you happened to see in tv. What about the other 900 snaps? Recovering fumbles and returning them for TDS are freak plays. He might go an entire career without getting another one regardless of hat position he plays. Outside of those plays his stats were very close. If he was invisible to anyone it’s just because they were not watching.