Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Bradberry named highest rated corner by PFF


mc52beast

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, uncfan888 said:

So what you're saying is that most teams don't get to enjoy rookie corners playing at an elite level except for a year or two.  While we get to enjoy Bradberry being there for 3 more years on the cheap.  Sweet

He didn't play great. He played better than any other rookie.  He was not ranked in the top 15 as a cornerback. He is hardly elite. Remember we had the worse secondary in the league. What kind of mind warp are you guys in? By the end of the season he was pretty good but early on he was pretty bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Saca312 said:

Oh, I guess being top 20 as a rookie is garbage to you. Oh okay.

"Hardly Elite"

There is a huge difference between not elite and garbage. Why do posters like you try to discredit someone else's post by always misrepresenting what they said by using extreme language they never said?  You can respond to what I said without making things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

There is a huge difference between not elite and garbage. Why do posters like you try to discredit someone else's post by always misrepresenting what they said by using extreme language they never said?  You can respond to what I said without making things up.

Making things up?

41 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

He didn't play great. He played better than any other rookie.  He was not ranked in the top 15 as a cornerback. He is hardly elite. Remember we had the worse secondary in the league. What kind of mind warp are you guys in? By the end of the season he was pretty good but early on he was pretty bad.

Didn't play great means he wasn't that good or at the "solid" level yet according to most definitions and uses of such. You used negative connotation and descriptions in your proposed "analysis" of such a player, insinuating he was not "up to standards" or "good." 

Your post describes a very negative, extreme POV about a rookie who excelled and played at a high level. You stated the fact "Uh bu-bu- he's not a top 15 corner" while surrounding such a statement with harsh terminology such as "hardly elite" and "didn't play great," hence my mockery of such idiotic statements about a rookie who shut down Julio.

Considering you have not even emitted a positive vocabulary term in your analysis, one can easily conclude such vitriolic language is an attack on the credibility of such a young, upstart player. Your argument concerning my "unfair use" of extreme language is null, in the fact you provide a negative extreme interpretation of such a player.

Seriously, remedy such wrongdoing by insinuating a "positive" term in your description of Bradberry if you believe my term for "garbage" from my conclusion of such statements is in the wrong. Hard-pressed currently to find a positive from your statement aside your ending part, which was then followed by a negative connotative detail; effectively negating any positive message from such.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Saca312 said:

Making things up?

Didn't play great means he wasn't that good or at the "solid" level yet according to most definitions and uses of such. You used negative connotation and descriptions in your proposed "analysis" of such a player, insinuating he was not "up to standards" or "good." 

Your post describes a very negative, extreme POV about a rookie who excelled and played at a high level. You stated the fact "Uh bu-bu- he's not a top 15 corner" while surrounding such a statement with harsh terminology such as "hardly elite" and "didn't play great," hence my mockery of such idiotic statements about a rookie who shut down Julio.

Considering you have not even emitted a positive vocabulary term in your analysis, one can easily conclude such vitriolic language is an attack on the credibility of such a young, upstart player. Your argument concerning my "unfair use" of extreme language is null, in the fact you provide a negative extreme interpretation of such a player.

Seriously, remedy such wrongdoing by insinuating a "positive" term in your description of Bradberry if you believe my term for "garbage" from my conclusion of such statements is in the wrong. Hard-pressed currently to find a positive from your statement aside your ending part, which was then followed by a negative connotative detail; effectively negating any positive message from such.

 

 You said I said he was garbage and nowhere did I come close. I said he started off playing poorly and by the end of year played pretty well. I said that was hardly elite which in my definition means  top 5 or at least top 10. I have said elsewhere I expect him to continue to improve. The reality is that I don't blame him for struggling. I blame Gettleman for starting him day 1 instead of easing him into the lineup by bringing in a vet and working him into the secondary.

No, you can spin this anyway you want to justify your extreme characterization of my.position but you are wrong. I am positive about Bradbury's future yet realistic about how he has played up to this point. Something apparently in short supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, panthers55 said:

 You said I said he was garbage and nowhere did I come close. I said he started off playing poorly and by the end of year played pretty well. I said that was hardly elite which in my definition means  top 5 or at least top 10. I have said elsewhere I expect him to continue to improve. The reality is that I don't blame him for struggling. I blame Gettleman for starting him day 1 instead of easing him into the lineup by bringing in a vet and working him into the secondary.

No, you can spin this anyway you want to justify your extreme characterization of my.position but you are wrong. I am positive about Bradbury's future yet realistic about how he has played up to this point. Something apparently in short supply.

Thanks for clarifying. Fair assessment. He is pretty solid so far, but I agree he's not elite just yet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Hello, soccer fans [crickets, tumbleweed flies by]. The World Cup kicks off in less than 2 weeks and, well, 🇺🇸USA USA USA🇺🇸 and all. We beat Senegal 3-2 yesterday in a tune-up friendly at BoA, with Christian Pulisic finally entering the scoring column.  How will we do in the World Cup once our tournament kicks off on the 12th? Well, there are 48 teams (assuming Iran is there) and it feels like one of two thing happens: we get grouped for the first time since '98, or we make it to the Round of 16 for the third time in the last four World Cups. I tried out the lottery for an Atlanta game and struck out, so yesterday was as World Cup as I'll get for in-person ($285/ticket for like Norway vs $39/ticket for USMNT right beforehand was a layup).  The U.S. has a travel-heavy schedule in group play, playing in LA, Seattle and LA. Real road warrior mentality being built. Glad the east coast gets worse kickoff times for a NA World Cup than a Qatar World Cup.
    • Well, that's the thing. Drafting players only for their physical measurables as you are suggesting only really happened during 2024, and X unfortunately has become the poster child for that. To be clear, it's not necessarily about drafting RAS over skill, but RAS over NFL-readiness and/or a solid body of work. Lots of players show skill in college, but those skills don't necessarily translate to the NFL for a multitude of reasons. But, getting back to the main point, to be clear, I believe that our FO is still enamored with physical gifts (who wouldn't be?), but now they're letting Dr. Eric Eager's proprietary system--his "secret sauce" prioritize the players that the Panthers draft, and it seems like it weighs not only a solid body of work, relative to a college career of course, but consistent gradual improvement as evidenced by production pretty highly. 
    • Its a good article about how pathetically bad our past drafts ('23 and '24) have been. Building the team in '23 since we weren't ready yet and taking your qb in '24 made so much more sense in hindsight. Ladd McConkey over XL is pretty much a given but not sure it does as much to change Bryce's trajectory as the author suggests.  As bad as '23 and '24 drafts were, the '25 and '26 really give me hope.  
×
×
  • Create New...