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!

     

Dalvin Cook: The ultimate Weapon


Ricky Spanish

Recommended Posts

I don't want the Panthers to select him at 8.  I like his elusiveness and ability to play out of the shotgun, read-option style stuff, but if we're selecting a RB that high in the draft, he needs to be a player that can be used any down of the game.  He isn't good enough in short yardage for me liking and his pass blocking isn't a strength either.  Pass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never will be a Panther.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/dalvin-cook?id=2557991

"SOURCES TELL US

 "Fumbles and arrests are a bad combination. He's got a lot of ability but he's got on the field problems with ball security and multiple arrests off of it. You have to decide if he will be responsible with more money and more time on his hands. If you have any doubts, just wait around for another running back because there will be plenty this year." - NFC executive"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, SOJA said:

If we run a lot of Read Option- sure. If we move away from that and get a true FB then I disagree

Everyone is dying to get a real FB but I just don't see us over hauling our entire offense to fit a RB. Even in Cam's rookie season where we had the most success running the ball it came out of single back, two TE sets and shotgun, we hardly ever used a FB in a traditional sense. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

Everyone is dying to get a real FB but I just don't see us over hauling our entire offense to fit a RB. Even in Cam's rookie season where we had the most success running the ball it came out of single back, two TE sets and shotgun, we hardly ever used a FB in a traditional sense. 

 

I don't know that we're necessarily going to "overhaul" the offense, as much as we are going to move away from the read-option. That's happening. Rivera already has said it multiple times. The thing is though, it's not an "evolution" to "fit a RB," it is about minimizing Cam's use as the primary rusher in the offense. So, in a way, it's more about Cam than it will be about a new RB. We'll arguably be getting closer to a traditional Panthers type of offense. Get ready to see more two-back sets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't know what Dalvin is like now. He is a leader in the locker room. He had trouble his freshman year, and I don't think it's enough to deter us. I don't trust Fournette, but then again I've only seen Dalvin play. He fits the offense. Also, his field vision is ridiculous. And he can catch out of the backfield (ha dude said it in the video as i typed it). But his cut, his power, his quickness for hitting the hole, we need this guy. Fournette seems more finesse. Plus we got KB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, top dawg said:

I don't know that we're necessarily going to "overhaul" the offense, as much as we are going to move away from the read-option. That's happening. Rivera already has said it multiple times. The thing is though, it's not an "evolution" to "fit a RB," it is about minimizing Cam's use as the primary rusher in the offense. So, in a way, it's more about Cam than it will be about a new RB. We'll arguably be getting closer to a traditional Panthers type of offense. Get ready to see more two-back sets.

We can move away from the read option and still run out of the shotgun. We have never used two back sets in a traditional sense since Cam has been drafted I don't expect us to start 7 years later. At the end of the day Cam feels most comfortable in the shotgun running a no huddle offense, we need a RB to help him in that sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...