Hurney's plan for the WR corps

[top dawg]

The Charlotte Observer's Jourdan Rodrigue had the opportunity to speak with Marty Hurney last week, and thankfully she addressed the receiver position with Hurndawg. Apparently the guy has a "blueprint" of sorts to get the group back to where it needs to be.  He does offer some decidedly pointed information,  but still doesn't say too much at the same time. 

I like the fact that he's addressing the position.  Just like anything else,  I think that there is more than one way to solve a problem,  so I am not going to second guess the GM,  but I  would hope that if we can get someone with the skill of Allen Robinson, that we would do so. 

 

Here you go:

“We want to try to add weapons around (quarterback) Cam Newton, to help him maximize all of the skills that he has,” he said in a sit-down with the Observer on Thursday at the NFL scouting combine.

It’s a task of the highest priority for Hurney, and he wants to do it the right way, adding speed and depth – but not redundancy – to the group."

Sometimes redundancy is a good thing pertaining to depth. 

 

"...No two players should have the same skill set.

"Instead, they should all complement one another, forming diverse layers that make an offense difficult for opposing defenders to unpack."

 

There is certainly something to be said for having a corps that constitutes size,  speed,  possession guys,  as well as those that can blow the top off defenses. You can't have a bunch of slow possession guys and expect to move the offense with any continual efficiently.

 

"Hurney indicated that Funchess is the baseline around which the room will be built.

'We talked a little bit about Devin Funchess moving from the ‘Z’ to the ‘X’ (No. 1 receiver) after the Kelvin Benjamin trade,' he said. 'And his skill set, what we ask that position to do, fit perfectly. So now we have the ‘Z’ position. ... You look for ideally a speed guy, a guy who can stretch the field...

'And the more you can diversify all of those skill sets in each position group and then mix them on the field, I think it really makes you stronger as a group.'

"That’s the goal: Keep the room complementary, avoiding any two starting players with identical traits, other than a good set of hands and precise route-running."

 

The last part is key.  In a perfect world,  ALL your receivers need to be able to catch the rock and need to be able route technicians.  This is where you most certainly want redundancy. 

Speed is also where redundancy is warranted,  and it certainly seems to be a capstone of  a Hurney-built corps. I don't necessarily know how realistic that it is,  and I certainly don't  think you should necessarily overlook a good receiver if he doesn't  have the requisite speed. 

Speaking of speed, the Panthers aren't going to rubberstamp Curtis Samuel or  Damiere Byrd in the slot because of their injury history.  Not to say that they aren't planning to use either one in that capacity,  but will plan to add insurance. 

It sounds like Ron Rivera is all about some insurance and leadership of a proven vet.  Although not in this article, Mike Wallace is a name that has popped up from some outside the organization. 

All in all,  I like the plan,  though like I said,  if I can obtain a guy whom I believe can be a true number 1 or upgrade at the X,  then I'm going to try and make it happen whether it's via free agency or the draft. 

http://m.wbtv.com/story/37647355/how-the-panthers-plan-to-get-receivers-who-can-maximize-cam-newtons-skills

[therealmjl]

WATKINSSSSS

period

[frash.exe]

the 2018 panthers offseason is brought to you by the word “blueprint”

[LinvilleGorge]

Sounds like Watkins. I just hope we don't see Robinson and Funchess as being redundant. They're not. Robinson is A LOT better.

[top dawg]

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

Sounds like Watkins. I just hope we don't see Robinson and Funchess as being redundant. They're not. Robinson is A LOT better.

We know...You hate Funchess. 

[LinvilleGorge]

2 minutes ago, top dawg said:

We know...You hate Funchess. 

No, I really don't. I've said over and over that he's earned his starting spot next year.

But, he's in the last year of his contract. Do we want to give him $8-10M long-term? Because that's what it's probably going to take. Would I MUCH rather have Allen Robinson at $10-12M than Funchess at $8-10M. Absolutely. Hell yes.

I'd love to see us sign Robinson, let someone else give Funchess his second contract, and draft another guy in the first three rounds to develop as a rookie to take over opposite Robinson starting in '19. Let Samuel stay in the slot.

[TheRed]

Funch is plenty adequate for what we are asking him to do considering he's what, 22 or 23 years old? He's got plenty of room to develop. But unless he takes an enormous step in 2018, he's in all likelihood a solid #2.

The issues with our offense don't even require an intricate "blueprint". It just requires common sense. Like not trying to replace proven talent with junk off the bottom of bad teams rosters like the Bucs, and overpaying for it to boot.

[yasuhara2241]

ACL injuries have become quite common in the NFL, but every player does react differently. Are we really wanting to go "all in" on Allen after his injury? 

I just find it interesting how most of the WRs that we are depending on will have injury histories. Watkins, Robinson, Byrd, Samuels...they all have huge question marks. Do we really want to take that chance and possibly have to roll with Bersin again in week 12? 

[uncfan888]

Get Watkins and draft another.. Let's do it

[MHS831]

Funchess is progressing and, considering he was once a TE, you have to give him this season to define himself. 

Having said that, we have ZERO proven or established WRs.  Funchess?  Not yet.  800 yards (50 per game) is not established.

[The Huddler]

13 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Sounds like Watkins. I just hope we don't see Robinson and Funchess as being redundant. They're not. Robinson is A LOT better.

While we differ in our opinions of Funchess, primarily in projection of potebtial and the trend  of improvement, Im 100% on the sane page as tou with Robinson

[LinvilleGorge]

8 minutes ago, TheRed said:

Funch is plenty adequate for what we are asking him to do considering he's what, 22 or 23 years old? He's got plenty of room to develop. But unless he takes an enormous step in 2018, he's in all likelihood a solid #2.

And do we want to pay $8-10M per year for that? Because that's what guys like Funchess are getting right now. I think it's crazy. I'd love for him to take another step forward this coming season and if we think that's going to happen, we should try to sign him to an extension this offseason. But, if Funchess thinks that's going to happen, he should probably refuse to sign and play this season and hit the open market. We might be willing to give him $8M per year in a contract right now but if he takes another step forward this season he can probably get $12M+ on the open market. 

[MHS831]

If Marty does not sign a GOOD wr in this free agency, we are screwed. He has a long history of trying to find WR gems in the later rounds and he is 0 fer.

[top dawg]

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

No, I really don't. I've said over and over that he's earned his starting spot next year.

But, do we want to give him $8-10M long-term? Because that's what it's probably going to take. Would I MUCH rather have Allen Robinson at $10-12M than Funchess at $8-10M. Absolutely. Hell yes.

I'd love to see us sign Robinson, let someone else give Funchess his second contract, and draft another guy in the first three rounds to develop as a rookie to take over opposite Robinson starting in '19. Let Samuel stay in the slot.

OK,  you don't hate him,  you just want to get rid of him at all costs. The narrative about him being a fringe pro and a questionable starter was upset by a decidedly good 2017, so now it's "He's not worth 8-10 mil per year."

Seriously,  LG,  if Funchess shows even more improvement the coming season and solidifies his playmaker status,  why in the world would we not want to pay him?  I mean,  we're the team that has invested in him,  and he's responded by showing marked progression, even to the point where people consider him a possible core or foundational player,  but you still want to get rid of him by any means necessary. Anybody but Funchess is worth paying and investing in,  right? Sorry, dude,  I wholeheartedly disagree.  I say he's earned another year to see if he's legit.  And,  if he's legit,  I don't see any reason why we shouldn't keep him around.  8-10 mil per year is certainly not a reason,  and it may be the very reason to keep him.  If you can keep him cheaper than that , like via an extension before the season, then you might wanna do it.