Moton LT of 2019? Not so fast...

[MHS831]

27 minutes ago, stbugs said:

This thread is a disaster. We have @MHS831 continuing to say that Moton was a better guard in college with 0 proof and nothing beyond his assertion. I’ve given concrete examples (5 of 6 years at tackle, top 10ish NFL tackle ranking, more accolades at RT in college) and got 0 proof other than when Kalil and Williams were healthy that Moton was in running for LG for a coach who has been proven not to supplant vets without injury.

Then we have @Mr. Scot saying that Rivera said Moton wasn’t a LT and he hasn’t found anything for that “report” and this same coach had Moton playing LT until Williams got hurt week 1.

Moton can and has played LT well in the pros. There is nothing saying he can’t and that we feel he can’t and there is nothing saying he’s a better guard. 

And there is this:

"Name: Taylor Moton

School: Western Michigan

Position fit: Could play tackle at the next level, but his best fit is likely at guard."

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/draft-pff-scouting-report-taylor-moton-g-western-michigan

And there is evidence to suggest that Moton was not able to beat out Williams or Kalil, which is why I suggested that he play LG--and that is when the experts-like you--came in to share your logic on how he is a LT--

Remember this?

"Panthers coach Ron Rivera confirmed 2017 second-round OL Taylor Moton will get a shot at left guard.

Moton was expected to compete for the right tackle job last offseason, but Daryl Williams easily beat him out on his way to a breakout campaign. Now the sophomore will get a shot to replace Andrew Norwell at left guard. The Panthers also could look for help in the draft."

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/12241/taylor-moton

How much more do you need?  Do you think Matsko would not have insisted he play LT if he was indeed a quality LT?  He was not even our best RT. 

Don't call people out for not rubbing your nose in very available supporting facts one google away.  What i said was easily verifiable, but you were not interested in anything other than being "right."  Right, to you, is insisting that he is not a Guard and that he is a left tackle.  He played well at RT, but if he was a LT, they would not have signed Clark.  There is nothing that suggests Moton will be our LT except your cherry-picked stats and misinformed logic.

Moton played 1 season at G as a freshman and was moved to T out of necessity--so he should have had more T accolades when players earn them--as juniors and seniors.  But you present that as something that proves your point?  A smallish school T is not an NFL G? 

[Raleigh PF]

27 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Yes he did play left tackle in the preseason. And after watching him play it and play it very well, the team went out and signed Chris Clark.

Having watched how Chris Clark played at left tackle this year, I wouldn't call that a vote of confidence.

Heck, even when Clark got injured, Rivera thought it was better to trot Marshall Newhouse out there than to switch Moton.

I may not remember who said it, but the fact that even when they were down to their third choice they still didn't move Moton over says a lot.

Will they move him next year? Lord I hope so. Guess we'll see.

Maybe I mis-remember

I thought Moton was being tried at LG during pre-season, but with Rivera attached to Silatolu, Moton was destined for the bench. Then Williams was injured in pre-season and Moton was installed there.

Kalil then went down and the Panthers moved Moton to LT.

When the Panthers signed Clark (after Williams went down a second time), Moton was moved to RT, because Clark was more comfortable on the left side. After that, it made no sense to keep switching around the line and Moton all over the place, especially after they started to click.

But again, I could be mis-remembering.

[MHS831]

 BOTTOM LINE:  IF MOTON WAS A LT and A RT, HE WOULD HAVE PLAYED LT.  That is how it works.  LT is a priority position and we would not have signed Clark if Moton could play LT.  Do you need sources for that too?

[Raleigh PF]

5 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

 BOTTOM LINE:  IF MOTON WAS A LT and A RT, HE WOULD HAVE PLAYED LT.  That is how it works.  LT is a priority position and we would not have signed Clark if Moton could play LT.  Do you need sources for that too?

That's incorrect. Clark was signed because the Panthers were down not one, but TWO starting tackles. When Clark was signed, the decision was made to install him on the left side, because he was more comfortable there.

[Mr. Scot]

28 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Wait, that’s your “report”? Also, weren’t we lauding Clark in the first half? We’re there other better RTs out there? We tried Robinson too.

Stop trying to use your opinion as a “vote of confidence” or Rivera stating something.

Please tell me that you watched him play LT because he played it extremely well. Moton isn’t responsible for who Hurney signed and whether they were better at LT and it’s not his fault he can play both spots well. Newhouse didn’t play until the end of the year after Moton had played 13-14 straight weeks at RT. It’s stupid, yes stupid to move him at that point.

You don’t remember who said it because it’s the people in your mind saying it. We kept Norwell at LG all year in 2016 with all the injuries because we had to keep just a sliver of continuity. He was still our best OL and he never moved because moving multiple positions in one week makes no sense at all.

The fact that you still choose to ignore is that Moton did play LT and play it well for 3+ preseason and regular season games and only went to RT when Williams got hurt and there was a ton of discussion here about Clark including references to Texans boards about how he was much better on the left. Ugh. 

Uh, no. It's not "voices in my head". as mentioned, I'm pretty sure it was a local source, but a basic Google search didn't turn it up.I suppose I could probably find it if I looked really hard for it, but I don't really care about winning an internet argument enough to do that.

Yes, I watched Clark play. He's terrible. Half the time he can barely even get out of his stance without being off balance. If not for the fact that Newton was getting the ball out a lot quicker this season, I feel pretty certain he'd have gotten Cam killed. Newhouse? Better technique, better balance, equally lacking in talent.

So again, the team chose to put terrible players at left tackle rather than moving a superior player. Right-to-left moves happened plenty. On several teams, the right tackle is basically the backup left tackle.

Sheesh 

[MHS831]

23 minutes ago, Raleigh PF said:

That's incorrect. Clark was signed because the Panthers were down not one, but TWO starting tackles. When Clark was signed, the decision was made to install him on the left side, because he was more comfortable there.

So you are telling everyone that you put the worst T on the left side--the blind side--and you play some scrub there so he can be comfortable, while 3 QBs go to IR?

That may be what they said, but if you believe all you hear, believe this--you play the best LT on your roster at LT.  Period.  You do not risk your $25m investment to make some journeyman T comfortable---or you signed the wrong T in free agency.  That simply is not how it is done.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Who would we have put on the right? Cam Jordan beat Williams up in the playoff and Von Miller beat Remmers. TJ Watt came from the right to spear Cam. Mario has the most sacks on our team the past few years and plays on the left side.

We picked up a guy who was better on the left. There was a ton of discussion about it. Has nothing to do with Moton and has everything to do with who was available. I don’t believe your report because we saw Moton play very well at LT and then very well at RT. Simple as that.

Probably Newhouse. He's played both sides.

No, he's not very good either, but at least then his not protecting Newton's blind side.

[MHS831]

56 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Lol. That’s the damn pre-draft stuff I referenced. Oh, that makes it invalid  I also know you know

Guess what, he was ranked as a top 10 tackle this year so PFF was wrong. We all know PFF was not ranking Moton as a LT--there is a difference.  And we all know that Matsko is wrong and PFF knows best.  They say that about a ton of tackles every year. In the NFL he’s likely to be a guard <> your statement that he’s a better guard You asked for sources (NFL Scouts) who said the same thing--but PFF!!.  I said that pertaining to his play at W Mich.   It means they don’t know if he can make the transition from tackle in college to tackle in the pros. He did.  But my comment was relating to the fact that Williams could return to RT and they show no confidence in his ability to play LT--or he would be there--still, twist it so you understand it.

Do you think Matsko insisted that Norwell was better than Silatolu? Great point!  Yes, I do.  Silatolu was a second rounder, a veteran, and Norwell was terrible in blocking drills--nearly got cut.  When he was placed in the game, Norwell never looked back.  When did Norwell play? When Silatolu got hurt.  When did Moton play? (When Williams got hurt, but you say he is better than Williams).

I can’t get how you cannot understand that Moton has been a great good tackle (never said he was not a good RIGHT Tackle), better even than Williams (but not good enough to win the job over Williams--this is how you embed an opinion as fact and move on to your twisted points)  because he’s been able to play LT and RT (Last time I checked, you could only play one at a time and he competed for both and did not get the job at either). You still think he actually couldn’t beat out Kalil? I think he didn't beat out Kalil.  I also think he could not beat out Clark or Newhouse at LT, or he would have been there.   Your blind side protection is critical, and you do not put some scrub at LT to protect $25m QBs if you have a better option on the roster.  THAT IS WHAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND.  Please tell me you don’t think that because that’s your proof that he’s a guard. Lol. Never said he was a Guard--reading comprehension is a valuable tool.   If you lack the ability to understand the insinuation of the thread, move on.

Pre draft stuff is where you will find an analysis of college performance.

I never said Moton is a guard--I said they did not play him at LT when they had the opportunities and if Williams comes back, he could go to LG because he was a better G in college than a T--that is when you said, "Where are your sources, LOL" and that is when I provided you with a few sources--Now you are shifting again.

See bold responses to your many misstatements above---then I am through dealing with your displays of football 101 ignorance. 

[panthers55]

Moton can play guard or tackle equally well. The offensive line is about working together and chemistry. You are only as good as your weakest link. Moton can play anywhere we need him so the issue is not where would he be the best but where can he make the biggest contribution to make the line the best. If we sign Williams to man the right, then Moton may go.left tackle or guard depending on what we do with Kalil and the draft. If we need him to anchor the right again then we are looking for a left tackle 

[MHS831]

53 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Lol. Chill man. He did play LT. Everyone is telling you that and if Williams doesn’t get hurt, Moton is our LT all season.

Did you miss Moton play LT for us in preseason (especially week 3 against NE) and Dallas? He played extremely well and we all talked about how great he had been. You are spewing BS that he couldn’t play LT. It’s completely untrue.

Explanation please:  If we signed Clark, who is a LT when Williams went down, is it possible that we wanted to move Moton out of LT?  Moton was a backup to both spots, and he served as a LT for short time.

They would not have signed a guy who is "more comfortable" on the left side if they were seeking a replacement for Williams and Moton was the locked in LT.  Not logical.

In the Saints game, there was an opportunity to get Moton some work at LT if he indeed was to be the LT of the future.  And Clark, who was more comfortable on the left side was benched a week or two before by Newhouse, who plays both sides.  Why not move your stellar LT back to his future position for the next 10 years then? 

Because they are not confident in Moton as a LT, for whatever reason.

Better logic is to assume that they were playing Moton there because they think Williams is done or they do not want a second contract with so many uncertainties. But to assume he is the double secret LT of 2019 is a bigger stretch than the possibility he could be moved to G if Willams returns.  

And yes, I think he could do better than Kalil, but I think they invested in Kalil and are going to play him at LT--as long as Williams and Kalil are here, do you bench Moton or put him in as LG over Van Roten?  That was all I was saying.  Moton has had many  opportunities to win the LT job and has not.  Why would anyone assume he will next year, after both starting Tackles are injured and he still does not get the gig?

 

[MHS831]

14 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Moton can play guard or tackle equally well. The offensive line is about working together and chemistry. You are only as good as your weakest link. Moton can play anywhere we need him so the issue is not where would he be the best but where can he make the biggest contribution to make the line the best. If we sign Williams to man the right, then Moton may go.left tackle or guard depending on what we do with Kalil and the draft. If we need him to anchor the right again then we are looking for a left tackle 

That is essentially what I was saying---Moton will play G opposed to riding the pine.  Moton had chances to win both the RT job and the LT job and was not given the nod.  If he winds up as the LG, we are better for it. He even mentioned center at one point last summer  and that job will be open--who knows?. (Now they are going to attack me for suggesting that he is the next Center...Lol)

[MHS831]

12 hours ago, Woodie said:

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that there was nobody available that we could have brought in that was any better?  HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?  NEWHOUSE?  And you know better than to think they could have easily made a trade with another team.  Teams do not trade away key OL backups mid-season. THEY DO, AND ALL PS PLAYERS ARE ALWAYS AVAILABLE.

Bottom line is you're arguing the wrong argument.  Everyone here is going by what we actually had to work with, not some fantasy idea that we could have easily just pulled some competent, starter level RT out of our ass.  THEN WHAT DO GM's get PAID TO DO?  YOU ARE ASSUMING CLARK WAS OUR ONLY OPTION--DID YOU KNOW NEWHOUSE--WHO CAN PLAY BOTH SIDES--WAS AVAILABLE WHEN WE SIGNED CLARK?  SO HOW DO YOU SAY, "THERE WAS NOBODY ELSE.."  THAT WAS NOT FANTASY--HE IS A REAL PERSON.  YOU REALIZE, AS WELL, THAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING PULLING A RT "OUT OF OUR ASS" IS HARDER THAN PULLING A LT "OUT OF OUR ASS", RIGHT.  WHEN HAS THAT EVER BEEN THE CASE?

If you look at this objectively, you would get it, but I think you're too locked into an unrealistic scenario based on what you want.  So you keep arguing this flawed argument.  OBJECTIVELY OR FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW?  THERE ARE ALWAYS FREE AGENTS AVAILABLE--IT IS NOT LIKE WHAT WE SIGNED WERE HARD TO REPLACE. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE SEVERAL DOZEN OTs ON PRACTICE SQUADS--THIS IS NOT FANTASY--IT IS CALLED "GM'S DOING THEIR HOMEWORK AND KNOWING WHAT IS OUT THERE THAT FITS YOUR NEEDS"  UNLESS CLARK WAS THE BEST LT THAT FIT OUR NEEDS---AND THAT WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THEY DID NOT SIGN A LT TO REPLACE WILLIAMS ACCIDENTALLY--MEANING THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE MOTON AT LT--WHICH IS THE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT--AND THAT IS NOT FANTASY--WHERE DID YOU EVER GET THE IDEA THAT THERE WERE NO OPTIONS WHEN WE SIGNED CLARK?  LUCAS, BRADY, D. WILLIAMS, GIACAMINI, WETZEL, NEWHOUSE-- ARE A FEW--AND THERE WERE 30 OTs ON PRACTICE SQUADS WHEN WE SIGNED CLARK. 

Asked and answered.

[MHS831]

12 hours ago, Woodie said:

Now you're just being hateful and emotional.

Your job is not to analyze me. 

Here is what you all do not understand.  You put your best people in the most important positions--so do not pretend for one minute that I do not not understand what I am talking about--your position (those on that side) do not know what they do not know.  I do not have to know what the Panthers are planning--I simply need to know football common sense.  Here is an expert who ranks the positions--which is why you do not take the player out of the third most important position and put him somewhere else, exposing your QB's blind side to a scrub.  No need to sit in on a personnel meeting for this.  If you or any of your ilk can explain how moving a future LT to RT makes sense--please explain it clearly and precisely.

3) Left tackle

 

Keeping the all-important quarterback protected is obviously a top priority. Thus, the second-most crucial offensive position is left tackle, due to the presence of dangerous pass rushers on the QB's blind side.  (YOU DO NOT MOVE YOUR LT TO ANOTHER POSITION IF HE CAN GET THE JOB DONE--INCLUDING RT)

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000503855/article/ranking-each-positions-importance-from-quarterback-to-returner

[MHS831]

1 hour ago, Raleigh PF said:

That's incorrect. Clark was signed because the Panthers were down not one, but TWO starting tackles. When Clark was signed, the decision was made to install him on the left side, because he was more comfortable there.

You are suggesting that the Panthers put a  free agent unsigned scrub in the second most important position on the offense because he protects your QB more than any other player--and move the player who is slated to play LT for the next 10 years out of that important position because the unsigned scrub felt more comfortable on the left side?  Is that what you are telling us?  (I know that RR said it in an interview--but you don't really believe it, do you?)  In reality, Ron did not want to embarrass Moton by moving him out of the prestigious and important LT spot back to the RT.

Even after we lost 3 QBs to injury, do you really believe this story?  You are explaining why an NFL team put a $25m QB at risk was due to the fact that the guy the GM signed (before Newhouse) wanted to play LT over a good LT, so they moved the good LT to a lesser position?  Is that your perspective, and you want to challenge another perspective based on that excuse? 

This explains it. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000503855/article/ranking-each-positions-importance-from-quarterback-to-returner

It is much more realistic to think that they did not have a LT on the roster so they signed a journeyman LT.  Decided to go with a shorter passing game to protect Cam, keeping Moton on the right side to have a better run game (behind Moton/Turner).