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!

     

Anderson wasn't good enough for Carolina


Jmac

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, top dawg said:

It's not a "guiding" principle. 

Teams let vets, particularly those who are basically on a one-year rental---those who aren't necessarily being used---go on their way to find greener pastures every once in awhile. This isn't a new precedent.

Smart teams let vets go because they're no longer good enough to help them win games.

Dumb teams let good depth walk because they're "unhappy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not saying anything about CMC.  

I am saying the entire CJ Anderson experience made the front office and coaching staff look foolish.

The team wasn’t “better” for only having one RB (who spent considerable time in the slot.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Smart teams let vets go because they're no longer good enough to help them win games.

Dumb teams let good depth walk because they're "unhappy".

You view things too simplistically for us to have a rational discussion. That's just what it is, so say what you want. I'm not discussing this with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, top dawg said:

People trying to act like Anderson was needed and would've made all the difference between us making the postseason obviously just want to argue about something. 

C-Mac > Anderson, it's as simple as that. Anderson really shouldn't have ever been signed.

Greg Olsen is pretty good. Let's cut Ian Thomas.

Kawann Short is a solid defensive tackle. No need to keep Kyle Love.

Curtis Samuel is playing very well at receiver. We don't really need both him and Jarius Wright.

(Examples of similar logic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, top dawg said:

You view things too simplistically for us to have a rational discussion. That's just what it is, so say what you want. I'm not discussing this with you.

if I were trying to defend the things you were, I wouldn't discuss it with me either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, top dawg said:

People trying to act like Anderson was needed and would've made all the difference between us making the postseason obviously just want to argue about something. 

C-Mac > Anderson, it's as simple as that. Anderson really shouldn't have ever been signed.

You need more than one good running back. That's common knowledge.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Anderson was unhappy with his role. It wasn't keeping 2 good happy players it was keeping one happy player and one disgruntled one. In our scheme he was redundant with CMC and Norv let him go when it was clear he didn't fit what we wanted to do.  Blame the system or blame Norv. But this is hardly unique for a player to be more productive in one system than another. And it isn't as if CMC got hurt or needed much backup. Seems just another way disgruntled huddlers are looking for a reason to rip the team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paintballr said:

I’m glad CJ is killing it just like the next person. 

But is Oakland an idiot too for not figuring him out too, or is LAs offensive line just that good 

Gruden wants a total rebuilt according to his design, hence letting good players go....Panthers just chase their tail going in circles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Ok--I have seen some sample items, and I would like to see something (if possible) measures on field intelligence--maybe how quickly you can grasp a playbook or absorb film session adjustments...Back when we had Morrison as team president and Hurney as GM, I offered to assess (as part of my research in education requirement at a University) emotional intelligence and learning styles of players to help coaches teach more effectively.  Morrison loved it and contacted me about it.  Hurney was not interested, and it fell through the cracks.  My pitch?  If only 50% of first-rounders become successful NFL players and that number drops significantly, can you tell me that you are effectively measuring talent?  Morrison thought it was a good point and wanted to do something that might improve long-term success rates--that would impact the cap management, etc.  Marty, according to Morrison, said he was not interested at this time and if so, he would want a football guy to do it.  (I told Morrison that I played in college and Hurney, a sports reporter at one time, did not. (He told me that Hurney played as a Guard in college--who knew?) Any way, about that time, Morrison left (2017) and the idea was dropped.  I reached back out a year later or so to Marty was still not interested.  A few days later, his wife accused him of assault or something, so I dropped it.
    • Pretty sure they still do the Wonderlic they just don't publicly release the scores.
    • I just thought he was under the radar--but thanks for opening our eyes to him.  I think we should have better measures for intelligence--such as reaction time, angles, etc. Legette is raw as heck, for example, and his RAS was very high.  We used to do the Wonderlic (which was not great) but to know how effectively a player makes on field decisions would be great.  
×
×
  • Create New...