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

3 minutes ago, panthers34 said:

Yeah because Gurley and his 8 yards a carry really struggled tonight. 

And yes to answer your question I have less of a leash for a vet on a one year deal then I do for a rookie on a 4 year deal. CJ was a late signing with us this year since no other teams were all that interested and when we cut him again no other teams were that interested for a couple weeks... quit acting like Ron is blind for not seeing this coming and every other coach did 

like I said, a lot of backs can look great in short stretches of games. Anderson is good but far from a premier back.

Again, Anderson was a thousand yard rusher last season.

Gurley wasn't in the last few games of the season at all. Anderson still racked up over a hundred and fifty yards in each one.

During Cam Newton's rookie season, Greg Olsen criticized him for a decision he made. Newton responded by saying "fug you".

So tell me, which one of them should we have cut?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I really just read an argument in Rivera's favor to cut CJ was "because we have holes everywhere else"? So apparently kids, if your football team has too many holes, you might as well cut every other exceptional player you have. Sounds legit. Jesus Christ, the huddle is full of morons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

If he's unhappy, you can either respond and listen to what he has to say or you can tell him to sit down and shut up. That's part of being a head coach.

Cutting a good player and hurting our depth is a stupid move. You hurt your own team and reward him by doing so.

Rivera's own statements since the transaction show just how idiotic it was.

 

So why did we cut Steve Smith? You praised the move because he was a locker room distraction.

Another scot contradiction. The fool should not be taken seriously by anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

If he's unhappy, you can either respond and listen to what he has to say or you can tell him to sit down and shut up. That's part of being a head coach.

Cutting a good player and hurting our depth is a stupid move. You hurt your own team and reward him by doing so.

Rivera's own statements since the transaction show just how idiotic it was.

 

You're still pissed.  I get it, it was a shitty season and a guy we cut is going to the conference championship.

 

Im confident that somewhere between here and July you'll find some perspective. 

Please understand I value your opinion and hope you continue to post here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Gurley wasn't in the last few games of the season at all. Anderson still racked up over a hundred and fifty yards in each one.

During Cam Newton's rookie season, Greg Olsen criticized him for a decision he made. Newton responded by saying "fug you".

So tell me, which one of them should we have cut?

So I tell you Gurley also ran well tonight to show you that Anderson isn’t the only one to show that maybe the oline has something to do with the running success and you respond by telling me that Gurley didn’t play the last two games of the season... 

Then you deflect every thing I said by saying maybe Cam should have been cut? Yikes that went south fast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Car123 said:

So why did we cut Steve Smith? You praised the move because he was a locker room distraction.

Another scot contradiction. The fool should not be taken seriously by anybody.

Smith was actually cut because they felt like he was hurting the development of Cam Newton.

We were in the Super Bowl a year later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Again, Anderson was a thousand yard rusher last season.

Gurley wasn't in the last few games of the season at all. Anderson still racked up over a hundred and fifty yards in each one.

During Cam Newton's rookie season, Greg Olsen criticized him for a decision he made. Newton responded by saying "fug you".

So tell me, which one of them should we have cut?

We should have kept CJ and played him more.  Obviously, but we have the most conservative lazy coaching staff and they weren’t interested in changing or listening to reason.  IMO we need to find a better backup as soon as we get a new coaching staff.  These guys are definitely going to ride CMC and Cam into the ground.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, panthers34 said:

So I tell you Gurley also ran well tonight to show you that Anderson isn’t the only one to show that maybe the oline has something to do with the running success and you respond by telling me that Gurley didn’t play the last two games of the season... 

Then you deflect every thing I said by saying maybe Cam should have been cut? Yikes that went south fast

I pointed it out because the only rationales that I've seen for cutting Anderson are people suggesting he was a locker room problem. There's actually no evidence to support this.

We cut a guy who could have helped us. There's no justifying that. It was a dumbass move made by dumbass decision makers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Smith was actually cut because they felt like he was hurting the development of Cam Newton.

We were in the Super Bowl a year later.

Hmmm why did they believe he was hurting Cam's development? :thinking:

Some people here believe Smith punched Cam...

Nope not a distraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to compete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...