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!

     

CMC


Calboyz13
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Regardless of your feelings on trading, the notion that Mike Davis gives you anything close to what McCaffrey does is just goofy.

If you paid attention, by seasons end our run game was by committee and Davis was running on fumes.

I don’t think anybody with a level head thinks Davis gives you anything close to CMC, but he’s a really good back. I’d rather have Watson and Davis then Teddy and CMC. 

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, La Pantera said:

I love CMC  he is an elite RB. But we had a 1k r this season and elite RB play is.FAAAR easier to replace than elite QB play is.

Mike Davis wasn’t even a 1K rushing back he had 165 carries and 642 rushing yards combined with receiving he was 1K back McCaffrey did it in both 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

Nobody is taking away from CMC. But what's easier to get, a franchise QB like Watson or a amazing RB like CMC. CMCs career likely declines at 30, Watson could play mid 30s. What Watson could bring to the franchise over his career is more than CMC. It's no hate for CMC and I think he's an amazing talent, it's just the truth of the positions. 

What makes anybody think Watson wants to come here with a busted O-line and the absence of the best weapon we’ve had in Carolina since Steve Smith? QBs salivate at the notion of handing off or passing to a guy like CMC. He makes them look that damn good. Stop with the nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It's honestly pretty interesting just seeing this pairing play out. Canales’ offenses (Seattle, Tampa) are run-first, under-center, play-action systems built around defined reads and intermediate/deep timing throws. That structure worked when he had QBs like Baker Mayfield or Russell Wilson in a system that created clear launch points and sightlines. His success has always been tied to a credible run game + play-action gravity. You can see that with the Panthers team building philosophy as well. Coker and TMac both are bigger receivers that won't get the best YAC production but thrive as possession receivers in contested scenarios. They're not the best in space and creating additional yardage in such, and would likely fair better systematically with a stronger armed QB who can create better opportunities on those boundary 1v1 matchups with stronger throws. Bryce, on the other hand, is a spread-native QB. His strengths are rhythm, spacing, quick processing, and off-script creation. Asking him to live in condensed formations with long-developing play-action concepts just hasn't been his forte. And well, his boundary throws are limited in velocity which takes a big chunk of the playbook off. And I mean a QB like Bryce can still work, it's just Dave's offensive philosophy and foundation is very much at odds with Young's physical limits and his own experience. So it's certainly still a learning experience for Dave to figure out how he can mesh his offensive philosophy with Young's strengths. He's very inexperienced with maximizing Bryce's strengths with his system. Would love to see us bring in an OC with spread experience and adaptability to implement a cohesive system with Dave to allow Bryce to thrive, as it's obvious we're sticking with him for a bit longer.   
    • Only thing I really agreed with is questioning why we didn’t take any timeouts on their last drive.  I know hindsight is 20/20, but I think it would’ve saved clock bc they were desperate to score as soon as the opportunity presented itself, but I also think it could’ve helped the defense regroup and maybe give us a better chance to stop them.
×
×
  • Create New...