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!

     

Matt Rhule on Jaycee Horn - Why he is the best fit

Zod

By Zod,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

KillaCamNewton Community Regular

KillaCamNewton

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Lemon said:

It's not about busting or not really. It's about where the talent is, and how to build a team. There's countless teams over the last decade that had everything, but the position that matters most.

Thats exactly why we picked a shutdown corner that can press. Our lack of personnel that could do that forced us into playing soft zone or huge cushions which essentially neutralized our biggest strength which is our DLine and the pass rush. Having DBs that can blanket someone an extra second allows your pass rushers to have an extra second to get to the QB. Watch some 2015 Broncos tape 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WOW!! Grand Master

WOW!!

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Lemon said:

It's not about busting or not really. It's about where the talent is, and how to build a team. There's countless teams over the last decade that had everything, but the position that matters most.

And we still might not had the "position that matter most" if we drafted who you wanted them to draft.. 

Again alot of you ppl just weren't getting the signal.. They really liked Darnold and other then Stafford, Watson, Lawrence, and Wilson they were good with him over any other QB in this draft...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lemon Newbie

Lemon

Posted
Posted
Just now, WOW!! said:

And we still might not had the "position that matter most" if we drafted who you wanted them to draft.. 

Again alot of you ppl just weren't getting the signal.. They really liked Darnold and other then Stafford, Watson, Lawrence, and Wilson they were good with him over any other QB in this draft...

I wanted either, Fields, trade down, or a tackle. A corner is just serious mismanagement. It's unlikely he lives up to the pick, statistically speaking, and even if he does he'll cost a massive amount to keep on the team. Corners are lost in free agency so often because bad teams have great corners, and still don't compete.

  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tbe Grand Master

Tbe

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, saX man said:

Darnold vs. Fields will be watched closely.  This is a big gamble but no doubt solidifies our DBs.


I really want to know why they didn’t like Fields. 

Obviously they weren’t alone, so what is his deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scott12345 Grand Master

Scott12345

Posted
Posted
Just now, Lemon said:

I wanted either, Fields, trade down, or a tackle. A corner is just serious mismanagement. It's unlikely he lives up to the pick, statistically speaking, and even if he does he'll cost a massive amount to keep on the team. Corners are lost in free agency so often because bad teams have great corners, and still don't compete.

That’s why a top CB in the draft is so valuable 

we get a 5 yr rookie contract

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WOW!! Grand Master

WOW!!

Posted
Posted
Just now, Lemon said:

I wanted either, Fields, trade down, or a tackle. A corner is just serious mismanagement. It's unlikely he lives up to the pick, statistically speaking, and even if he does he'll cost a massive amount to keep on the team. Corners are lost in free agency so often because bad teams have great corners, and still don't compete.

And again my point... just because you loved Fields doesn't mean everybody else did or more importantly this coaching staff..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
woahfraze Collaborator

woahfraze

Posted
Posted

Jesus, I can't believe people are complaining about the possibility of losing a player to free agency four or five years from now.  That's a possibility with any player regardless of position, not just CB. And it's a good problem to have.  It means you drafted a good player who produced well for you on a cheap contract for a few years.  Sure, you'd love to keep them in free agency if the price is right, but whether or not the stay has no bearing on whether it was a good draft pick.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WOW!! Grand Master

WOW!!

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Tbe said:


I really want to know why they didn’t like Fields. 

Obviously they weren’t alone, so what is his deal?

Being honest.. I'm not a big fan of Fields either. He ran a elementary offense.. His mechanic are robotic and while he is very athletic he seems stiff with no wiggle to his running style..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tbe Grand Master

Tbe

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, WOW!! said:

Being honest.. I'm not a big fan of Fields either. He ran a elementary offense.. His mechanic are robotic and while he is very athletic he seems stiff with no wiggle to his running style..


I guess we’ll see. This feels like a Watson, Mahomes, Rogers thing to me.

The guys with the most tape falls because people can over analyze them.

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lemon Newbie

Lemon

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, WOW!! said:

And we still might not had the "position that matter most" if we drafted who you wanted them to draft.. 

Again alot of you ppl just weren't getting the signal.. They really liked Darnold and other then Stafford, Watson, Lawrence, and Wilson they were good with him over any other QB in this draft...

I just don't see how they really like Sam, but aren't putting him into a position to shake his ghosts. I hope they find a LT tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Trainwreck said:

Rhule panicked when the Falcunts took Pitts.

He didn't panic he found the one guy Pitts hated to face. That would be Horn. When Atlanta picked Pitts I said we needed a big corner to compete and put Jackson in the slot. Suddenly the loss of Bradberry has been restored and with Chinn going to safety suddenly we have a potentially great secondary. An absolute necessity in this division and our Achilles heel most years.

  • Pie 4
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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...