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!

     

Every second round pick in Panthers history


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, XClown1986 said:

Honestly, from 2013 forward? Not bad. And depending on the continued growth of Gross Matos and Chinn, pretty damn good.

Not to mention Muhammad, Jenkins, Rucker, Minter, Grant, and even Marshall (he was a solid nickel).

There's a trend in what you're seeing here.

1 minute ago, mav1234 said:

That's actually better than my impression of our success rate in the 2nd round...

That stretch from 2003 to 2013... Good god.

Ditto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DeShaun Foster is kind of a dilemma for me.

I'd certainly never say he was a bad pick. He had some really good years with us and I think if we'd have relied more on him than Stephen Davis in the Super Bowl, we might have won it.

But he was picked ahead of Clinton Portis, primarily because the son of one of his college coaches was on our staff at the time if I recall correctly.

Was that the right choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

DeShaun Foster is kind of a dilemma for me.

I'd certainly never say he was a bad pick. He had some really good years with us and I think if we'd have relied more on him than Stephen Davis in the Super Bowl, we might have won it.

But he was picked ahead of Clinton Portis, primarily because the son of one of his college coaches was on our staff at the time if I recall correctly.

Was that the right choice?

The big knock on Foster out of college was he fumbled alot.  He never really did that much in the NFL.  But he was never really that good of a back where you could just lean on him for 20 - 25 carries a game either so maybe if he would have gotten the ball more he would have.  He was really a stretch zone runner and he went to a power gap scheme team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

DeShaun Foster is kind of a dilemma for me.

I'd certainly never say he was a bad pick. He had some really good years with us and I think if we'd have relied more on him than Stephen Davis in the Super Bowl, we might have won it.

But he was picked ahead of Clinton Portis, primarily because the son of one of his college coaches was on our staff at the time if I recall correctly.

Was that the right choice?

Ehh you can split hairs about every player that way. Behind every player on that list I’m sure there was another player we could have drafted that was better than they were. He was a good rb for us and it was a good pick imo. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly looks okay from a wide perspective. Kinda surprised, actually. Would be interesting to compare with another team.

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

DeShaun Foster is kind of a dilemma for me.

I'd certainly never say he was a bad pick. He had some really good years with us and I think if we'd have relied more on him than Stephen Davis in the Super Bowl, we might have won it.

But he was picked ahead of Clinton Portis, primarily because the son of one of his college coaches was on our staff at the time if I recall correctly.

Was that the right choice?

Had problems staying healthy and could not hang onto the football at all. It was the right choice at the time since he complimented Stephen Davis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CashNewton22 said:

Ehh you can split hairs about every player that way. Behind every player on that list I’m sure there was another player we could have drafted that was better than they were. He was a good rb for us and it was a good pick imo. 

For a lot of the early years, it seemed like anytime we had a choice between two players, we picked the wrong one.

The best examples of that of course are taking Kerry Collins over Steve McNair and Tshimanga Biakabutuka over Eddie George.

Edited by Mr. Scot
  • Pie 2
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

    • 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
    • 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.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...