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 being CMC


Icege
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, frankw said:

Remember it was a rebuild until it wasn't when we paid a backup quarterback 30 million dollars for one year of service.

And we lost our best pass rusher, Luke, Cam, and Bradberry while signing a new coach with one of the youngest rosters in the league in which the owner/staff is telling us fans it’s a 6 year process. Yet here you are upset we had a losing season in year one….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

frank has inferiority issues

I'm relieved for you that you finally put that wet blanket insult on the shelf. You were beginning to repeat yourself.

14 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

And we lost our best pass rusher, Luke, Cam, and Bradberry while signing a new coach with one of the youngest rosters in the league in which the owner/staff is telling us fans it’s a 6 year process. Yet here you are upset we had a losing season in year one….

Well we didn't exactly "lose" Bradberry we never pursued bringing him back. I'm happy to have Jaycee but you could play the what if game. We also threw an entire draft at the defense in '20. Carolina still hasn't invested big enough in this offensive line though. Once again we are holding our breath hoping for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

And we lost our best pass rusher, Luke, Cam, and Bradberry while signing a new coach with one of the youngest rosters in the league in which the owner/staff is telling us fans it’s a 6 year process. Yet here you are upset we had a losing season in year one….

if it's a 6 year process and we aren't drafting a QB to groom.....we really shouldn't have CMC.   It makes him a wasted resource.  He is a win now player with a limited shelf life.  

so I would say there are mixed signals.  And it doesn't take 6 years IMO to build a winner in today's NFL.  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, frankw said:

You were beginning to repeat yourself.

Seriously?  From you?  You're a broken record about us losing and how our oline sucks.

Quote

Carolina still hasn't invested big enough in this offensive line though. Once again we are holding our breath hoping for the best.

Oh there it is again.  Being that old broken record wet blanket on the oline.

Tell, me exactly what your problem with BC is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SBBlue said:

Seriously?  From you?  You're a broken record about us losing and how our oline sucks.

Oh there it is again.  Being that old broken record wet blanket on the oline.

Tell, me exactly what your problem with BC is.

I haven't replied to you since you called me a dumbass earlier I figured you would take the hint. I have no problem with Brady C from what I've heard he sounds like a great guy. The problem is waiting while other tackles went off the board ahead of us and now we can't decide if he will even be a tackle at all or a guard. That is what concerns me. The general indecisiveness around the line. Plus we still have the matter of working out a deal with TM. All around not good circumstances for Sam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has pretty much been the consensus that our OL has been weak.   That is what Rhule came into.  I mean, we haven't really invested a lot in our OL under Rhule.  That isn't an attack on BC by saying that.   I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't of drafted him.  I guess the argument is we should have invested more in the OL than just BC to date under Rhule. 

  

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, frankw said:

I haven't replied to you since you called me a dumbass earlier I figured you would take the hint.

Read the thread.  You replied.  

Quote

I have no problem with Brady C from what I've heard he sounds like a great guy.

So why the bitching about the line?

Quote

The problem is waiting while other tackles went off the board ahead of us

That only matters if you can make the case that you know one is better than BC.  You just said you liked BC.   You must like someone else.  Who did you want instead? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CRA said:

It has pretty much been the consensus that our OL has been weak.   That is what Rhule came into.  I mean, we haven't really invested a lot in our OL under Rhule.  That isn't an attack on BC by saying that.   I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't of drafted him.  I guess the argument is we should have invested more in the OL than just BC to date under Rhule. 

  

We drafted 2 olilne man this year and brought in Moore who should have been drafted.

People like to complain about who we chose but never say who they wanted which make no sense.

"I really like that guy, but I loved all the guys taken before him."  is nonsensical, as if draft order is the only measure.

If you don't have someone that you thought we should have taken instead of BC, you're just bitching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SBBlue said:

We drafted 2 olilne man this year and brought in Moore who should have been drafted.

People like to complain about who we chose but never say who they wanted which make no sense.

"I really like that guy, but I loved all the guys taken before him."  is nonsensical, as if draft order is the only measure.

If you don't have someone that you thought we should have taken instead of BC, you're just bitching.

If we picked up a QB in the 6th round....would that really be investing in the QB position?   6th and 7th rounders aren't investments when you have glaring needs at some of the most important spots on a field.  They are late round fliers. 

and I actually liked the Cornbread pick.  But a 6th rounder is a 6th rounder.  That's not investing in your OL.  Doesn't mean you couldn't hit a lotto ticket.  But it is what it is. 

we have had 2 drafts under Rhule.  It would be easy to go redo two fantasy drafts and prioritize the OL.   My preference is QB, OL, and DL if building a team from the ground up.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CRA said:

If we picked up a QB in the 6th round....would that really be investing in the QB position?   6th and 7th rounders aren't investments when you have glaring needs.  They are late round fliers. 

and I actually liked the Cornbread pick.  But a 6th rounder is a 6th rounder.  That's not investing in your OL.  Doesn't mean you couldn't hit a lotto ticket.  But it is what it is. 

So you rate drafted players based on draft position.  ok.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SBBlue said:

Read the thread.  You replied.  

So why the bitching about the line?

That only matters if you can make the case that you know one is better than BC.  You just said you liked BC.   You must like someone else.  Who did you want instead? 

You perceive criticism and discussion as bitching but what else is there to talk about rn? O line has been and still is the biggest point of contention among fans beyond who will be our quarterback for the future. We have a young defense. We have some weapons. I wasn't thrilled with the risk of taking a tackle in the first but I feel it is a move that we need to make by next year.

Edited by frankw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, SBBlue said:

So you rate drafted players based on draft position.  ok.

 

To some extent.   Absolutely.  The professionals confirm that too. 

But feel free to go find a DE, WR or whatever your preferred position would be from the 6th or 7th round of this past draft......and explain how they are actually the better player than someone that went in round 1 or 2.   

Joe Horn was a massive investment in our DB position.   Phil Hoskins does not represent a big team investment in the DT spot.   No shade intended to big Phil.   

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

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...