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!

     

70 + 77 = legit

Zod

By Zod,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

CPF4LIFE Grand Master

CPF4LIFE

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Rookie LT's who played against less than top flight competition in college starting at LT usually = train wreck.

LT is just a position where you want to avoid starting a rookie at almost all costs.

Then why sell us on him being the future LT all the way till after the draft? They literally said they had a higher grade on him then all the other tackles but then decide immediately after the draft that might not be his best position?? 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaveThePanther2008 Grand Master

DaveThePanther2008

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Zod said:

Been watching Christensen and Brown all night. They are by far the most competent linemen on the field not named Moton. 

At some point they will have to start Moton on the left because the drop off on the right will be less significant than the improvement on the left.

Christensen may start and Brown may be the first one off the bench when someone goes down.

Our draft picks are looking solid. 

  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1of10Charnatives Mentor

1of10Charnatives

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, CPF4LIFE said:

Then why sell us on him being the future LT all the way till after the draft? They literally said they had a higher grade on him then all the other tackles but then decide immediately after the draft that might not be his best position?? 

Can't answer this as I'm not privy to nor speak for the thought process of team decision makers. Only commenting on why I wouldn't put a rookie LT in as a starter. Just because he *might* be the future LT does not mean he should be the present LT.

Given that the coaching staff has already demonstrated a high priority for versatility, they might at this early juncture be working him out at RT to find out how much positional flexibility he has. Just conjecture.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1of10Charnatives Mentor

1of10Charnatives

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Panthers8969 said:

And RT isn’t? I don’t follow. You’re now asking BC to learn a new position on top of the normal adjustment to league. Could’ve kept him on the left side and sped up his acclimation 

I agree. Not entirely sure what the team's thought process here is, but it does seem based on what we've seen that they don't intend for BC to start at either tackle position this season if possible. I think it's possible they are working him out on the right side just to find out how much positional flexibility he has, in order to know that going forward. If it turns out he sucks at RT and needs to stay on the left side to be effective, that's something they'd want to know. But I'm only guessing.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1of10Charnatives Mentor

1of10Charnatives

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

We start Jordan Gross at RT his rookie season.  Smart move.

Gross was the top rated tackle in his draft class and we took him at 8. If you're going to start a rookie tackle, the time to do it is when he's a top ten pick. Also it doesn't hurt if you don't have a franchise qb at that point that it's urgent you protect. 2003 was Jake's first year with us. We had no idea if he was any good and we were going into the season with a journeyman aging qb. The need to protect these folks was not as critical as say protecting a Cam Newton in his prime (which we didn't do) or a Sam Darnold that you're trying to evaluate for the long term.

In a perfect world you never start a rookie tackle, but my argument is that the circumstances with Gross in 03 vs now with Christiansen were/are meaningfully more favorable back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldhamA Grand Master

OldhamA

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I agree. Not entirely sure what the team's thought process here is, but it does seem based on what we've seen that they don't intend for BC to start at either tackle position this season if possible. I think it's possible they are working him out on the right side just to find out how much positional flexibility he has, in order to know that going forward. If it turns out he sucks at RT and needs to stay on the left side to be effective, that's something they'd want to know. But I'm only guessing.

I suspect what they've done, and correct me if I'm wrong, is bring in veteran competition at key positions so the rookie isn't handed the starting job. 

At the end of the day, if Christensen and Brown are good enough, they'll play soon enough. If Erving and co are as bad as many of you fear that may be sooner rather than later.

You've seen what happens when you don't have depth the last two weeks - I'm glad we brought in Elflein and Erving. Depth and competition are key. 

Right now I think Plan A is Erving at LT, Moton at RT. Plan B is Moton at LT and Christensen at RT. They don't see him as a LT in the NFL (at least not as a rookie) as they've not played him there all camp. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CPF4LIFE Grand Master

CPF4LIFE

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Can't answer this as I'm not privy to nor speak for the thought process of team decision makers. Only commenting on why I wouldn't put a rookie LT in as a starter. Just because he *might* be the future LT does not mean he should be the present LT.

Given that the coaching staff has already demonstrated a high priority for versatility, they might at this early juncture be working him out at RT to find out how much positional flexibility he has. Just conjecture.

For the record im perfectly fine if they dont think he is a LT but not a RT either/tackle at all? That was what threw me off. There is nothing wrong with wanting versatility but there is a such thing as over doing it and that is where the last staff made mistakes. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1of10Charnatives Mentor

1of10Charnatives

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, CPF4LIFE said:

For the record im perfectly fine if they dont think he is a LT but not a RT either/tackle at all? That was what threw me off. There is nothing wrong with wanting versatility but there is a such thing as over doing it and that is where the last staff made mistakes. 

Agreed. In a similar vein I have nothing against Terrace Marshall, and so far he looks very promising, but I was not a fan of taking a WR in rd 2 when there were plenty of quality tackle prospects on the board. If Christiansen works out, it paid off. If not....

  • Pie 1
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

    • tukafan21
      Well, the Niners just doomed themselves to mediocrity

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      Um, no, just no. Bills, Chiefs, Chargers, Ravens, Bengals, Texans, Eagles, Commanders are 8 teams that it's not even a debate, they aren't trading their QB for Purdy. Patriots, Broncos, Titans, Giants, Bears, Vikings, Falcons are 7 more teams with QBs drafted in the last 2 years that also would rather stick with them than trade for Purdy as they all have more upside than he does. Lions, Packers, Cowboys, Bucs are 4 more that would likely keep their QB's as well, age aside for Goff, Dak, and Baker. Panthers and Colts are two teams in the same situation, QB's who have both struggled and shown flashes to where the teams probably stick with them because they drafted them, but in a re-draft of all QB's, they probably take Purdy over the guy they currently have. Jags, Cardinals, Dolphins, are 3 more with QB's who probably have a higher upside than Purdy but come with their own question marks, so debatable if they'd take Purdy over who they already have. That leaves Jets, Raiders, Steelers, Browns, Saints, Seahawks, and Rams. Rams would take him over Stafford for the future of course, but not for 2025, and I'd think the Seahawks would take him over Darnold, but honestly not sure if they would take him over Milroe at this moment as they really like his potential and have him for 4 years really cheap. That leaves 5 teams that I see who would absolutely take him over their current situation right now, and a handful of others who MIGHT take him over their current guy, a far cry from your 20.  
    • ForJimmy
      The Bryce Trade is Finally Complete. Who Won the Trade? Panthers vs Bears

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      Agreed. Also as soon as they received the top pick in the next draft it was over. Bears won that trade. Gave up a top overall pick got one the next year plus pick 9, a couple 2nds, and DJ Moore a proven young WR. Had their 2024 pick from us be in the late teens or later it would be more debatable IMO. 
    • Loyalty4Life
      Well, the Niners just doomed themselves to mediocrity

      By Loyalty4Life · Posted

      Option A:  Pay your starting QB starting QB money. Option B:  Look for a starting QB for 4-10 years (or longer) while wasting the talent at every other position.    How many of the top 20 QB's do you think are worth what they are being paid?   When you factor in the last year of his present deal his contract is really an average of 45 million per year which in today's QB market is a very, very good deal. I wish we'd had found a Brock Purdy to pay 50+ million a year right after we parted ways with Cam.  Ya'll go ahead and live in fairy tale land where good to great (much less elite) QB's are available to pay. Just the fact that they had the chance to pay Brock after the disaster of trading up for Lance is a testament that when you find a quarter back you can win with, complete in the playoffs and superbowls with, you pay him.  
×
×
  • Create New...