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!

     

Still need more RB depth


CRA
 Share

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

This is the correct answer. @CRA just found something new to complain about. He is so far down the rabbit hole, he may never see daylight again.

Did you even read what he wrote? All CRA is saying here is that neither Form an nor Hubbard have all-around skillsets like CMC, and that we saw last year how Abdullah provided the playstyle most similar to CMC because he could do both. As such, getting someone like that who isn't one-dimensional would be ideal.

It's a valid thought if this offense shakes out like it's appearing it may do and there is no real negativity or complaining anywhere in that post. 

Edited by KSpan
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

Yuppers. Now if he had said WR, or DT, or heck even TE, or DE I might agree with needing some depth. But RB?

If CMC goes down and we play Matt Corral….we don’t have the backfield in place for him to be successful IMO.   And if we play Matt Corral and CMC is healthy it might be beneficial to give CMC a fair amount of slot WR looks.  

Specifically brought it up because it isn’t an obvious spot or conversation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CRA said:

If CMC does down and we play Matt Corral….we don’t have the backfield in place for him to be successful IMO.   And if we play Matt Corral and CMC is healthy it might be beneficial to give CMC a fair amount of slot WR looks.  

Specifically brought it up because it isn’t an obvious spot or conversation.  

 

You are seeing Ghosts where there aren't any. 

 

We have more depth there than any position other than maybe Oline, and DBs. 

 

You have this idea that there is such a thing as a "Matt Corall centric Offense". And you just know our RBs don't fit that scheme. 

 

 

Like I said. You are seeing Ghosts.

 

Maybe we can wait to see what type of Offense we run, before we call for replacement players?

Edited by iamhubby1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

You are seeing Ghosts where there aren't any. 

 

We have more depth there than any position other than maybe Oline, and DBs. 

 

You have this idea that there is such a thing as a "Matt Corall centric Offense". And you just know our RBs don't fit that scheme. 

 

 

Like I said. You are seeing Ghosts.

 

Maybe we can wait to see what type of Offense we run, before we call for replacement players?

It is a valid concern given the past 2 years the offense was centered around CMC being the #1 option and he missed most of both seasons.

I dont want to see a repeat either, maybe you are ok with rolling the dice on him staying healthy, but I hope our offense has a more varied approach this season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When your lead back hasn't played a full season in 3 years the position will never be solidified. It would not hurt to have a fallback option down the line. Everyone wants McCaffrey to play a full season but we all know we will be waiting for the inevitable possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PootieNunu said:

It is a valid concern given the past 2 years the offense was centered around CMC being the #1 option and he missed most of both seasons.

I dont want to see a repeat either, maybe you are ok with rolling the dice on him staying healthy, but I hope our offense has a more varied approach this season. 

 

We have RB depth. Injuries happen. If you want to worry about a position group hurting after an injury? Let's talk WR, or LB. Hellz Bellz that Dline is glue and tape.

 

 

 

Complaining without a solution is just bit(hing. And right now, there is no way to fix this COMPLAINT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the original post.  We need to be deeper here.  The problem is Chuba is a tail back with the worst hands, possibly in the league.   His blocking fits his size, which isn't big.  If we can't use him on passing downs and  rotate him we telegraph what we're doing, which is what happened last year with Abdullah.  They would literally leave Chuba uncovered, knowing he'd drop it.

I get he was a rookie, but if he can't catch this year, he needs to be gone.  We need that spot.

I agree we need to bring in somebody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carl Spackler said:

RBs are not a dime a dozen -- which is why the Panthers were 4-3 with CMC and 1-9 without him last year. That said, it's also about how you maximize their talents, which Rhule cannot do and refuses to do. The ones who are on the roster, presently, though, are good enough to handle the job between CMC, Foreman and Hubbard.

When people say that I think they are referring to average capable RBs.  We signed a midseason FA RB in Abdullah who did quite well.  RBs like CMC, Kamara, Cook etc are in a different class, if they can stay healthy they are game changers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carl Spackler said:

RBs are not a dime a dozen -- which is why the Panthers were 4-3 with CMC and 1-9 without him last year.

It has to do with the differential with your backup RB.  Rhule's and/or  Brady's mistake was thinking Chuba and CMC were interchangeable.  They weren't.  When CMC went down in 2020, we won our first game with Mike Davis.  There is a drop off from CMC to Davis but there is a cliff of cosmic proportions from CMC to Chuba.  We stopped targeting Chuba all together as the season dragged on. 

How was that O going to function without a reliable check down target?  It wasn't and it didn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

That's literally all you do: complain about posters' complaints. I'm not sure what satisfaction you derive from  being so self-righteous all the time.

 

I'm not sure taking someone's words out of context is the best way to start a discussion.

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...