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!

     

Person looks at Mayfield, Rhule and "revisionist history"

Mr. Scot

By Mr. Scot,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, BrianS said:

Baker wasn't good here.  In fact, he was at his all time worst.  He has to own that.

Rhule did not put Baker into an offense tailored to his skill set.  He - along with his "rockstar" OC - has to own that.

Our offense has been historically awful since the start of the Rhule era.  Is it QB?  Is it coach?  I'd say it was both.  Trying to place full blame on either is pointless.

reality is...

Sam Darnold's worst season of a bad career was in Carolina

Baker Mayfield's worst season of a disappointing career was in Carolina

I mean, we like to blame them for sucking.  And they do.  But we made them extra horrible IMO

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mav1234 Grand Master

mav1234

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CRA said:

well in theory it shouldn't happen only because of that..... 

I'd equate it to dating someone.  They get drunk, take off their clothes and start dancing on the table at Applebees.  You probably shouldn't keep dating them.   And you shouldn't date them because that one moment.....was a red flag and foreshadowing of what will come later.  

Everyone is going to make mistakes.  Especially in the lotto that is acquiring people to play football.  That move by our GM just seems to be something different and a giant red flag.  That's not smart business and not your run of the mill error IMO. 

Ill be honest. The Darnold contract, while frustrating, was not nearly as bad as some act in the greater scheme of things. Yes it was overpaying given how it turned out, but we weren't going to use that extra money this year if he didn't work out to suddenly barrel into the playoffs.  I think Fitt knew Rhule was getting a third year, and knew Rhules future basically hinged on this QB working out. If not, he was a bridge for the future one way or another. Which he's turning into now, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JARROD Contributor

JARROD

Posted
Posted

You rotate that many quarterbacks and all that would have happpened is a “bust” at drafting a quarterback. Matt Jones would have looked like David Carr or Pickles.

too much is put on the right player but it’s the right coach and system plugging players in and adjusting them to what they do.

Rhule was a turd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted
26 minutes ago, CRA said:

well in theory it shouldn't happen only because of that..... 

I'd equate it to dating someone.  They get drunk, take off their clothes and start dancing on the table at Applebees.  You probably shouldn't keep dating them.   And you shouldn't date them because that one moment.....was a red flag and foreshadowing of what will come later.  

Everyone is going to make mistakes.  Especially in the lotto that is acquiring people to play football.  That move by our GM just seems to be something different and a giant red flag.  That's not smart business and not your run of the mill error IMO. 

That particular illustration would work a lot better with Scot McCloughan than Scott Fitterer.

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

Toomers

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

Ill be honest. The Darnold contract, while frustrating, was not nearly as bad as some act in the greater scheme of things. Yes it was overpaying given how it turned out, but we weren't going to use that extra money this year if he didn't work out to suddenly barrel into the playoffs.  I think Fitt knew Rhule was getting a third year, and knew Rhules future basically hinged on this QB working out. If not, he was a bridge for the future one way or another. Which he's turning into now, lol.

Then you roll it over. It’s gone for a backup QB,at best. There’s no “it’s not that bad” about handing out 19M that you get almost nothing for. 
 

And they picked up the option before Rhule’s 2nd season. His job wasn’t at risk then at all. 

Edited by Toomers
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mav1234 Grand Master

mav1234

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Toomers said:

Then you roll it over. It’s gone for a backup QB,at best. There’s no “it’s not that bad” about handing out 19M that you get almost nothing for. 
 

And they picked up the option before Rhule’s 2nd season. His job wasn’t at risk then at all. 

His job wasn't at risk but if the Darnold trade didn't work out it seemed likely it would be IMO.

I don't think it was a good move but I also don't think it was fireable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaxel Veteran

Jaxel

Posted
Posted

The winner if all of this (if there has to be one) is Sam Darnold, who gets 5 more games to showcase what he can do what many now consider a great offensive line. A lot of people wanted to see this, I don't necessarily think it affects the Panthers plans at QB in the draft, but at least it makes things somewhat interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mav1234 Grand Master

mav1234

Posted
Posted

I also understand the logic that if Darnold played well but they weren't willing to commit to him very long term, then at least you could evaluate him for another year. They clearly had a lot of confidence in him, which is a consistent and stupid theme of this staff.

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

    • ForJimmy
      Media touting tonight as The Shedaur Show

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      I think he did a solid job.  Honestly I liked his post game interview the best.  He gave himself a C and said he left a lot out on the field.  That kind of attitude can carry him far.
    • kungfoodude
      Coach asked about Coker!!

      By kungfoodude · Posted

      This is lacking a fairly considerable amount of context. For one, Adams(age 22) started 12 of 16 games, had 38 rec, 446 yds and 3 TD's on 66 targets(18 less, with 2 less games started). The main thing missing here is that the top two WR's for Green Bay that year combined for about 2800 yds and 25 TD's. Now if you want to throw a more accurate dart at Adams, take a look at year two. This year the production was spread around considerably and Adams didn't stand out from that pack(pun not intended).  So, if XL struggles mightily this season, I would probably keep that comparison in your quiver to counter argue. I would suggest that I don't think that scenario is probably very accurate for most HOF caliber WR's taken in the first round over the past 15 or so years. Adams was the 89th pick overall, as well. A little different hill to climb than XL, although not massively.
    • CRA
      Monday practice tweets

      By CRA · Posted

      to clarify I am not referring to Will Levis.  Not knowingly.   I just made that up and tried to use a reasonable guesstimate of what else was done.  That sounded in the ballpark.  At one time I did look it all up and there were several teams that had much more successful days downfield.   If that happened to be Levis' actual numbers than it's more of a lucky coincidence.  If memory serves, it wasn't just Will Levis that brought the claim into question, it was SEVERAL teams had better days.  and you are missing my entire point of the subjective nature of it all.  If PFF employee Doug watched Bryce's film and then used his same unique subjective vantage point to grade all 31 other starting QBs.  Then dumped into into a spread sheet, it would a subjective Doug take but at least it would be a level uniform subjectivity.   The grades are done by various people.  All watching and applying their own subjective view to a play.  Everyone isn't going to grade incompletions out the same.  Or completions.   So when you dump it all into a spread sheet and hit sort.....it's not actually a statement of fact as portrayed.  Which is why you sometimes get some head scratching stuff.  I'm not reframing anything.   I don't think.  I just wasn't going to look it all back up so I was talking vaguely off the general issue I have with PFF and treating any random claim they make as the truth. 
×
×
  • Create New...