Offensive support cast ranked 31st in the league

[UnluckyforSome]

7 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

That's the thing that everyone on here forgets. You don't know poo about me besides what I post. That means you don't know what in my life has shaped it. You have no idea of the loss mu family has suffered. You have no idea of what i have put myself through.  

You know posts on a forum, where I myself, try to be as unbiased as possible,  because that's how i was raised.  It helps that I am a life long football fan. So I had a good grasp of football long before the Panthers existed.  

Anyways, try not to judge people you don't know, based on their perspectives on a football forum.  

That's all very nice. Thanks for sharing. 

[UnluckyforSome]

39 minutes ago, Wolfcop said:

Our offensive skills positions are improved from last year overall. Having a QB who can get them the ball will make them look even better. I would say we need that true #1 next offseason, though. I’d agree with LG - as long as we see hope for the future, I’m okay with that this season. Knowing we have the right coaches and QB in place will be enough for me. 

I think this is a good way of looking at it. There are going to be some real ups and downs this season, but I want to believe that there are more ups, and the downs are brief at least. I will say, it's early, but the coaching staff has been impressive, and that's gotten everyone's hope up for some good games this year.

[mav1234]

2 hours ago, JawnyBlaze said:

I don’t think he’s going to have a career best year or anything but it’s not a leap to think that he’ll bounce back with more targets. More targets = more stats unless you think he’s going to drop all those extra targets… He’ll be better this year than he was the past year or two. 

That's probably true, but his averages last year were quite poor. A lot of that is routes and usages but I don't expect him to get say double the targets given the nature of our offense, either.

[Sgt Schultz]

Eh, preseason rankings are all speculation.  They should all carry the following disclaimers:

• They are based on the limitations of what we know
• Past performance is not an indicator of future results
• All other things being equal

Some players that are expected to be in the top echelon of their positions will not.  Some that are not expected to be will.  Some teams will develop a chemistry and prove that the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  Some talent-laden teams may implode due to no chemistry, refuting what the previous group proved.  Injuries will take out players or dash entire teams' hopes.  Some teams may magically avoid the injury bug.  It is possible some coach will implode.  Or one that is a "dead man walking" will suddenly spring to life. 

There are just too many variables to get hung up on preseason rankings.  They serve their purpose, and give us something to talk about when there is not much else to talk about.

[Jon Snow]

23 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

Eh, preseason rankings are all speculation.  They should all carry the following disclaimers:

• They are based on the limitations of what we know
• Past performance is not an indicator of future results
• All other things being equal

Some players that are expected to be in the top echelon of their positions will not.  Some that are not expected to be will.  Some teams will develop a chemistry and prove that the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  Some talent-laden teams may implode due to no chemistry, refuting what the previous group proved.  Injuries will take out players or dash entire teams' hopes.  Some teams may magically avoid the injury bug.  It is possible some coach will implode.  Or one that is a "dead man walking" will suddenly spring to life. 

There are just too many variables to get hung up on preseason rankings.  They serve their purpose, and give us something to talk about when there is not much else to talk about.

[WhoKnows]

38 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

Eh, preseason rankings are all speculation.  They should all carry the following disclaimers:

• They are based on the limitations of what we know
• Past performance is not an indicator of future results
• All other things being equal

Some players that are expected to be in the top echelon of their positions will not.  Some that are not expected to be will.  Some teams will develop a chemistry and prove that the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  Some talent-laden teams may implode due to no chemistry, refuting what the previous group proved.  Injuries will take out players or dash entire teams' hopes.  Some teams may magically avoid the injury bug.  It is possible some coach will implode.  Or one that is a "dead man walking" will suddenly spring to life. 

There are just too many variables to get hung up on preseason rankings.  They serve their purpose, and give us something to talk about when there is not much else to talk about.

Exactly, I say that every time. Rankings are almost always based on prior results. Realistic fans know we haven’t had more than 7 wins in 5 years and that we blew our chance to sneak into the playoffs last year. Our leading WR/TE had 700 yards and he had his worst year in many years. It shouldn’t be a surprise that we would rank low and it doesn’t matter if we think things will be better.

We also need to be realistic that we do in fact need improvements in our skilled positions outside of RB. Young is not Cam running wise so he does need some real help and it would be criminal if we think what we have is sufficient. Mingo surprising would be a great first step.

[pantherclaw]

Another perspective about our receiver room,  since there is no true number one, it'll be less noticeable when depth has to step up because of injury. 

[Smithers]

5 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Olsen did more in four seasons in Chicago than Hurst has in five. Quite a bit more. Hurst is on his fourth team in six years for a reason. I hope he can show in Carolina why he was a 1st round pick but as of right now? Certified bust.

Yeah, but Hurst didn’t even start his rookie year.  
 

He was a late first rounder who has contributed nicely so far in his young career.  Only a handful of tight ends put up WR type numbers.  He is def not a certifiable bust.  That’s just plain ignorant to claim.  

[Smithers]

5 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Olsen did more in four seasons in Chicago than Hurst has in five. Quite a bit more. Hurst is on his fourth team in six years for a reason. I hope he can show in Carolina why he was a 1st round pick but as of right now? Certified bust.

Not to mention that Hurst has been buried behind Uzomah, Kyle Pitts, and Mark Andrews. Despite playing backup to those guys, he still managed 1700 yards and 14 touchdowns.  He’s done exactly what every team has asked him to do.  Side note - nearly half his catches have gone for 1st downs.  Not bad for a backup.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Smithers

[LinvilleGorge]

40 minutes ago, Smithers said:

Yeah, but Hurst didn’t even start his rookie year.  
 

He was a late first rounder who has contributed nicely so far in his young career.  Only a handful of tight ends put up WR type numbers.  He is def not a certifiable bust.  That’s just plain ignorant to claim.  

4 teams in 6 years as a former 1st round pick = BUST. Sorry.

[Gerry Green]

30 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

4 teams in 6 years as a former 1st round pick = BUST. Sorry.

 

So his stats don't matter? Just the number of teams he's been on? Weird way of gauging someone's talent. But hey, this is the interwebz.

[LinvilleGorge]

10 minutes ago, Gerry Green said:

 

So his stats don't matter? Just the number of teams he's been on? Weird way of gauging someone's talent. But hey, this is the interwebz.

Sure they do. They're not good. 1718 yards and 14 TDs over 5 seasons. That's 344 yards and 2.8 TDs per season for reference. He's averaged 25 receiving yards per game played.

[poundaway]

3 hours ago, Sgt Schultz said:

Eh, preseason rankings are all speculation.  They should all carry the following disclaimers:

• They are based on the limitations of what we know
• Past performance is not an indicator of future results
• All other things being equal

Some players that are expected to be in the top echelon of their positions will not.  Some that are not expected to be will.  Some teams will develop a chemistry and prove that the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  Some talent-laden teams may implode due to no chemistry, refuting what the previous group proved.  Injuries will take out players or dash entire teams' hopes.  Some teams may magically avoid the injury bug.  It is possible some coach will implode.  Or one that is a "dead man walking" will suddenly spring to life. 

There are just too many variables to get hung up on preseason rankings.  They serve their purpose, and give us something to talk about when there is not much else to talk about.

Exactly. 

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-wide-receiver-rankings-and-tiers-2022

Thielen was ranked higher than Julio Jones, Beckham, Locket, Cooper and  DJ Moore in preseason last year, after a 700 yard season in 2021.

He had another 700 yard season last year so now he sucks I guess. 

 

[UnluckyforSome]

4 minutes ago, Gerry Green said:

 

So his stats don't matter? Just the number of teams he's been on? Weird way of gauging someone's talent. But hey, this is the interwebz.

Sure stats matter. 177 catches for 1,718 yards, a 9.7 ypc, over 5 seasons. 14 tds, nearly half (6) in 2020 with the Falcons, which was his best season with 56 catches for 571 yards. 

With those eye-popping numbers in mind, he is far more productive than Thomas or Tremble. Thomas is a waste of cap space, and Tremble is a maybe more of a H-back.