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!

     

Did we get hoodwinked on Miles Sanders

TheBigKat

By TheBigKat,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

joemac Grand Master

joemac

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Wolfcop said:

Did y’all want to go intro the season with Hubbard as RB1?

No, but I’m of the opinion that Chuba coulda be a 1200 yard back if given the lions share of the load. He was pretty decent last season. 

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

trucpfan

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Jaxel said:

I think we have seen with Cam the dangers of a QB that runs 200 times a season. The QB didn't make the whole season last year, I doubt he will this year. Also, and maybe the will avoid this, but the superbowl loser many times will have a tough year the following this loss. Not every year, but a lot of times.

Very very good point even though that wouldn't be coming down, I'd say that's a injury season if something like that happens. But yea I forgot he got hurt towards the end of the season and it's more likely to happen again this season with all that wear and tear on his body. I'd say maybe something does happen to him causing them to have a average season if he misses a few games I'd say those are going to be losses. And I also agree Superbowl teams get attacked every week that's the game you want to win so yeah they will be in w dog fight each and every week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trucpfan Mentor

trucpfan

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

If we were still running McAdoo's offense, maybe.

Sanders is a way better fit for what Reich and Brown will be doing.

I'm so glad someone stated the obvious does fit matter to you guys when thinking of players. The scheme and what our coaches are trying to accomplish or is it Foreman should transform into a different type of back over the summer lol.

 

 

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

pantherclaw

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Varking said:

I wouldn’t agree with the term hoodwinked but we for sure look odd for locking in Sanders for 4 years after his first season hitting 1k yards in Philly on a team with a true #1 WR and good TE, plus good WR2 and 3 on the team, plus a good offensive line with an MVP level QB performance. 

What makes Miles Sander worth the sign? The guy we had averaged 4.5 yards per carry and Sanders is coming in at 4.9. Foreman’s averages went UP with an increased workload. Sanders averages went DOWN. 

Foreman is just a 3 million dollar commitment. He is 27. Sanders is 26. 

We have a history of spending at this position where it would make other teams scratch their heads when we paid DWill and JStew at the same time, then we got out of those and decided to pony up and pay CMC and now we locked in Sanders to a four year deal when the league is trending towards drafting RBs in rounds 2-5 and getting major production and letting them walk away after their rookie contract to go to another team. 

In my opinion, we would be better off just drafting running backs in a 2-5 every 2-3 years and rolling with them unless we get somebody “generational”. 

 

Miles Sanders had 3 100-yard games last year. He had 7 games under 50 yards of rushing last year. 

Foreman had 5 100 yard rushing games and he basically didn’t play until week 7. 

From week 7 to 17 Foreman averaged 80 rushing yards per game. Sanders averaged 75 rushing yards per game. 

Sanders averaged 75.7 during his first 10 games. He averaged 66 yards a game rushing during his second half of 10 games. 

We could have kept the guy we had, saved money, not had a RB locked in even at 6 million a year for the next four years which would have given Bryce a vet in year 1 and then we would have nothing big financially tied to a RB on a second contract and been smart. 

It isn’t a BAD signing by any means and fingers crossed he elevates his game a bit to help the young kid out at QB I can just understand where the argument comes from in relation to what other RBs got this offseason in comparison. 

Comparing stats f of a starter to one that wasn't a starter? 

 

Shakes my head. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jb2288 Grand Master

jb2288

Posted
Posted

I don’t understand this graphic. I feel like they made it trying to make the Eagles look good but in reality it looks dumb af. Why would you want 5 mediocre RBs taking up 5 roster spots? We’re gonna run into Sundays with 3 max. Sanders is better than any of those 5 by a large margin as well. 

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

pantherclaw

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, joemac said:

No, but I’m of the opinion that Chuba coulda be a 1200 yard back if given the lions share of the load. He was pretty decent last season. 

Still on the roster on a rookie contract. 

This is still the NFL. Can't have enough good running backs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Varking said:

Because their offense and defense were better in Philly. Their dline caused a lot of quick transitions back to the offensive side of the ball and their offense was filled with studs to get them to the red zone. There’s significantly more question marks here.

 

We scored 347 to their 477. Their defense got 10 takeaways more than us last year. That’s a lot more having the ball and a lot more scoring. 

And as I said Hurts rushed for 15 TDs compared to Sanders 11. That is 15 more than Bryce will run? Who gets those? No one? If we only scored 15 rushing TDs who else is going to get them? Do you think our offense won't be worlds better than last year with the carousel of QBs and changing offensive schemes mid season? If Sanders doesn't get 10 TDs as least I will be shocked. It is about how he will be used and in this run heavy offense Sanders will get the bulk of carries and rushing TDs.  He won't have to share with so many other players.

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

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, jb2288 said:

I don’t understand this graphic. I feel like they made it trying to make the Eagles look good but in reality it looks dumb af. Why would you want 5 mediocre RBs taking up 5 roster spots? We’re gonna run into Sundays with 3 max. Sanders is better than any of those 5 by a large margin as well. 

It's from an Eagles fan page.

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

    • csx
      How long do you feel it takes for a head coach to turn a team around?

      By csx · Posted

      Canales has his msjor issue not doing the obvious regarding running Dowdle but with an average QB we would be in the playoffs with an average QB. 
    • kungfoodude
      How long do you feel it takes for a head coach to turn a team around?

      By kungfoodude · Posted

      1. fug TikTak, I ain't clicking that stupid poo. 2. This is really very situationally dependent. Coaching is a huge part but sometimes you step into a scenario where a lot of building needs to happen that is largely out of your control  Recent examples(Last season's hiring cycle): 1. Ben Johnson Johnson chose the OVERWHELMINGLY best open coaching job due to a combination of solid ownership, a solid front office and the most talented roster of the open jobs from that cycle. Negatives were, insanely stacked division. Results have so far indicated that this coaching change has been a massive boost. 2. Mike Vrabel Vrabel went a different direction. He went to a franchise that has solid ownership, a mediocre front office and one of the worst roster in the NFL. However, he has a track record of NFL head coaching success AND lucked into one of the easiest schedules in NFL history(I believe 3rd easiest). Even with that caveat, a clear indicator that coaching has been a huge boost. 3. Pete Carroll Carroll chose one of the NFL's most voliate franchises. Notoriously bad ownership, very bad front office and a terrible roster. But, Carroll is a HOF caliber NFL HC with success at every stop. At the moment, coaching has not been able to overcome the apparent obstacles. In fact, it's been a complete diaster to the extent that Carroll has already fired multiple coaches. One could certainly argue that pethaps Pete has lost his touch but regardless, this coaching change didn't result in a turnaround and Carroll's future there seems in doubt. 4. Aaron Glenn Glenn's first HC opportunity was a doozy. Near worst ownership, a mediocre front office(at best) and a talented core group of players on an underwhelming roster. This experiment has been quite the ride to date. Glenn's personnel decisions have seemingly led to multiple close game losses(2-5 in games decided by one score or less) and the FO decided to have a roster firesale prior to the trade deadline for a wealth of draft capital. The question will be if Glenn will be given the time to actually see this future draft capital realized, now that a significant chunk of the talented core is not longer there. Coaching has not made a difference but is the franchise now setting him up to fail further? 5. Liam Coen Coen picked a mixed bag. Terrible ownership, a remade front office he essentially had a hand in selecting(or at the miminum influenced) and a middling roster. The early results show promise even if the roster shows significant flaws(and Coen shows visible frustration with his "franchise" QB every Sunday). Could be close to turning a 4 win team into a playoff berth. Coaching has mattered. 6. Brian Schottenheimer This was resoundingly viewed as a bad hire but it's also under challenging circumstances. Bad ownership in the sense that the ownership is also the front office, a future Tepper dream I assume. Very talented but very flawed roster. The initial results have been...interesting. A Cowboys team that was a bad 7-10 after a previous streak of three 12 win seasons is now....mediocre? Couple that with wild roster changes prior to the start of the season and up to the trade deadline and it makes for an incomplete picture. It's not much progress but it doesn’t appear to be regressing either. TBD. 6. Kellen Moore Moore chose the most challenging of all openings. The Saints are in the midst of a simulateous roster teardown and attempted rebuild. Decent ownership, a mixed bag in the front office(great at evaluating draft talent, less so in free agency and in salary cap management). The Saints have been awful but, they were expected to be awful. To that note, they were net sellers before the trade deadline. It was reported that Moore secured an agreement that this is long term building effort prior to taking the position so his status seems safe even while the team flounders week to week. Difficult to grade this now as the entire scenario seems to be a long term strategy. TBD.
    • Tr3ach
      How long do you feel it takes for a head coach to turn a team around?

      By Tr3ach · Posted

      I think he has started to build a culture here.  I think if we had a qb with no limitations we would be seeing a lot more with the offense.  I think most of the coaches that come in and instantly win went to teams that were underachieving previously based on roster talent level.  Based on our roster talent,  we werent underachieving,  we were just bad.
×
×
  • Create New...