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!

     

A deep threat isn't a magic bullet


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

There's a lot of pining right now for a deep threat receiver, mixed in with hope that DJ Chark can maybe be that guy.

I don't have any argument with either take, but there's another element that also needs to be understood.

The mere presence of such a player isn't going to be enough to make defensive units pull back. Defenses are going to continue to challenge the Panthers until Bryce Young proves he can connect downfield consistently enough to make them pay for it.

The Saints have been a good defensive team. And for all his woes as a head coach, Dennis Allen does know a thing or two about coaching that side of the ball. This won't be anything close to a cakewalk.

My plan is to go into next Monday looking for (and hoping for) improvement, but I'd stop short of expecting a "get right" type performance just yet.

It's still very early in the season, even earlier in the team's new era.

Adjust your expectations accordingly.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect a worse performance this week to be honest, and I’m probably gonna try and take a week off this website afterward. It’s not gonna be pretty for the QB against that defense and with this set of receivers and the routes they’re asked to run. 

However, in a few weeks’ time, the “bench Bryce,” “Jimmy Clausen 2.0,” “Teddy Bridgewater 2.0” posts are gonna get a lot of notifications — and they’re not gonna be in agreement 

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Luciu5 said:

If we clean up the turnovers, the defense looks like its good enough to keep us in games. We don't have the weapons to be a scoring powerhouse yet.

That Sanders fumble was a killer. Can’t have that. It was a nice looking drive until that. I heard Myers say that was his 10th career fumble. Is that a lot? Seems like a lot. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

I expect a worse performance this week to be honest, and I’m probably gonna try and take a week off this website afterward. It’s not gonna be pretty for the QB against that defense and with this set of receivers and the routes they’re asked to run. 

However, in a few weeks’ time, the “bench Bryce,” “Jimmy Clausen 2.0,” “Teddy Bridgewater 2.0” posts are gonna get a lot of notifications — and they’re not gonna be in agreement 

yeah, I think Saints game is going to put folks in tougher spots than the Falcons did.   They have better D and better O. And then you lose Horn. 

I think Bryce might clean up some mistakes, but he just flat out doesn't the weapons to really survive vs a good defense.   I could see the Teddy talk rise.  Not that I agree. I think there was some stat about Bryce Young, that had the 2nd most throw aways in a debut in NFL history.  Which isn't a bad stat.  But it highlights his IQ to play safe and smart.  And fans are fanatics.  They want plays.  And Bryce just doesn't have the skill talent around vs a solid D.  His best player this week was Hubbard lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 4Corners said:

That Sanders fumble was a killer. Can’t have that. It was a nice looking drive until that. I heard Myers say that was his 10th career fumble. Is that a lot? Seems like a lot. 

Yes, it's a lot for 4 years.. He averages 2.5 a year so hopefully getting them out of the way early.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 4Corners said:

That Sanders fumble was a killer. Can’t have that. It was a nice looking drive until that. I heard Myers say that was his 10th career fumble. Is that a lot? Seems like a lot. 

it's always something with him ever since his rookie year.  First it was fumbles, then drops, bad routes ......Eagles never deemed him reliable enough to trust that much.  Even last year, they phased him out down the stretch in favor of Gainwell.  

It was well documented his struggles and unreliability.  Huddlers weren't willing to listen to it after we signed him.  Frank said he had potential to be an every down back and would like to see it....and thus he was deemed that. 

I mean, he has the talent to be great.   Talent is there.  

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CRA said:

it's always something with him ever since his rookie year.  First it was fumbles, then drops, bad routes ......Eagles never deemed him reliable enough to trust that much.  Even last year, they phased him out down the stretch in favor of Gainwell.  

It was well documented his struggles and unreliability.  Huddlers weren't willing to listen to it after we signed him. 

I mean, he has the talent to be great.   Talent is there.  

 

I thought it was pretty stupid to get rid of Foreman. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, countryboi said:

I wouldnt say that having a deep threat is a magic bullet, but it would help greatly. I question whether or not Bates would’ve had two interceptions had Chark been available. 

If Young can connect with him...

If the OL can continue to give him time...

If the receiver's not blanketed by a speedy cover corner...

If the rest of the offense can capitalize....

Lotta ifs...no real guarantees 😕

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 4Corners said:

I thought it was pretty stupid to get rid of Foreman. 

I just thought it was dumb to not round out the backfield better than we did.  We overpaid Sanders.  Frank made a comment about what he wanted to see happen....and suddenly folks acted like the backfield was solid and no one should critique it. 

Sanders is a fine player.  But just like with the Chark/Theilen add.....we then overrate what people are. Despite the league already saying what people are. 

Sanders is a committee RB and Chark and Theilen are role-players at this point.  Not starting WRs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CRA said:

I just thought it was dumb to not round out the backfield better than we did.  We overpaid Sanders.  Frank made a comment about what he wanted to see happen....and suddenly folks acted like the backfield was solid and no one should critique it. 

Sanders is a fine player.  But just like with the Chark/Theilen add.....we then overrate what people are. 

Despite the league already saying what people are.  Sanders is a committee RB and Chark and Theilen are role-players at this point.  Not starting WRs. 

Yeah sanders is a decent player but he got paid and not resigning a running back like foreman who brings the pain was pretty idiotic 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Icege said:

I saw some folks complaining that Smith-Marsette has speed and wasn't on the field for the offense, but I'm assuming that's because they forgot that he'd only been on the roster for 12 days by the time Sunday rolled around. 😮

after what I saw on that one punt return, speed doesn't mean anything if you don't have awareness

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

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to compete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...