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!

     

Interesting conversation this week...

Zod

By Zod,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Zod Grand Master

Zod

Posted
Posted

had an interesting conversation this week within someone within the organization. We didn't meet up to talk Panthers in particular, but I couldn't help but ask a few questions.

When I asked about Matt Moore, he had another perspective I had not heard much. Fox preferred Delhomme, McCown, and even Cantwell to Moore, but not because of anything on the field. Mainly, it was a personality thing. Fox described Moore as being"not a football player". It comes down to nothing on the field, but simply a personality conflict.

Moore is a pretty laid back guy. Tends not to take things overly serious, maybe not even football as much as the next guy. This clashes with the type of player Fox likes to use. But it may also explain how Matt is able to come into big games with all that pressure and perform the way he did.

Anyways, just throwing that out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wither Newbie

Wither

Posted
Posted

Doesn't really surprise me... I don't know Fox personally from Adam, but on the surface he seems like someone that, if he takes a disliking to you, that's it, not much changing his mind on it.

I'm going on the assumption that he assumes if you don't seem like you care, he'd rather not play you. Remember, NFL players make good money and have a legitimate reason not to care, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CatMan72 Enthusiast

CatMan72

Posted
Posted

Interesting, but someone in the organization must have thought enough of him to keep him on the roster for 3 years?

I also find it ironic that Fox is from the Parcells coaching tree and Parcells is one of the most intense coaches in the history of the NFL and Moore was a guy Parcells snatched up and hoped to clear through the waiver wire when we snatched him up.

Perhaps Fox was operating on the "if Parcells likes him then I like him" principle? It's funny that Romo also gets the same heat for seeming too laid back. Both are undrafted FA's brought in by Parcells.

I agree with others on the thought that this laid back personality is actually an asset on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CatMan72 Enthusiast

CatMan72

Posted
Posted · Hidden
Hidden

Interesting, but someone in the organization must have thought enough of him to keep him on the roster for 3 years?

I also find it ironic that Fox is from the Parcells coaching tree and Parcells is one of the most intense coaches in the history of the NFL and Moore was a guy Parcells snatched up and hoped to clear through the waiver wire when we snatched him up.

Perhaps Fox was operating on the "if Parcells likes him then I like him" principle? It's funny that Romo also gets the same heat for seeming too laid back. Both are undrafted FA's brought in by Parcells.

I agree with others on the thought that this laid back personality is actually an asset on the field.

Link to comment
turnmyleftheadphoneup Newbie

turnmyleftheadphoneup

Posted
Posted

his laid back, cool kid personality is what we need to boost our team. i think that's why delhomme has sucked over the past few years. he's started to put too much stress on himself, and has felt too pressured as of lately. a guy who doesn't feel pressured would actually produce more. i don't see how this could affect fox's decision on playing him or not. if that were the case, he would've put a.j. feeley in those last few games of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Waldo
      Clowney released

      By Waldo · Posted

      Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • pantherclaw
      Houston Texans... You Suck!!!

      By pantherclaw · Posted

      I have zero issues with this.  
    • MHS831
      Panthers start making cuts to roster

      By MHS831 · Posted

      Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...