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!

     

Xavier Legette struggling


TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

Richardson was my guy but I always thought he'd require a coach that could reign in his wanting to run and build an offense around him. Frank was never going to be that guy. Stroud was my 2, and

Bryce wasn't even in the 1st 3 rounds.

There hasn't been a long term successful QB that size in 60 years.

There's a reason. I don't care how big his brain is, if he didn't play at Bama and have all the S2 hype, he would have been a day 3 pick. 

I could have accepted a gamble on Bryce in the late first but I agree. I mean I wouldn’t have been happy but that is about as high as I could understand given the risk. He was just off of my board if he was going so high. 

Flutie was the closest I can think of size wise and he had a real good arm if I recall. I’m not going to look for Flutie highlights. But he was very close to Young in height and weight.

My thing is we are in a different era and speed is more a part of the game than ever, and certainly 20 years ago which was about Flutie’s last season when he was pretty much done even as a backup.

He was the closest to being something that I can remember. And he sort of was, but that was 25-30 years ago. I’m real skeptical of that translating to modern day. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ghostofdelhomme said:

Interviews and S2 clearly have no indicators for success, it’s a sport where athletic ability is 95% of the requirement. Bruce may have aced the “pattern recognition” part of the test but when you’re 5’9 and can’t see the whole field you can’t even see the patterns to be able to recognize them.  These GMs and scouts are way too over-analytical, you always go with the better athlete unless there’s a serious attitude problem

Interviews are super important, especially the whiteboard work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ricky Prickles said:

You played football in college did you....? Well hell, I'm going to bake you a congratulatory cake when I'm able to!  I know someone else on here who did as well and then played a little arena ball in AF1 back when it was actually worth a poo and you could make an honest livable wage. They played D1 at an SEC school (they werent great but won two back to back Carquest Bowls. Not the most prestigious of bowls but decent memories either way) but they dont claim to know it all just because they did mr. college football player. Gosh, I wish I knew someone else on here who played college ball if its that impressive. I guess some don't feel they have to brag, I don't know? Those two a days in SC summers were probably rough weren't they. How on earth did you get through them?

Actually my Conan condescending spill wasn't really funny so I agree with you but what was funny is you getting all upset and pissing your underoos wanting to fight a guy for calling you a dummy on a message board! Now that poo was funny mr college football! I didn't call you dummy so please don't whoop my ass mr college football.

Conan The Barbarian Vhs GIF by vhspositive

 

Lol are you ok? Why you so mad? Never claimed to know to all. I simply said myself and others in this thread couldve drafted better than Fitterer and Morgan which could’ve easily been done. Also said XL wasn’t a good pick which is a fair opinion, especially with his current camp performance. Hell, I could’ve literally drafted from Mel Kipers best available with no research and the Panthers would’ve been better off.  Your passive aggressiveness and condescending tone is ridiculous. Also by reading some of your other posts you seem like a very troubled person but the way you speak to others.  I’m done talking to you. Peace. ✌

Edited by flagfootballcoach28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2024 at 2:40 PM, Tr3ach said:

It's not even that they're long shots.  They're almost always older "raw" prospects.  I don't even normally see them as potential high ceiling guys.  People comparing him to Metcalf like it's a given but he's shorter, has much shorter arms, and small hands.  It's like we draft old "raw" guys but still draft for high floor instead of ceiling.

so much this. Raw young players have (potentially) high ceilings. Old raw players? Not so much

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
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

    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
    • The defense has pulled that feat off this season though.  Multiple times. offense has not had a single good first half all season.  Only and good opening scripted drive paired with disappointing play.  defense has been the actual unit you can measure real and consistent improvement IMO.  Still holes and flaws to it that aren’t going away until new bodies get here but they really are the story of the season IMO
    • One thing about RB's and LB's is they are going to get hurt. It's inevitable. Having a fresh Chuba is not a bad thing.  My only criticism of this entire situation is that I wish our staff would adjust personnel to matchup a little better. I think Chuba is a lot better than Rico against the stacked boxes we've seen the last two weeks. They are very different backs with very different strengths, and I love them both. Rico is so good at identifying the hole early, and hitting it full speed early. He's much better at breaking the big run. Chuba is a much more patient back, and finds 3 yards when there's nothing there better than Rico.  It's in no way a criticism of either, but I think Chuba would have had more success than Rico the way the Saints and Falcons attacked us from a Defensive standpoint.  When you put 9 in the box, often times there is no hole to attack. 
×
×
  • Create New...