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!

     

We finally get to see Brooks this week


Captain Morgan
 Share

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, waveslayer said:

it would be great to have "double trouble" again, I even had a T- shirt for Williams and Stewart and the double trouble logo, was a great time to be Panthers fan.

We shall see...

i think we'll get it back. it will be different, but still very good. get us back to the type game we should have always been playing.

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rayzor said:

I'm pretty excited about it. I think he kills it.

And seriously, fug you injury asshats

I mean, I don't think he was wishing injury on him. Just saying it would be a very Panthers thing for that to happen.

I could see it. Sometimes you just look at that black cat and wonder when things happen to us.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I mean, I don't think he was wishing injury on him. Just saying it would be a very Panthers thing for that to happen.

I could see it. Sometimes you just look at that black cat and wonder when things happen to us.

The way I see that cat, it is waiting for a chance wherever it can see one. It would be glad to help us speak something into existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Donald LaFell said:

I expect a rookie RB to usually take it sideways and “dance” in the backfield longer than you would want.

Brooks seems like he has good vision though and the o-line should give him clear holes to aim for. 
 

Chiefs game might be a rough debut but I hope he’s able to get some touches. 

This is what I like about him. Constant forward momentum, no hesitation. Instead of a stutter step he hits a new gear when he jukes. Rare find out of any RB these days let alone a rookie.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Lol. Same thing we have always been during the Tepper era.

Game one against a very good defense, how about just look better than Miles Sanders? Let's start there.

I think we are gonna see him take Sanders' snaps, basically. If he doesn't look better than that, whoa.

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

    • In all honesty, outside of the Saints games, I don't think we will be favored in any remaining game (unless Tampa is playing their backups against us week 18)
    • Rough back half of the schedule. NFC West looks like the best division (up there with NFC North), Tampa has been very good this year (despite their injuries), and I can't remember the last time we swept the season series with Atl (easily more than 10 years). I think we go 8-9 - beat the Saints twice and go 1-1 against the Bucs.
    • Quoted rom one of the many Bryce threads... Wanted to reply to this, but since my answer turned into a go route (i.e. went long) I thought I'd put it in a separate thread. So here's my take on the names mentioned above...and a few others. ... Lance was a prototypical "take an athlete and teach him to play quarterback" example who now serves as an example of why that's a bad idea. Worth remembering that Lance was given to a coach heralded as a QB guru with a friendly system. In the end though, even that potentially ideal situation wasn't enough. And the fact those events were followed up by said guru taking his team to the Super Bowl with a QB who went undrafted helps bolster the folly.of that approach. But then you have Wilson, an actual quarterback with off the charts passing skill. This guy's sure to succeed, right? Well...wrong, which demonstrates that even the right skill set doesn't guarantee success.  Could Wilson have succeeded in a better situation under better coaching? Unknown, but it's a question I find myself asking a lot. (See also: Levis, Will) Rosen falls into the Ryan Leaf / Ryan Mallet category, i.e. don't hand the keys to your billion dollar franchise over to a dickhead. Character matters, and not strictly in the 'upright citizen vs thuggish criminal ' way. (I could add maybe don't draft guys with the first name 'Ryan' unless they went to Harvard, and even then only in the 7th round) Darnold is another guy who likely could have benefited from a better situation / coaching (see also Carr: David). Heck, it also might have helped to send him to The Wizard and have him ask for "da noiv", or perhaps to Egon Spengler and company to chase away any and all "ghosts". Sending him to Matt Rhule? 😬 Yeah...definitely not the answer 😕 But hey, at least he's doing better now. (ttill playoff time, anyway) Mind you, Drew Brees does serve as proof that guys who land in less than ideal - or just flat out lousy - situations early on can indeed resurrect their careers later on in better surroundings. Will Darnold go that far? Unknown, but we do know it's possible. Kenny Pickett (also known by the X-Men moniker 'Littlehand') is that proverbial great college quarterback who for one reason or another just doesn't cut it in the pros.  (gotta say, feels like the past several drafts have put forth a lot of that particular QB archetype) Mac Jones could arguably carry this label as well, though I'm waiting to see how things play out in San Francisco. For now, Jones might be a better example of why you should always be cautious and skeptical of guys from certain systems. Justin Fields is a cell in that spreadsheet column, as is Kyler Murray. Now I'm sure someone here will mention another certain quarterback we're all quite familiar with as a prime example of this subset too 😐 Fair point, though I think he, Murray and Tagovailoa work better under the heading of "Davids". What's a David? It's a guy you send to battle against a "Goliath". And by all means, bet on that guy if he's a shepherd.  If he's a quarterback, though? 🤔 Root for him, encourage him, appreciate his courage and be inspired by him... ...but don't draft him. The return on investment might be a great story, but it's not likely to be one that involves championships and rings. ... Bottom Line? You've no doubt heard the saying "this ain't rocket science".  Well, I'd argue saying "this ain't quarterback evaluation" might truly make a better negative metaphorical comparison. At least with rocket science, it's science. You're working with things that have some level of consistency, even predictability. Stuff like chemistry, physics, metallurgy, etc. Things that have rules. Human beings?  Specifically young male athletes with competing amounts of ego and testosterone, who've generally been heavily catered to a lot of their lives, and have now been handed large sums money and a portal to fame... Yeah, good luck with that  Heck, you might get better odds buying a Powerball ticket, or perhaps playing a roulette wheel at a Vegas casino 😖 (gambling involves risk; please play responsibility; for help with gambling addiction call the Gambling Hotline at 1-800-522-4700)
×
×
  • Create New...