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!

     

Trading Williams a good thing?


Recommended Posts

I say yes.

Now, before proceeding, let me say this: I'm currently doubtful that it will happen and if it does happen I'll bitch and moan with the best of them. Ok, moving on...

There's obvious cons to losing D-Will. He's a huge percentage of the offense, a legitimately talented running back, and just a swell guy to support in general. I doubt the downside needs to be discussed in detail, because any Panther fan that doesn't understand the downside...well, I hope you enjoyed your three year coma, welcome to 2010, we suck.

But what about the upside? First, we could probably get a pick or two to make up for the losses in bad draft day trades of days past. Also, we might be able to plug in a new, more experienced player into one of our areas of need to help with development of younger players. And, let's face it, a player trade at this point would at least be entertaining for us huddled masses.

Is there another upside though? Because weighing those pros and cons evenly, I'd have to say that the trade would be a moronic idea. So, I thought to myself "Self, why would they do something that is so obviously stupid on the surface?" The first answer I came up with is that this move would just be par for the course as far as stupid moves this season are concerned. The second answer I came up with is Mike Goodson.

Goodson is showing a lot of promise in his time on field this year. The kind of promise that a lot of us were hoping for last year when we drafted him. It's pretty clear that he brings something new to the offense that simply didn't add into the equation before. With the obvious emphasis on rebuilding the passing game this year, however, Goodson's role becomes even more apparent and needed. Williams and Stewart have average recieving abilities out of the backfield, where Goodson excels at it (comparatively). That kind of x-factor in a passing game is quite desirable. Developing it alongside a new QB and a mostly new recieving corps could pay off amazing dividends down the road. So long as we're trying to accomodate two top tier running backs, the reps aren't there to develop that kind of dynamic.

So, IF the Williams trade does happen, THEN that will be the final signal to me that a change in philosophy is in the works (and that change would probably include an overhaul of the coaching staff). I can see the upside to it all, and in the long term I think it'll be well worth it. In the short term, it'll really piss me off. But in all reality, the short term looks pretty bleak anyway so all we have to go on is the long term.

At least, that's how I'm rationalizing it in my head. Yay team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we trade the guy who is far and away one of the best talents on our team, not to mention the best RB a long shot?

People are stupid.

Absolutely, completely, stupid.

Heck, if anyone, trade Stew, whose spent the entire season in the backfield auditioning for Dancing for the Stars.

I went to the game yesterday with a friend of mine who knows next to nothing about NFL football.

He kept telling me we were stupid for continuing to pull number 34 out.

That guy seems amazing, he said, and we keep pulling him out for number 28 who isn't doing anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we trade the guy who is far and away one of the best talents on our team, not to mention the best RB a long shot?

People are stupid.

Absolutely, completely, stupid.

Heck, if anyone, trade Stew, whose spent the entire season in the backfield auditioning for Dancing for the Stars.

I went to the game yesterday with a friend of mine who knows next to nothing about NFL football.

He kept telling me we were stupid for continuing to pull number 34 out.

That guy seems amazing, he said, and we keep pulling him out for number 28 who isn't doing anything.

We would trade him because he is the one being rumored to be traded to Green Bay. I'm just going with what I've been hearing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We would trade him because he is the one being rumored to be traded to Green Bay. I'm just going with what I've been hearing here.

Except there's no validity to the rumors.

Just a fan with some connections trying to get the rumor mill turning.

They held no weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because that's just right now and right now, you're terrible?

im terrible but you have no answer for what i just said.dont be a dick bc i didnt agree with you.and if we only have 20 o plays than dwill should get at least 15+ touches go look at fox record when he doesnt give the ball to the rb.it sucks therefore muting your idea of trading dwill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im terrible but you have no answer for what i just said.dont be a dick bc i didnt agree with you.and if we only have 20 o plays than dwill should get at least 15+ touches go look at fox record when he doesnt give the ball to the rb.it sucks therefore muting your idea of trading dwill.

"Why would you do that when it's your bnb?"

"Because right now, you're terrible?"

"I may be terrible, but you don't need to be a dick."

Follow that for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im terrible but you have no answer for what i just said.dont be a dick bc i didnt agree with you.and if we only have 20 o plays than dwill should get at least 15+ touches go look at fox record when he doesnt give the ball to the rb.it sucks therefore muting your idea of trading dwill.

There seems to be this terrible myth going around about how the Panthers have changed their philosophy towards offense and that we aren't running the ball anymore which seems to be based solely on rushing attempts.

So let me break it down for you, although there has been a little bit of a drop it's not dramatic and the fact is most of it can be attributed to having played from behind for the majority of the season.

So here it is, total plays vs running plays and the running play percentage for the past two years and the SMALL SAMPLE SIZE of this year.

2008

Total Plays, Running Plays, Running %

938 504 53.7

2009

1023 525 51.3

2010

234 104 44

Yesterdays game we ran 23 of our 47 plays on the day for an average of right at 49% which is on par for the course and it was our closest game yet which allowed us to stay in our game plan.

The fact of the matter is that we have been forced out of our game plan by having been dominated on the time of possession. There is no change of philosophy and the people who seem to think so are just to lazy to look up the facts.

When we become successful at our gameplan we will have more total plays which will in turn boost the numbers of carries. That hasn't happened yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...