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!

     

ESPN: "Future" Power Rankings


kungfoodude
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, t96 said:

Completely fair until we see some actual results under Tepper

I also noted that we have their panels 32nd ranked roster, which I also agree with.

Hence why I get a little perplexed by the minority opinions here talking playoffs. I do understand how weak our division is and favorable the schedule is but.....we will rarely not be the least talented team on the field, if ever.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I also noted that we have their panels 32nd ranked roster, which I also agree with.

Hence why I get a little perplexed by the minority opinions here talking playoffs. I do understand how weak our division is and favorable the schedule is but.....we will rarely not be the least talented team on the field, if ever.

I actually am not so sure about 32nd ranked roster, we do have a ton of talent on offense outside of QB (granted, young and "unproven") and while the D has a ton of holes we do have a few potential superstars there to build around in Brown and Horn. I think our roster minus Bryce is like 18-23ish league-wide. Including QB in the equation may drop it a bit, but admittedly I am very low on Bryce.

Edited by t96
  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, t96 said:

I actually am not so sure about 32nd ranked roster, we do have a ton of talent on offense outside of QB (granted, young and "unproven") and while the D has a ton of holes we do have a few potential superstars there to build around in Brown and Horn. I think our roster minus Bryce is like 18-23ish league-wide. Including QB in the equation may drop it a bit, but admittedly I am very low on Bryce.

I would disagree. The only real proven talent on the roster that are Lewis, Hunt, Moton, Hubbard, and D. Brown. One could argue Moehrig. The overwhelming bulk is a mix of incomplete grades, unproven talent or known weaknesses. 

I think when you factor in the depth after the starters, it's overwhelmingly 32nd ranked. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jay Roosevelt said:

No way do we have the 32nd ranked roster. Not in a league where the Saints, Colts and Giants exist.

I mean, the Colts and Giants are so unbelievably better than our roster it is rather laughable to even suggest this. New Orleans is a bad roster but still a good bottom 5 candidate.

The closest is likely the Pats. But when you look at our rosters side by side, I would say we are worse overall.

  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, t96 said:

I actually am not so sure about 32nd ranked roster, we do have a ton of talent on offense outside of QB (granted, young and "unproven") and while the D has a ton of holes we do have a few potential superstars there to build around in Brown and Horn. I think our roster minus Bryce is like 18-23ish league-wide. Including QB in the equation may drop it a bit, but admittedly I am very low on Bryce.

Saints are much worse.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jay Roosevelt said:

No way do we have the 32nd ranked roster. Not in a league where the Saints, Colts and Giants exist.

I mean, when you actually start putting player vs player?  I don't think it's controversial.  Carolina still almost fully banking on hope that dudes pan out for a high % of the agreement here.  So proven edges out potential when you start putting them head to head. 

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

take lead dogs at WR.  Pittman, Nabors, and Olave.  Lead dogs elsewhere got more proof in the pudding.  They all got 1k WRs.  And WR is going to be maybe the key area people are making a case for Carolina to be higher.  

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CRA said:

take lead dogs at WR.  Pittman, Nabors, and Olave.  Lead dogs elsewhere got more proof in the pudding.  They all got 1k WRs.  And WR is going to be maybe the key area people are making a case for Carolina to be higher.  

 

The hype on the WR corps is scary and unfair to the guys we have, IMO. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

The hype on the WR corps is scary and unfair to the guys we have, IMO. 

Nothing wrong w/ be excited about the potential.  But Nabors and Tmac ain't going to fair the same in a head to head ranking like this.  One still waiting to log a real NFL catch and the other has put in the books already. 

and we have been so bad, I just don't see the point of being offended we are last.  We deserve to be defaulted worse when it is close based on our proven track record of late. 

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 2
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

    • It's honestly pretty interesting just seeing this pairing play out. Canales’ offenses (Seattle, Tampa) are run-first, under-center, play-action systems built around defined reads and intermediate/deep timing throws. That structure worked when he had QBs like Baker Mayfield or Russell Wilson in a system that created clear launch points and sightlines. His success has always been tied to a credible run game + play-action gravity. You can see that with the Panthers team building philosophy as well. Coker and TMac both are bigger receivers that won't get the best YAC production but thrive as possession receivers in contested scenarios. They're not the best in space and creating additional yardage in such, and would likely fair better systematically with a stronger armed QB who can create better opportunities on those boundary 1v1 matchups with stronger throws. Bryce, on the other hand, is a spread-native QB. His strengths are rhythm, spacing, quick processing, and off-script creation. Asking him to live in condensed formations with long-developing play-action concepts just hasn't been his forte. And well, his boundary throws are limited in velocity which takes a big chunk of the playbook off. And I mean a QB like Bryce can still work, it's just Dave's offensive philosophy and foundation is very much at odds with Young's physical limits and his own experience. So it's certainly still a learning experience for Dave to figure out how he can mesh his offensive philosophy with Young's strengths. He's very inexperienced with maximizing Bryce's strengths with his system. Would love to see us bring in an OC with spread experience and adaptability to implement a cohesive system with Dave to allow Bryce to thrive, as it's obvious we're sticking with him for a bit longer.   
    • Only thing I really agreed with is questioning why we didn’t take any timeouts on their last drive.  I know hindsight is 20/20, but I think it would’ve saved clock bc they were desperate to score as soon as the opportunity presented itself, but I also think it could’ve helped the defense regroup and maybe give us a better chance to stop them.
×
×
  • Create New...