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!

     

BREAKiNG NEWS: Panthers interested in trading for Trey Hendrickson


TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

The Bears may have won the trade, but neither team has much to show for it. 

 

I think Parsons is great, but unless we are one player away from being a SB contender, i avoid that deal like the plague.

I wouldn't call that great criteria for a trade(SB contention). If that's the criteria than probably 99.9% of all NFL trades have failed. 

Mack was the better contributor versus what he was traded for. That's the most basic criteria, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

I wouldn't call that great criteria for a trade(SB contention). If that's the criteria than probably 99.9% of all NFL trades have failed. 

Mack was the better contributor versus what he was traded for. That's the most basic criteria, IMO.

I would. IMO, you only make a trade like that if it makes you a SB contender.  If it doesn't, then it was a waste of assets.  Had Chicago not made the trade, they might have gotten good players cheaper.

Edited by Davidson Deac II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Navy_football said:

Yeah, but those receivers though. 

I really thought that laying Higgins was a mistake. Not that he isn't a legit 1B WR, it's just that you only have so much cap to go around and you already have a QB and another WR making mega bucks with a trash tier OL and D. Seemed like the perfect candidate for a tag and trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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...