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!

     

Stanford and Wilson


Peppers90 NC

Recommended Posts

I'm going to take last weeks game with a grain of salt, but I just want to say I was impressed with our starting corners, for what it was. Maybe the wet field conditions helped, but they both played hard and shut down two very good wr's. Both played physical, and had just enough jam on Nicks on that one play where it appears Eli overthrew him, but could it have been from lack of release?

I know in Philly, the aggressive scheme sometime exposed weak corner play, but last week it may have helped it. I watched the game on the NYC local channel so there wasn't much coverage on our team, but from my eyes, they played pretty decent for 3 and 4 corners. I'm wondering if Burney will even make the team because McClain seemed to do pretty well too. Did I miss anything to make me think otherwise?

Please, anyone help me curb my enthusiasm in thinking we might possibly not be as bad off at corner as we are all assuming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looked to me like CB was not a hole at all considering Stanford and McClain are our #3 and #4 CBs. Excited to see Gamble and Munny start.

I think the Giants also just flat out sucked that night.....saw some guys get beat we just didn't pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats because carolina no longer practices the Bend but dont break philosiphy. In the past, our cb's would allow wr to catch the small stuff but make sure they make the tackle so they dont get a big gain. Now, our cb's have free reign to contend every pass and play the position the way it should be played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Just to clarify: I'm not arguing that height or footwork can’t affect QB play. I'm asking how those concerns translate into measurable, consistent outcomes. That’s the standard we should be applying to all QBs, not just Bryce. If height is such a limitation, then we'd expect to see elevated batted passes or poor pressure evasion. Yet none of that shows up in the data. Bryce was one of the lowest in the league for batted passes and his 16.9 pressure-to-sack ratio is good enough for 9th out of all QBs with 300+ dropbacks. So if you believe footwork tied to height is a meaningful issue, what metric shows that because two that would aren't doing so? This isn't about denying flaws. It's about applying fair, consistent standards because otherwise we’re not evaluating performance which means that it's not analysis taking place... it's just going off of the vibes that somebody has consciously decided on. Citing one red zone play you remember doesn't provide that consistent standard. I don't say that to dismiss your memory, but to emphasize that anecdotal evidence (especially from an avowed skeptic) shouldn’t carry more weight than consistent tape or analytics. For example, there was recently dissonance over Bryce's deep ball accuracy where it was implied that he was inaccurate throwing 20+ yards. Yet, the data and film show otherwise. And I unfortunately have to still ask since you won't directly answer: What specific metrics do you believe matter when evaluating whether a QB is top-10? You've mentioned YPA and passing yards per game, and that's fair. If that's what you're prioritizing, then let's call that your criteria but clarity matters because it prevents moving goalposts when the data doesn’t match one's expectations. I appreciate the response and hope that your holiday weekend goes well also. ❤️
    • Me too. I got other things I can do. Tie it up 2-2 and I will be back, but Im tired of watching us get swept.
    • Svechnikov and I'm voting cause I'm pissed. 
×
×
  • Create New...