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!

     

Brockers vs Poe

carolina-chuck

By carolina-chuck,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

carolina-chuck Newbie

carolina-chuck

Posted
Posted

I love Brockers personally bc of his size and believe he could be better in the next level. Poe is an unmovable tank who runs like a LB. Though when comparing these two DTs, I believe Brockers is much better who reminds me of Justin Tuck. He seems like he cud play dt,nt, or de. Many people seems to look at Poe's bench press n 40 yd times and put him as a top ten pick already. 40 times doesn't mean anything. Brockers has a faster 'football' speed than Poe. Not 40 yd speed but 'football' speed. I'd take Brockers over Poe. DT is our biggest need unless Claiborne fall to us at 9th. Fua n McCLain are a joke. Two waisted picks where we could've took Cb Chris Culliver .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carolina-chuck Newbie

carolina-chuck

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Not sure how Brockers and Tuck are remotely similar.

I'm not saying Brockers is Tuck. Brockers is more of Seymour. But what I'm saying is Brockers cud almost line up at any position on our DLine like how the Giants did with Tuck. Other than Johnson we have no one else . Hardy is an average player who can play in situational pass rushing down only .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ruff Newbie

Ruff

Posted
Posted

So, first you said Brockers reminded you of Justin Tuck, then you said he's more of a Richard Seymour... I'm confused.

Either way, Brockers is still really young, so you're drafting on potential alone. Brockers also played on a hellacious defense that had pro players all over it, Poe didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carolina-chuck Newbie

carolina-chuck

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So, first you said Brockers reminded you of Justin Tuck, then you said he's more of a Richard Seymour... I'm confused.

Either way, Brockers is still really young, so you're drafting on potential alone. Brockers also played on a hellacious defense that had pro players all over it, Poe didn't.

If I didn't make it clear enough in the beginning, here it goes:

Brockers has "Seymour's like potential", but who reminds me "can play almost every position on the DLINE from DE-DT-NT like TUCK". It's my fault for not stating that Brockers = Seymour + Tuck. If you wanted me to get that out. There you go.

and doesn't almost every year, every NFL team draft on potential? Didn't we draft Cam Newton on his potential alone. Cam had one full year of NCAA Div I to showcase only and we still drafted him for his potential to get better in the NFL (i.e. accuracy, footwork, vision), and look how he turn out. and Cam played with a running back who could be a first round in the next couple years, Nick Fairley, Darvin Adams who was really good in college, and a pretty good o-line at Auburn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

i'd be happy with either one...or fletcher cox. crap...or even devon still.

cox is probably more ready to go than the others, but i think any of these guys would be an improvement and a great addition to the Dline.

sure...there are no suh's in this draft, but how many years do those guys show up? this is a solid DT class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carolina-chuck Newbie

carolina-chuck

Posted
  • Author
Posted

:banghead:

Hey im being truthful. They could pan out and become average players in the future for us but imagine if we took Culliver. Our CB problem would've been solve. Not saying I knew Culliver was going to be that good. But look, Kearse and Shirley were undrafted rookie free agents who came one and learn the playbook later, played better than both FUA and MCCLain. and now there's some rumors of how Rivera might wanna play more 3-4 . Whats the use of drafting two 43 DTs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • CRA
      Josina Anderson: Panthers NOT trading Adam Thielen

      By CRA · Posted

      Well, the whole rationale used  for the high IQ point guard is it would allow us to spend our resources elsewhere….instead it’s all our first rounders ever since to support the bad pick.  Reality is our front office is just bad.  If you wanted Bryce Young you were going to need to do something unique and special for him.  Instead we just insert a QB with traditional tools into old NFL concepts that pair with traditional talent and our pass game is whack
    • frankw
      Josina Anderson: Panthers NOT trading Adam Thielen

      By frankw · Posted

      Good to see some other folks are speaking the same language on this. It's simple common sense. But it seems like there's a disconnect due to the misplaced value the team has put on Thielen because he was the only vaguely good veteran WR willing to sign with the Panthers after we traded away DJ Moore. That time has come and gone. We have two first round WR's on the roster now.
    • ForJimmy
      Josina Anderson: Panthers NOT trading Adam Thielen

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      Yeah I’m turning this into a Bryce can’t play QB thread. Just stating that offense was a poo show two years ago. No QB is succeeding in that, much less a rookie. I feel like it’s become a common debate strategy on here to just jump down the rabbit hole of saying he is just bad in so many ways when any certain point gets countered. If that doesn’t work we can deflect to how poorly this team has been ran. In regards to the actual point we are debating, the OL was struggling, half of the skill players aren’t on a roster, Mingo has done nothing with his new team and the staff are either not coaching or on their 3rd team in 3 years, aside from McCown (I liked McCown too). Honestly about as bad as it gets. No need to try to state how good of an offense it was billed it because that has been proven false at this point. 
×
×
  • Create New...