James Anderson criticism...Wow...

[KendrickPanther]

It's not homerism to say Anderson is a good player. We call out Martin, Godfrey, Munnerlyn, Connor, and many others all the time. When someone that does the right thing and has a productive season gets called out, we have the right to defend them.

[FirstRoundPick]

It's not homerism to say Anderson is a good player. We call out Martin, Godfrey, Munnerlyn, Connor, and many others all the time. When someone that does the right thing and has a productive season gets called out, we have the right to defend them.

Good is not equal to great.

[MaineManPanther]

Okay. Let's play a game. Name a "neutral" reporter who follows Carolina that claims he is more than JAG.

I can name one who thinks he is JAG. That doesn't imply Gantt knows it all.....but if it wasn't an arguement like you claim you should be able to name one NON fan in the media who agrees with YOUR side.

Again, JAG isn't the insult some, like you, choose to pretend it is. Not everyone is special...and JAGs are important. Good teams fill the many spots studs don't occupy with JAGs.

Not endorsing guys as studs and special when they aren't.....isn't being a hater.

Pff both grading and opinion wise had him as one of the top outside linebackers in 2010. He had a lackluster year in 2011, but he shown he can defintley be more the a "JAG"

[La Pantera]

No, some of those guys are below average and aren't starting material.....that isn't JAG. Weak links aren't JAGs.

Smitty, Cam, Double Trouble, Kalil, Gross, Otah and Davis when on the field, Gamble most seasons, Olsen and maybe Tolbert......everyone else is JAG or worse until they prove they aren't.

JAG isn't an insult. They account for most of the starting spots. The problem and insult is when guys aren't JAG and are liabilities.

That is my viewpoint. Anderson is solid. However, a 2 down LB who can tackle isn't that hard to find. Dan Connor was JAG. Solid at what he did....not special at his position.

Anderson has value being what he is....the point I have and others like Gantt is he is paid like is something more and perceived as more by many

I'll give you my rebuttal in the morning...I just got home frome the bar.

[MasterAwesome]

No, some of those guys are below average and aren't starting material.....that isn't JAG. Weak links aren't JAGs.

Smitty, Cam, Double Trouble, Kalil, Gross, Otah and Davis when on the field, Gamble most seasons, Olsen and maybe Tolbert......everyone else is JAG or worse until they prove they aren't.

JAG isn't an insult. They account for most of the starting spots. The problem and insult is when guys aren't JAG and are liabilities.

That is my viewpoint. Anderson is solid. However, a 2 down LB who can tackle isn't that hard to find. Dan Connor was JAG. Solid at what he did....not special at his position.

Anderson has value being what he is....the point I have and others like Gantt is he is paid like is something more and perceived as more by many

If that's your definition of JAG then I can agree with that....although I'd certainly put Charles Johnson in the list of non-JAGgers too. Anderson/Hardy/LaFell would be my distinguished JAGs with Honors if we can create a group like that :) Everyone else I see as serviceable at best.

[iamhubby1]

So how many lists do we need now? One for jag, one for very good jags, one for not so good jags, and let's not forget those not yet there, the up and coming jags?

1-Pro Bowlers

2-Not spectacular but almost guy

3-Steady and occasionally outstanding guy

4-Break out potential guy

5-Jag

6-Jag wannabes

7-Rookies and walking injured guys

So I guess, jag is not the prize people think it is.

[Anybodyhome]

What the author conveniently forgot to mention is that only 2 LBs in the entire league defended more passes than Anderson. That being the case, the odds are much greater he's going to get burned occasionally.

Far as I'm concerned, the writer started with a conclusion and pulled just the right stats to support his claim, which any hack can do.

[La Pantera]

No, some of those guys are below average and aren't starting material.....that isn't JAG. Weak links aren't JAGs.

Smitty, Cam, Double Trouble, Kalil, Gross, Otah and Davis when on the field, Gamble most seasons, Olsen and maybe Tolbert......everyone else is JAG or worse until they prove they aren't.

JAG isn't an insult. They account for most of the starting spots. The problem and insult is when guys aren't JAG and are liabilities.

That is my viewpoint. Anderson is solid. However, a 2 down LB who can tackle isn't that hard to find. Dan Connor was JAG. Solid at what he did....not special at his position.

Anderson has value being what he is....the point I have and others like Gantt is he is paid like is something more and perceived as more by many

I don't see the word "JAG" as an insult, your ST unit and your back ups are just that. JAGs make up the backbone of a team. Ivthink it comes down your personal definition of JAG. To me a JAG is someone who is average to below average. I. E not a starter. To me Anderson is a good starter and he proved to be a very valuable asset to the D. RR said as much about Anderson in several interviews. I also believe that a JAG wouldnt have put up the amount of tackles, he did.

[La Pantera]

No, some of those guys are below average and aren't starting material.....that isn't JAG. Weak links aren't JAGs.

Smitty, Cam, Double Trouble, Kalil, Gross, Otah and Davis when on the field, Gamble most seasons, Olsen and maybe Tolbert......everyone else is JAG or worse until they prove they aren't.

JAG isn't an insult. They account for most of the starting spots. The problem and insult is when guys aren't JAG and are liabilities.

That is my viewpoint. Anderson is solid. However, a 2 down LB who can tackle isn't that hard to find. Dan Connor was JAG. Solid at what he did....not special at his position.

Anderson has value being what he is....the point I have and others like Gantt is he is paid like is something more and perceived as more by many

I don't see the word "JAG" as an insult, your ST unit and your back ups are just that. JAGs make up the backbone of a team. I think it comes down your personal definition of JAG. To me a JAG is someone who is average to below average. I. E not a starter. To me Anderson is a good starter and he proved to be a very valuable asset to the D. RR said as much about Anderson in several interviews. I also believe that a JAG wouldnt have put up the amount of tackles, he did.

[Panther_Brotherhood]

Just the way a basketball team needs good role players, so does a football team. Utility guys. I see Anderson as a very good utility guy. Could play solid ST's, great tackler in the 4-3. Coverage is shaky, but the sample group was against some of the toughest players to defend for any person. Gonzo has been tearing up LB's for the past couple years, Graham is going to be a HOF'er if he continues going at the pace he is, Rodgers is a quick RB running a wheel route (nearly impossible for a LB to defend) and a 6'5" Pro Bowler. Anderson is great at tackling, pursuing the carrier and putting a hat on the ball...but to nit pick his coverage ability against some of the great players in this league isn't giving him enough credit IMO. Just my 2 cents

[Guest Bwood]

This conversation hurts to read it's so bad...

All of you are JAG's. Anderson is a solid defensive player on a solid football team, and makes a shitt ton more money than all of you haha.

[KendrickPanther]

This conversation hurts to read it's so bad...

All of you are JAG's. Anderson is a solid defensive player on a solid football team, and makes a shitt ton more money than all of you haha.

I agree, I've read "JAG" more in this thread than I would ever want to.

[Guest Bwood]

I agree, I've read "JAG" more in this thread than I would ever want to.

Word,

Still gonna spank you in fantasy football though.

[La Pantera]

This conversation hurts to read it's so bad...

All of you are JAG's. Anderson is a solid defensive player on a solid football team, and makes a shitt ton more money than all of you haha.

Still a better conversation than guessing what Peppers has going on inside his head, other than the next goober he's going to gobble.