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!

     

Weather for Week 1


Gallagher

Recommended Posts

http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/0ap2000000058981/Weather-update-Panthers-vs-Buccaneers

High winds and spotty thunderstorms. The field will be wet, undoubtedly. This could be a rough day for Medlock, but, like kicking in Heinz, we really shouldn't judge him if he misses one in 10-12 mph winds. I wouldn't mind this turning into a slug fest as I think our running offense and defense are going to be better than the Bucs'. Plus, rain would help overshadow some of our deficiencies in the secondary.

I just hope we can brave the elements and escape injury free. Actually, come to think of it, the weather might be the determining factor in holding Stewart out of the game. A wet field combined with trying to come back from an ankle sprain is bad business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL at the roof cleaning buccaneer for saying that we would be at a disadvantage due to the heat.

Now Freeman is going to be even worse at throwing the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been to Panthers opening season games where temps were 97 degrees. So at least it will still be in the 80s in Tampa, could be alot hotter. I don't care to see alot of rain, if any. And definetely no thunderstorms.

I little bit strange that they are playing an east coast team at 4pm. It is usually 1pm. Tampa is so backwards..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been to Panthers opening season games where temps were 97 degrees. So at least it will still be in the 80s in Tampa, could be alot hotter. I don't care to see alot of rain, if any. And definetely no thunderstorms.

I little bit strange that they are playing an east coast team at 4pm. It is usually 1pm. Tampa is so backwards..

Yeah, I think we always play at 4 when we play in Tampa don't we? I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • I have zero issues with this.  
    • Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...