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!

     

Game on the line... you going with Beason, Morgan or Keuchly....

charlottenian

By charlottenian,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

gmonjimbo Community Regular

gmonjimbo

Posted
Posted

Depends on the situation. If it is  3rd and long, I would go with Beason because he is better than Kuechly and Morgan in pass coverage. However, if it was  3rd and short, I would choose Kuechly because he has good instincts and might stuff the run before it develops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kuech the Sneak Newbie

Kuech the Sneak

Posted
Posted

Depends on the situation. If it is 3rd and long, I would go with Beason because he is better than Kuechly and Morgan in pass coverage. However, if it was 3rd and short, I would choose Kuechly because he has good instincts and might stuff the run before it develops.

What he said, I feel more inclined to go with kuechly though just based on how great a tackler he is

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

and why? everything being equal and all are healthy....

My nod is to Morgan, I think he was just as good of a tackler as Keuchly but better in the passing coverage

well, who would I take if they all only had 1 year under their belt? Luke. IMO, Luke is the best after one year.

Who would I pick....if going off the best we have seen. Morgan. If I had him at his best and knew he would be healthy for a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iamhubby1 Veteran

iamhubby1

Posted
Posted

IMO, too many have forgotten just what type of player Morgan was. He was a tackling machine for the same reasons Keek is. Instincts and knowledge. They are both students of the game. As is Beast.

I would go with Morgan for the simple reason he could do it all. Keek is not quite there yet, but could eventually be the best of the bunch. Beast would not be a bad choice either. Hellz, anyone one of them will make the play.

For a franchise as young as ours. It really is amazing how many great MLBs we have had. There really is no wrong answer to this question.

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

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...