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!

     

Dan Morgan says Bobby > Luke

Zod

By Zod,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Strawman Newbie

Strawman

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure why this is an issue. Luke is better, he was better in college, is a better pro, and has the hardware to prove it. Dan would've been great, wish he was working in some capacity for the Panthers, but he's not. So as a Seahag employee, he has to toe the company line. These are the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
xav8tor Newbie

xav8tor

Posted
Posted

Guys, this is nothing more than an employee covering his butt due to the source of his paycheck.  He isn't paid to be objective when talking about players already on the roster. Unless Seattle had no talent at MLB, you wouldn't expect Morgan to say anything different.  Wagner is admittedly very good, but he's no Luke.  Everyone knows Keek has an Ivy League sized brain and could be a rocket surgeon (yes, rocket surgeon because I like saying that instead of rocket scientist or brain surgeon).  His football IQ and instincts are off the charts.  Anyone can see that.  

 

Is he a freak of an athlete?  Dang right he is.  Look at those three gifs floating around from the Ravens game.  Aside from the numbers posted above, focus on his feet to see evidence that he's extraordinarily gifted.  He's bouncing on his toes in all directions, sometimes even before the ball is in motion, and often, he's already breaking for where the play is going.  Many guys start pretty much flat footed.  I noticed this athleticism in his rookie camp when they doing whatever you call the drill where they're running sideways through tires.  His leg motion going up/down and sideways through that maze was so fast it was a blur.  Right then I knew this kid was going to be explosive moving to the ball.  Never seen anything like it from a rookie, or just about anyone else for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rodeo Veteran

rodeo

Posted
Posted

1. Wagner had more INTs.

 

2. Wagner had more sacks.

 

Ipso facto, incorrect.

 

Because Wagner was used more in those roles. That's like saying "Well Cam had more TDs than Wagner." Not really Wagner's job.

 

Kuechly rarely was asked to rush the passer last year.

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

    • DaveThePanther2008
      Panthers OLB Pat Jones II makes bold claim about team's defense

      By DaveThePanther2008 · Posted

      It's not impossible to go from worst to first.  We kept Evero because anyone in there right mind knew our defense was destroyed by injuries, not the scheme.  Evero has been given a plethora of talent between free agency and the draft, not to mention getting DB back. I fully expect our defense to be very good.  I have no reason to think Jones would say something like that unless he truly felt like that.   
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Canes vs Panthers Rd 3 Gm3 8pm

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      We would’ve played Florida and lost in the 1st instead of the 3rd round.  Montreal would have been the 8 seed.
    • Icege
      PFF ranks the 2025 starting QBs

      By Icege · Posted

      I can't get behind a purely subjective re-draft as a method of defining "top-10 QB" status. That invites bias based on vibes/hypotheticals and can ignore actual on-field performance. You and others have said that Bryce has to be a top-10 QB to justify the pick. That's a high bar, which I'm not against, but we need a clear, consistent way to measure it. When I bring up metrics that Bryce has registered in the top-10 in like BTT%, P2S ratio, catchable deep ball rate, etc... they're waved off as either irrelevant or the expected baseline performance. Meanwhile, volume stats like passing yards or win-loss records, both of which depend heavily on roster talent, health, and coaching, are treated as definitive. That's where the inconsistency kicks in. If no performance metric ever counts in his favor and the answer is always going to be "he should be doing that," then we're not evaluating him... we're just holding him to a curve he can't win against. If this is really about performance standards, then let's define them. But if it's just about confirming prior takes based on height and weight, then let's call it what is it and stop pretending that this is a football analysis discussion.
×
×
  • Create New...