Carolina Panthers' Monday Morning Optimist- 11/29/10
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 7:00 AM EST
Email
Print
Good morning Panther faithful and welcome to the MMO. Five seconds, one kick and 42 yards- that's all that stood between the Carolina Panthers and victory on Sunday against the Cleveland Browns. In the end though not even two costly Jake Delhomme interceptions including on pick-six was enough to dig the Panthers out of the early 21-7 rut they found themselves in.
I think many people had a lot of their hopes hanging on yesterday's game judging by the disappointment seen across the open thread. It's almost as if the inevitability of the loss against Baltimore with Brian St. Pierre led to rampant faith that Jimmy Clausen would lead Carolina to victory simultaneously proving that he was 'the guy' while also quietly the ever growing murmurs that perhaps Andrew Luck is in the cards for Carolina.
Sadly, neither occurred and as it stands the Panthers are 1-10. Realistically there are two games out of the Panthers remaining five that are 'winnable' (Seattle and Arizona), but we have five more opportunities to evaluate Jimmy Clausen and the young talent on this team.
So let's look at the good in Carolina's loss to Cleveland
After the jump...
I know the fashion immediately following the game is to blame John Kasay alone for the Panthers' loss, but to quote Jon Beason:
"It doesn't come down to that play. I look at myself first, and there were some plays out there where I could have definitely changed the outcome."
Beast is right, and perhaps we've become too accustomed to being bailed out by the last original Panther. Heading into Sunday's game John Kasay was a career 111-174 from beyond 40 yards, that represents 75.5% on Sunday Kasay was asked to make 5 such kicks and he finished 3/5; granted, that's 60% but in the end it was the offense who was poor enough to need 5 such FGs from Kasay.
We're not talking about consistently relying on chip shots, we're talking about needing the kicker to make up for offensive ineptitude. Of the 11 drives the Panthers started only five drives managed to yield 30 yards or more. The other six drives?
1 yard
-4 yards
7 yards
18 yards
4 yards
15 yards
Those six drives are the Panthers lost the game in my mind, not the last second miss by Kasay. To those saying 'Kasay failed to do his job twice' what did the offense do on these six occasions to do their job? In the end it was the same as any of the Panthers' ten losses this year... a complete failing, not just one phases'.
I said when Matt Moore went on IR that I would track Jimmy Clausen's development to see if he was developing, and really there's not much to say about Sunday's performance. While he did take some steps forward (more baby steps like last time) the costly late interception really put the Carolina Panthers behind the 8-ball. There are things I love about Jimmy Clausen's game- his ability to find his outlets, his accuracy on short-intermediate routes, but there are also things I'm not seeing; he still isn't able to stretch the field with regularity, and he's also holding onto the ball a touch too long on deep plays resulting in some avoidable sacks. That being said, Clausen seems to have now corrected his propensity to fumble the snap, and his penchant for throwing the ball into opposing linemen... and those are two major steps forward.
We have another five starts to evaluate Clausen as we hurtle towards the eventuality of having to make the premature choice of Clausen or Luck in terms of whether the team believes they have their QB of the future already on the roster, or whether they need to look externally. Until the Panthers are either out of the running for the #1 overall pick, or Clausen puts forth some amazing performances it looks like our fan base will be locked in 'Hatfield and McCoy-esque' arguments until the season concludes.
Now, on to the ratings.
Optimistic
Jonathan Stewart- Extremely Optimistic: It was really great to see J-Stew come out and play well. I admit, I was slightly nervous regarding the tentative nature he'd been playing in 2010, but today proved (for whatever reason) that Stewart is a-okay. Maybe he truly did have an undisclosed injury he was fighting, but a 12 carry, 98 yard performance is exceptional.
Mike Goodson- Extremely Optimistic: Granted, Goodie didn't break 100 yards this week rushing... but a 136 all purpose yard performance with one TD is very impressive. What stood out the most was Goodson's tenacity, especially on 3rd and 10 on the Panthers 16 where Goodson took a short pass from Clausen that should have gone for 8 yards at best and willed it into a 32 yard gain.
Captain Munnerlyn- Extremely Optimistic: While Clausen will need to make his case against possibly drafting Andrew Luck so must Captain Munnerlyn make a case that he can fill in with the eventual departure of Richard Marshall. Along with a beautiful INT where the good Captain broke on the ball at the perfect time for a TD he added another 6 tackles and a 32 yard punt return. Just a stellar game from him.
Brandon LaFell- Extremely Optimistic: Sometimes it isn't always how much you catch the ball, but when you catch the ball- and yesterday Brandon LaFell typified this. His catch to set up Kasay's final FG attempt was a thing of beauty and LaFell is proving his worth in more ways the just his receiving being a very impressive blocker in the run game.
Jon Beason- Somewhat Optimsitic: Beason seems to be finding his sea legs again at MLB and is slowly returning to form. It's nice to see as he's really better suited to the position it just looked like he was out of place at times the last couple of weeks.
James Anderson- Somewhat Optimistic: 10 tackles = par for the course in his solid year.
Sherrod Martin- Somewhat Optimistic: 10 tackles today and a solid game. Martin is progressing at the rate Godfrey is regressing.
Charles Johnson- Somewhat Optimistic: 5.5 sacks now on the season and he's starting to make an impact. Imagine if we had good defensive tackles.
Pessimistic
Playcalling- Extremely Pessimistic: Yet again the offensive play calling is a major factor in a loss. My brain can't even compute that we ran a 3rd and long draw play to Dante Rosario... seriously... my brain can't comprehend it.
Run defense- Extremely Pessimistic- Not really one player to single out, but rather a collective. Peyton Hillis made a mockery of the Panthers with a 131 yard, 3 TD performance as he steamrolled about everyone who got in his way.
Charles Godfrey- Somewhat Pessimistic: Charles is the name, arm tackling is the game. In the most literal sense of the word the safety's job is to be the safety valve, the last line of defense... sadly Godfrey left the floodgate open for much of Sunday's game. He did have a couple of nice plays, but it wasn't enough to offset the bad ones.
David Gettis- Somewhat Pessimistic: Gettis wasn't able to lose his man the entire day and had some lackluster kick returns. This isn't a long term indictment... he just wasn't a factor on Sunday.
John Kasay- Somewhat Pessimistic: Though I'm not ready to hang my hat on Kasay as 'the reason' the Panthers lost he still missed two FGs he normally hits.
Overall Outlook
To quote John Fox: "It is what it is". The Carolina Panthers are playing out the season looking for player growth and maybe a little dignity. The remainder of the season wont be boring though because if the Panthers win we can talk about player development, and if they lose we can continue to weigh the merits of Andrew Luck. Then we get to follow that with talks about new coaches, which free agents will be retained and more! Never a dull moment.
Oooh... but it could be fun next week. Imagine if the Seahawks end up signing Dwayne Jarrett! We can watch him be inactive on a different sideline! Let me re-iterate... next Sunday's game is winnable.
30% optimistic heading to Seattle to face the Seahawks
812 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
In the end..
Kasay is a HOF’er. He’s been money over the years, but has had-as any player will- his moments.
Thanks again for the MMO!
It is generally the highlight of my Monday. =)
Agree with all in the Optimistic category. Two things on Johnson. Bad thing – don’t rough the passer. Just get to him more quickly and get the good, clean sack. Easy, right? =) But as to a good thing, I’m glad he’s starting to rack up some sacks.
I’m so proud of Munnerlyn! And Goodson! Each getting their first TDs in style (as much style as you can find in a loss to the Browns). Goodson seriously impressed me on that short pass near the end of the game that James mentioned. The guy was fighting his ass off for some yardage, and it looked like he was trying to make his way OOB to stop the clock when the fourth tackle on him actually stuck. And J-Stew started to resemble his old self. I hope it sticks.
LaFell! He made some serious catches and was very cognizant of his positioning along the sideline. Just smart. We didn’t get to see much of Gettis today…which was sad. But I think that we have a legitimate double threat with those two.
If there were an “Eh…Maybe” category, I’d stick Clausen there. Like James said, he’s made noticeable improvements as to the batted down passes and securing the ball. Just for the heck of it, I’d like to see the team give Clausen the rope and allow him to audible on absolutely any play he thought/felt he should. The results would likely be horrendous – but really, would it hurt too much at this point? Haha. But it also might be hilarious and show how ridiculous Davidson is. I’m not seriously advocating for it. But still…just something that I like to ponder. =)
On the D in general – at least they can make some serious halftime adjustments. Hillis is a monster, but it looked like he had just about had his fill by the end of the game. In the last couple of games, the D let way too much go early in the game, but then turned around later in the game to make some major stands on 3rd-and-short/4th-and-short and in the endzone.
And on the whole team in general…stop with the freaking penalties! I think we had 8 total (don’t quote me, I haven’t double-checked). I get it, they are going to happen, but we shot ourselves in foot with a host of various firearms. We gave up roughly an entire football field worth of yards on penalties. Roughing the passer, roughing the kicker, unnecessary roughness, false start, etc.
Re: the penalties:
The roughing the punter on Norwood was inexcusable; he’s got to be better angled than that. But the UR on Martin in the EZ was BS – he’s got to be able to try to knock the ball loose, which he did. And the roughing the passer on CBrown was pretty ticky tacky – he pulled up well short of any hard contact. There were a few times Clausen was hit harder than that, above the neck, that weren’t called.
That Ref in the baggy pants clown suit had his crew calling some very inconsistent penalties out there.
That said, our history of False Starts is becoming an epic epidemic. You’d think we’d know our own snap counts better than that.
Not to mention the blown call on the LaFell catch. How you can screw up a call even after a review is amazing.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
That catch, btw...
…was one of the best sideline catches (even if it was ruled incomplete…I still don’t accept that) I’ve ever seen. He was channeling Chris Carter on it.
It never would have happened, but....
I was ‘wishfully thinking’ when they were reviewing that play about how great it would be to run a wildcat reverse snapping to Edwards (who I think I saw in uniform yesterday on the sideline), handing to Smith and having Smith throw a pass to Gettis for the next play as it seems taking a shot on a play after a reversed call like that works quite often.
I mean think about it, if you run that play 30% of the defense goes after Edwards and the other 70% goes after Smith. Even if Smith can’t throw for sh!t, you would have to think Gettis could get wide open.
Again, wishful thinking, but that would have been epic! lol
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
That would be.
That would be freaking awesome. Thing was – Edwards was just the emergency QB. Counting as the 46th person active. The emergency QB can only come in in the 4th quarter.
And I think there’s some rule about whether or not one of the other QBs can come back in after the emergency one coming in. Not sure, though.
If the 3rd emergency QB comes in the game BEFORE the 4th, the other 2 can't re-enter.
If he comes in during the 4th, they could.
But being “inactive,” Edwards could not have come in the game for any position other than as QB.
Thanks for clarifying.
I knew that there were some nuanced rules about that, but just didn’t know the details.
I'm going to unofficially pencil in Greg Hardy for the positive column.
The box score only shows him with 2 tackles, but one of those tackles included an absolute disregard for a Cleveland gunner’s presence on the field before stopping the returner dead in his tracks. He also made his presence known to Delhomme on more than few occasions. I’d love to see him start over E. Brown. I can’t imagine that we’d get any less out of him than Everette has produced.
It was good to see Stewart back on his power game. I was really worried about him all this season.
I really hope we win 2-3 more games, just so the Luck debate will become irrelevant, and we can draft a dominant defensive tackle that we have sorely been missing for years.
Thank you, San Francisco!
Great call out on Hardy.
That was quite a play he made on that punt coverage.
Bet there’s not a DE in the league who plays gunner like that. He swatted that potential blocker aside like he was annoyed with him for being there, and made a sure tackle almost simultaneous with the PR taking the ball.
How many times do we have to note that he needs more playing time, before the staff sees the same thing, and does something about it? When he’s in, he makes an impact.
I'm sure next year when we get a coaching staff who looks at talent rather than tenure, we'll see Hardy playing more.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Fox benched Gamble and started Goodson.
Along with start a guy they just pulled off the street ahead of someone already on the roster.
Just saying, I don’t think tenure is as big a deal as we make it to be.
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
He started Goodson because Stewart was coming off an injury.
As for benching Gamble, I don’t know why he did it.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
According to Fox
he “didn’t think it was fair to take the ball out of Goodson’s court”. Not an exact quote there, but I think it represents his reasoning.
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 7:15 PM EST up reply actions
Couldn't sit a guy after 2 games of +100 yds rushing.
Now, after Stewart got 98, he can.
"He swatted that potential blocker aside like he was annoyed with him for being there"
He swatted him twice on that play…the second more emasculating than the first. I sat there, agape, rewinding that play over and over. I think he needs to be a gunner from now on…until he’s a full time DE.
Screw that…I want him gunnin’ even IF he’s a FT DE.
"more emasculating" - very funny.
About the way Hillis treated poor Godfrey on that TD run. Or like Stewart planted Ronde Barber last year!
Wish we had a video of Hardy’s play. (hoping Tater will provide, as he so often does!)
In defense of Godfrey (and Martin)
Our safeties were having to make WAY too many tackles of the RB yesterday, where were our defensive ‘tackles’ and linebackers?
There is no way Godfrey should have had to take on Hillis one on one on that play he had no chance of making that tackle single handedly.
And speaking of Stewart, I was much happier with his game yesterday, but last year he would have stiff armed that defender in to the ground and took it to the house (on his big run where he was run out of bounds by one defender).
I thought were godfrey got tackled was a safety blitz
Could be remembering incorrectly though
Couple things...
Goodson is such a quandary for me. I honestly don’t know what to do with the guy. On one hand, he’s not as good of a pure runningback, but he’s shown a lot of determination and tenacity (perfect word for him) and his production wise he’s done fairly well. On the other hand though, I still think he’s something of a piece that doesn’t quite fit. That could change with the regime next season, provided they don’t do something crazy like trading him.
I’m surprised Gamble isn’t in the pessimistic column this week. Benched against the Ravens. Didn’t start against the Browns. Throw in Captain’s performance, I don’t know if he gets it back either… It’s curious since he’s been our starting corner for about 6 years now.
For that matter, I’m surprised bout our lines weren’t in the pessimistic column. Our offensive line managed to open up decent holes, but they were only giving Clausen 2 to 3 seconds to throw the ball. Our defensive tackles weren’t getting anything done. They had absolutely no pressure. The ends were better, but only marginally so.
Something good to note though… Johnson is very close to being on pace for a 10 sack season. He needs 3.5 in the next 5 games. Of course, it would be nice if someone else on the team could get a handful of sacks, but at least someone is getting the work done.
I think Goodson is a great pass-first offense RB
He would excel in offenses like the Saints or Philadelphia, any place that commonly uses the swing pass really. I bet the Colts would be dieing to have him right now.
I know I'm starting to repeat myself....
but Goodson reminds me alot of Brian Westbrook in his younger days with the Eagles.
+1
Even more reason our team is well equipped to run the WCO.
Unofficial Agent for Armanti Edwards, WR #10, Carolina Panthers
I'm beginning to think that Clausen is.
His first inclination is to abandon the idea of a vertical passing option, and go to his short man.
We’ve got the WRs to take it deep, but we don’t try it often enough. You look at other young QBs (Flacco, Ryan, Schaub, Sanchez, Bradford – and more) and they’re all throwing a lot more deep routes. Sure, these take a second more to develop, and our OL doesn’t consistently give our QB the time needed – but there are also many times that the pocket does hold long enough. On those opportunities, Clausen has to make his decisions quicker, before the WR is covered.
Um....
Bradford hardly goes deep, that’s part of why he’s been so effective. He has a coaching staff that will actually play to his strenghts.
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 5:36 PM EST up reply actions
Um...
Are you seriously talking about Sam Bradford?
He just threw for 308 against the Broncos, with 3 TD passes, 2 of which were for 36 and 26 yards. The 36-yarder was all YAC by Housh, but Bradford also threw completions for 24 and another 26. This doesn’t count deep throws that were incomplete. All told, he averaged 8.3 YPA for the game.
Denvers hardly a rock solid pass defense.
I’m more of talking about the season in general. Part of the reason Bradford has been so successful is that he has not been asked to go deep, whereas in our “system” it’s practically required.
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 7:05 PM EST up reply actions
Wait again.
If our system requires Clausen go deep, why doesn’t he?
No facts I have access to, but empirical evidence of our every game tells me he attempts deep passes less than most other QBs in the league.
Less time
Bradford can go deep when he wants becuase of the short passes that he throws. Just like the run opens up the pass, The short game opens up the deep game. Clausen only has like 1 checkdown at a time. It is the most frustrating situtaion to watch. I would punch Fox and Davidson if I got the chance.
Maybe that’s why Davidson hides up in the box now? to avoid getting his ass handed to him on the sideline by Steve Smith.
Dude seriously that could be a factor!
because Smith gets pissed! So Dumbshit probably doesn’t want to be in earshot when he is up there pooping plays out of his mouth
You mean
You didn’t like the draw play on third and long to Rosario?
That’s right, 3rd and 17 and you dial up a delayed hand-off to your TE…genius. Its like he didn’t even want to get the 1st down. At least give yourself a chance.
PS…Shawn Rodgers blew the play up for a two yard loss.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Exactly
And after that on a 3rd and 3, we had 3 WR’s out on the right and Rosario out to the left at WR. The 3 WR’s had deep routes. I know this because none of them had done anything but run straight and they had already gone 8-10 yards. Rosario was coming across over the middle with a guy all over him. Pressure was coming in fast as usual….?? WTF???
I could understand how to a moron that the Draw to Rosario could catch the D offguard. I can somewhat hear that. The play above… I can not understand what even the line of thinking was there.
Yeah what happened to getting into second and short and launching a long ball just for the hell of it
Ya boi Still gettin it in!!
Very good point.
If you attempt enough deep throws, which Clausen avoids, you get defenders sometimes falling down, and the off DPI call.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
I think he's faster and potentially more dangerous than Westbrook ever was...
…but I DID see Goodson get completely blown up by a safety (Elam, maybe?) on a blitz and sack; Westbrook probably wouldn’t have allowed that.
I was thinking
a Vermeil stye offense. He reminds me a lot of Marshal Faulk and Priest Holmes at times. I’m not saying he’s Faulk or Holmes. So don’t freak out (in general not you ppalm). I can just envision him being utilized in such a fashion.
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
Oh, shoot. Didn’t see you already posted something on Gamble. My bad Ace, wasn’t trying to steal your comment.
As for Goodson, I think what we saw yesterday could be a preview of what the guy can do under a new Offensive coordinator with an imagination. Assuming we don’t re-sign D Will (conjecture alert!) our RB tandem would be Stewart/Goodson/Sutton (in all likelihood).
Quite frankly, with Stewart in there as the #1 back softening defenses up, Sutton as a third down back, then Goodson as the wildcard who can catch out of the back field and such as well as put up 100 yard performances running the ball… it wouldn’t be Double Trouble, but Triple Threat.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Scary moment
Maybe I’m being a wet blanket while everyone wants to laud Goodson’s last reception and YAC (and it was laudable). But while I was watching it, I saw him move the ball out into prime fumble position to fight for more yards. He DIDN’T fumble but if he had our prognosis for him would be totally reversed.
I saw that too, was laughing at the replay
He actually almost fumbled it like three times on that run. Secure the ball, man!
DeShaun Foster was a hard runner, who fought for the extra yard, too, but had the same habit of carrying the ball in a vulnerable position.
Goodson has shown an immense amount of improvement, and put up a lot of hard work, in the last year. If he alters his ball-carrying style, he can be a big factor in years to come.
I noticed it also.
Don’t know what Goodson’s actual thought process was at that point, but in that situation, at that point in the game I don’t mind seeing a guy playing with desperation. Now given Goodsen’s history, who knows whether that was part of a last second desperate balls-to the-wall effort, or just par-for the-course bad ball security.
It looked to me like he may have actually been thinking about
lateraling it to the guy right behind him.
42
beat me to it
I kept seeing that ball go flying. But since it didn’t, WOW!
by wee-vegas cat on Nov 29, 2010 9:59 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Feels a lot like the Saints loss...
It’s nice just to watch the Panthers fight again though. I prefer the feeling of watching that kick hook to changing the channel at halftime.
This loss doesn't bother me much.
The team put forth the effort to come from behind, twice, and if any victory is a moral one (morale?), this would be it. It’s admirable there’s no quit in this team, and it speaks really well about the players’ loyalty to Fox, that they don’t just go through the few motions left in the season.
I’m now resigned to our having a bad enough final record to earn a top (or the top) draft choice, which, if history’s any guide, Hurney will use to our advantage.
I agree
It was nice to at least see a competitive game for once.
I was actually quite impressed with Clausen towards the end of the game. I seen him audible to a couple plays that gained yardage and then he had the smarts to get down and spike the ball when he needed to.
Baby steps? Maybe, but the composure he seemed to have at points was good.
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
Great write up James. Only thing I would add would be Gamble under extremely pessimistic. The guy was benched for “ineffectiveness” via Steve Reed of CarolinaGrowl.com (not sure if this was posted else where).
This doesn’t quite spell confidence in the guy, and the fact that we have to pay him over 6 mil next season and the guy hasn’t had an INT in 14 games and is being benched for “ineffectiveness”… Makes me think that CB is more of an issue than at least I previously thought.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Yeah, I saw Reed's article
Honestly though, I just didn’t see ‘ineffectiveness’ at least I didn’t see Gamble as any more ‘ineffective’ than Richard Marshall.
I’m sure that’s the justification for benching him, but I tend to go by what I see in these write-ups.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 10:11 AM EST up reply actions
Gamble going interception-less in 14 games is a little annoying though. But as you said, neither Marshall nor Gamble have really stood out much this year. I still think it is doubtful we bring Marshall back… but you never know.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Yeah, but even Darrelle Revis hasn’t had an INT in 9 games this year. INT can sometimes be a bad metric for gauging CB effectiveness, especially when the team moved to a cover-2.
The cover-2 by nature means he’s playing off the ball more and less in the receiver’s pocket.
I like to gauge a CBs effectiveness by looking at the production (or lack thereof) of the receiver he’s covering. Last year Gamble was stellar against the likes of Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 10:24 AM EST up reply actions
Fair enough. I know the nature of CB’s is this: the only times they are ever in the spotlight is either when they have a big INT returned for a TD or when they completely blow a coverage assignment. Guess I’ve only seen the former out of Gamble recently. Perhaps I am being to hard on him… I don’t know.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
It may be just a "wake-up, Gamble" call.
Maybe there’s something involving that day of missed practice (Personal reasons), though Fox denied it.
But it’s a good coaching move, to send the message that even a starter who’s locked into a big contract is subject to sitting down, if he doesn’t produce.
He was benched for a series or two against Baltimore as well. Not sure if the personal reason to miss practice made him benched for this entire game, but this wasn’t the first time he was put down.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
He got back in this game in the nickel.
Quite humiliating, I hope.
I've got to agree with James
I haven’t necessarily seen any bad performances by Gamble. At least not in comparison to Marshall. The thing I always notice about Gamble is you never here his name, which to me says he’s got his guy covered and is shutting down who ever is on his side. Yeah, he does make a mistake here or there, but look at Marshall, it seems he’s always tackling somebody after the catch.
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
Marshall is the weakest link back there, no question.
Gamble had a bad day, but he also produces very good ones.
Marshall is consistently mediocre.
Pessimistic - Drive Extending Penalties
Too many 3rd/4th! down penalties that let Cleveland keep the ball.
by panthersnbraves on Nov 29, 2010 9:49 AM EST reply actions
Extremely pessimistic
the penalties calls by the refs. The roughing the passer by Beason wasnt roughing the passer. Beason let go of him before they went to the ground. Had Delhomme pump faked and Beason not grabbed him it would have been a bad play by Beason. He got screwed. The helmet to helmet call was bs too. He lowered to hit so it wouldnt be helmet to helmet then the receiver lowered too. WHat is a tackler supposed to do, predict how low the ball carrier will go? If they go too low the runner will jump over them like Hillis did once.
At the very least....
I think that on the helmet to helmet hit there should have been off setting penalties… I believe it was Marshall that was called for illegal contact on the same play? it was declined, but it looked to me like Marshall got completely run over by the receiver.
The helmet to helmet is such a gray area this season, I can see the point when it’s an obvious attempt to spear head a player in the face, that should be a penalty, but in a situation like this where it’s incidental I don’t believe it should be called. But from my understanding the rule is all or nothing at this point.
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
I thought that, too.
Why wasn’t the receiver flagged for OPI?? Marshall was entitled to his space there, too.
The biggest reason for our loss
was our ability to keep brown’s drives alive by giving them first downs through costly penalties. Martin’s helmet-to-helmet, the running into the kicker, roughing the passer… all things that were just sloppy in execution and, in the end, really hurt us.
I don’t think Gettis should be returning punts or KO’s, he’s just not that good at it. And if he gets hurt who do we have to replace him as at his WR spot? Clowney? I’d rather see if Clowney can return punts.
Also, Hillis is on steroids.
Also, Hillis is on steroids.
lol, Don’t know why I laughed at that. So matter-of-factually stated…
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
A friend of mine said it best
CONJECTURE ALERT!: I seriously hope I am wrong and he seems like an awesome guy in general.
But the guy had put on some serious muscle in the last year. He also went from being a third string RB in college to beasting over in NFL starting defenders in one season.
I just sayin’…
I really hope I’m wrong for what it’s worth.
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
*correction
Not in one season. Bu tit happened in a very short period of time.
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 11:25 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah... I'm not going to lie... it is a little suspect but maybe an NFL conditioning program did it. He wasn't tiny in college.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
Looking at the ball carrying arm I think it’s close enough to imagine that two years on NFL weights could have changed him
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
Perhaps…. I don’t know. Just would figure that with the way leagues are going after steroid users that if he were taking them, they would have found out by now.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
They do significant random testing
But there still is no viable or implemented test in the NFL for HGH.
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
Scroll down and look at his head James!
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
I see it
I’m just hoping it’s not true more than anything else.
I know a lot of guys have been cheaters, but I dont want to get to the point where my mind goes there for every breakout player.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
Good point
I hate to have become jaded like this.
Thanks Baseball!!grrr
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
Maybe
I am pretty sure that Hillis was lifting just as often in college than in the NFL. From the look of those pics his arms appear to be the same size but his NFL pic has more definition in his arms. That means he may have more than likely changed his diet plan and cut his body fat ratio
Ya boi Still gettin it in!!
He's more explosvie
MUCH more explosive. Physical appearance isn’t the only factor. Seriously look at that TV set he is carrying on his shoulders!!!
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
My Top 5 favorite runningbacks now
1. Jonathan Stewart
2. DeAngelo Williams
3. Peyton Hillis
4. Adrian Peterson
5. Clinton Portis (Don’t judge me)
You know the only highlight that sportscenter has been showing of us is the TD run by Hillis when raped Charles Godfrey with no condom. Shame Shame Shame……
Ya boi Still gettin it in!!
I'm still not sure why Goodson isn't returning kicks
I was sure he was going to take one to the house by seasons end the way he was returning a few weeks ago.
You could use the argument that they are saving his legs for RB, but then why do they have Gettis back there?
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
too much punishment...
…in being a running back to further increase his chances of injury. We’re just too thin at the position right now. I agree, though…I think he’s our best KR by far.
Pugh has looked like the guy to me. He hits the hold hard, and doesn't pussy-foot around.
I think when his hammy heals, he’ll be back there again.
"hits the hole hard, and doesn't pussy-foot around"
…have you sent any correspondence to Penthouse letters, bigD? I bet you KILL at cocktail parties. ;-)
Okay, I agree…Pugh has been quite good on kick returns. But I separate them thusly:
1.) Pugh has a good average and doesn’t question his move/cut. You can count on him to produce average to good results.
2.) Goodson dances around a bit, but he is the home run threat, to mix our sports metaphors. I think he has the greater upside. He’s already been taught how to do this as a RB…and he’s been showing the same maturation on kick-offs.
Keep in mind I’m not disparaging Pugh in the slightest, as I see him as a very good, consistent performer who will have your team (barring touchbacks) starting at the 25-30 yd line no matter what. I just see the risk-reward of Goodson as more enticing; his average return will probably be > or = Pugh’s, but that comes with the acceptance for every 50+ yard return, we will start at our own 15.
Just a difference in philosophy, methinks; I think ST’s should be game changing, as long as it doesn’t mean turning it over…and Goodson has reined in his fumbling…and he gives us our best chance at changing the game on KR’s.
Opinion, of course.
On Gettis/Kick Reterns
I posted on another thread on something related to this.
I actually looked up the 40 yd. Combine times for our potential return guys. Clowney is by FAR our fastest guy at 4.37 seconds. Armanti Edwards is next at 4.44. Gettis was 4.47, Pugh was 4.48, LaFell was 4.49, Munnerlyn was 4.51, and Goodson was actually the slowest of the ones I looked up – 4.54. (If I looked up anyone else, I can’t remember as of this point.)
Given it looks like Clowney’s easily our fastest guy, I would really like to see Clowney give it a try at returning kicks/punts. I guess Edward’s speed is why they tried Edwards at returning punts during preseason. At that point, playing at the receiving end of the ball was still really foreign to him, so it’s kind of hard to judge how he would have been or might be at this point (and I again reiterate that Steve Smith wasn’t so hot at his first few attempts either, fumbling the ball).
Just to clarify...
There are obviously things beyond speed to take into consideration in kick and punt returns (as Mr_Sticky pointed out in the differences between Pugh and Goodson on kick returns). I was just noting the recorded speed of the guys as a starting point.
And Goodson
Is averaging 22.9 according to the same site. If we’re going to keep Clowney active, let Goodson just keep working away as a back/receiving back, let Gettis get back on the field with Smitty and LaFell, and stick Clowney back there. =) Sounds like a win-win to me unless I’m missing something.
Somewhat Optimistic - ST play overall
Taking into account how often ST play was in the pessimistic column last season, I really feel like they deserve some credit this season. I don’t know the actual stats or anything but it feels like coverage is much improved and we’re giving up way less yardage per punt and kickoff. Not to mention breaking off big returns ourselves. I’m just itching for that one that’s gonna take it all the way.
FYI
Watched the Colts game last night – they showed an excerpt of Manning and his passing. From the “shotgun” he took from 1.5 to 2.0 seconds from snap to release with an average time of 1.78 seconds. Interesting !!!
Jim
I've been saying the QB always has less pressure from the gun, and even more from a no-huddle hurry-up.
Don’t know why the Panthers don’t adopt it. It’s like they’ve got to prove that Clausen can take snaps under center. But with the inconsistent protection our OL gives him, you’d think they’d be designing palsy and sets that would optimize his reaction time.
Moore would average 2 secs or less to get the ball out – Clausen hasn’t yet gotten that quick.
you’d think they’d be designing palsy…
I know it’s wrong, but this typo made me LOL for some reason.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Yep
It’s one of those topics that’s been beaten to death, but it would be nice to see the play calling take into account the obvious under-performance of our offensive line that we’ve come to expect this year.
I still reference the Vikings game last year where we rolled Moore away from Jared Allen consistently and Moore consistently made the play because the design put him in the right position to make a play.
Why we aren’t running more shotgun and rollout plays is beyond me.
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
My take on our team
Not really related to yesterdays game per se, but something my buddy and I were talking about during the game.
Personally I think we should take Luck in the draft. If he is what they say he is, it would be a shame to pass on him and watch him become the MVP of the NFL in a couple years. Even if Clausen turns out to be great, I would love to have two great QB’s on our team for a change. This league has become a passing league and we simply don’t cut it.
That said, I truly believe we have a lot of young talent on our team and are really a couple pieces short of having a great team. In addition to drafting luck I think if we go out and find a couple stud defensive tackles and a star corner our defense is one of the best in the league. On the other side of the ball, a couple offensive lineman would do wonders for our offense.
I’m not sure where I stand for sure on receivers and Clausen. It’s been so hard to gauge this year giving the way our line is playing. But i think as we all know the plan with Edwards is to not even let him really play until next year. I think with Smith, Gettis, Lafell and Edwards combined with Luck/Clausen, Double Trouble (get to that in a minute) and rebuilt line our offensive will make a huge improvement. We could use a real full capable tight end as well.
The two things that scare me about this offseason is Williams and Davis. If I’m not mistaken both have contracts up this year. The way Goodson is playing worries me because I have this feeling it shows the team enough to let Williams walk. On Goodson, yeah he’s playing great right now, but I am worried that he could be this years Matt Moore, Matt looked amazing last year but after getting the starting nod this year, not so much. On Williams, mark my words, if we let him walk he’s the #1 RB in the league next year. I can totally see a team like Pittsburgh or the Giants (where they have a passing game) and him being unstoppable. The same thing applies for Davis. Like I said earlier, get a couple tackles to help our line and then put Anderson/Beason/Davis behind that. Good god, that could be amazing. Again though, the play of Anderson and Connor before he was hurt makes me think the team will find Davis expendable.
I would like to add:
For me at least the decision to take Luck is not taken lightly, nor is it a condemnation of Jimmy Clausen.
I believe it’s “Andrew Luck or bust” in terms of the selection. I have heard people suggest perhaps trading down, getting more picks and taking Jake Locker in the first round- to me this is not a good decision at all. In order to make the decision to take a QB in the first round there needs to be one of two conditions satisfied in my mind:
1) Jimmy Clausen clearly has no future in the NFL
2) The player selected must have a significant enough upside to justify making the pick.
- will not been satisfied after 10 starts… it may give us an indicator but it wont be enough, and taking anyone but Andrew Luck does not satisfy #2 in my mind.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
Well said
I am just tired of the ‘game manager’ role played by quarterbacks in Carolina. I want to see our passing game be respected by defenses. I usually watch 3-4 games every week and it really is sad how bad our offense is as compared to other teams around the league.
If we have Luck, Clausen and even Moore still on the team in 2011 I would have hope that one of these guys would pan out. It will be interesting to see what a new head coach and QB coach does with those three QB’s.
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
Trust me, I'm right there with you on the 'game manager'
It’s gotten to the point where many are have become numb to terrible QB play to the point we’re confusing performances where someone doesn’t turn the ball over as ‘good games’. Sure, not making mistakes is half the equation, and the other half is making plays.
Jimmy Clausen could still be that player, no doubt… and it’s very difficult to judge his abilities from this terrible year across the board, but it’s just too risky to pass on Andrew Luck as gamble on Jimmy Clausen from what I’ve seen thus far.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
Right
That is pretty much exactly what I’m saying. Even in Clausen comes together the rest of this year, passing on Luck could prove a horrible mistake. If we take Luck AND Clausen proves to be the real deal what have we lost?
Like I said with the Goodson statement, putting all of your eggs in one basket due to the performance of a player at the end of a lost season isn’t the best move… Matt Moore anybody?
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
Maybe its less about the QB and more about the style of Offense we run
Jimmy can’t do what a coach won’t let him. That being said I believe if we draft Luck Jimmy will still get the first crack at the starting job next year and if he can’t cut it after so many games then we turn to Andrew Luck for the rest of the year
Ya boi Still gettin it in!!
I will say that in order to win a Super Bowl, you need a team that can pass the ball with authority. Think about the teams that have won the past 7 years:
SB 38- Cheatriots
SB 39- Cheatriots
SB 40- Steelers
SB 41- Colts
SB 42- Steelers
SB 43- Saints
The only exceptions to my rule were the Steelers, and they were able to win with good enough offense and stellar defense. They stopped a passing machine in Arizona, but only by a grace of God TD that was disputed (Holmes last minute TD).
Unless you have an Iron Curtain as a Defense, the only teams that win SB are teams that can pass. The running game is great, but the minute you get stopped on the run and are forced to rely on a mediocre passing game, you are not going to get very far.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
On the other side of that...
Peyton Manning, as great as he is, cannot carry an entire offense by himself. They are 6-5, and are close to if not at the bottom of the league in rushing. You’ve got to score points by gaining yards, and its a whole hell of a lot easier to gain yards when the defense doesn’t know if you are running or passing. Defenses are learning to take advantage of offenses that sit there in shotgun all day…just like they can load up to stop the run.
Let’s not confuse what is “en vogue” with what actually is the best strategy.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
When have the Colts ever had a top 10 running game in the past five years?
The Colts win off of Payton Manning’s arm. You know it, I know it, the CSR crowd knows it, hell, I would hazard a guess that even dingleberry Davidson knows this as well. Everyone knows the Colts throw way more than pass. The patriots do it to. Both teams have been extremely successful,. That is a fact you cannot deny.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
My point is
Peyton’s arm alone cannot win a championship. You need other successful components. I think this year proves that.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
2006 proves otherwise, when he did win a championship pretty much on his own.
by SouthernPanther on Nov 30, 2010 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
A ultra-productive Marvin Harrison and a healthy Bob Sanders,
And the best defense throughout the playoffs says otherwise.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
+1
Their defense was certainly not the best either. Their run D was atrocious, if I’m not mistake they were either 31st or 32 nd against the run. Manning and his receivers won that SB.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
No
Their defense was indeed 32nd in the league against the run during the regular season. But during the postseason, Bob Sanders and Gary Brackett came back with Cato June (150 tackles) and fixed that defense. They were by far the #1 defense in the playoffs. Without that, and a curiously productive tandem of Joseph Addai and Dominic Rhodes, the Colts don’t beat the Patriots in the AFC title game…if you can remember that one…it was a classic.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
You have to at least pretend that you can run the ball if you want to beat everyone.
Look at the Saints’ passing and rushing rankings the last 4 seasons. Tell me what stands out.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Yeah, they ran the ball to keep the defense honest. But you cannot honestly tell me that Brees, Manning, or Brady are not primarily relied on to win games. They didn’t win their SB with the running game. They did it by passing it through the air.
Granted the had good defenses, but the bottom line is that they win those SB passing the ball, not running it.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
I won't try to tell you that those QBs aren't crucial to their team's success.
What I will try to tell you is that none of those QBs can do it by themselves. I think the Colts’ mediocre year at present reinforces that idea.
You made the point initially that a run-heavy team can’t win. I’m making the same point about a pass-heavy team. Unless you have a little bit of balance on offense, and a defense with a pulse, you are not going to make it through the playoffs unscathed.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
I understand that. My opinion is that without that pass heavy offense, the Colts are crap throughout the regular season. They win their games in the regular season predominantly on his arm. In the PO’s, yes, they have turned in decent performances running the ball, in that you are right.
But they get to that position in the PO’s because of Manning throwing it way more during the regular season than running it.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Yes they do. But they are lucky.
When the weather turns sour come playoff time, and you are playing only the best teams, you have to be able to do other things. That same year, Manning’s QB rating in the playoffs was 70.5. As highly praised as he is, his one SB win was on the strength of his RBs and that defense.
This reliance on a pass heavy offense is too tedious. What happens if Manning gets his arm ripped off (hyperbole)? They are screwed. A team that has a running game just plugs in the next back. Building your team around one person will reap rewards, but it can also ruin you in a split second.
Same thing with Brady and Brees. If they go down (and you don’t have McDaniels and Cassel) they are done. I’d prefer to have that QB, but still be able to pound the ball. Besides, there is not an offensive line that wants to retreat every down.
I know this is the way of the NFL. I just think its short-sighted, and relies too heavily on the health of one player.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
What happens if Manning gets his arm ripped off (hyperbole)? They are screwed.
Haha, that made me laugh a little. And I absolutely agree that if Manning or Brees or any of these elite QB’s go down, their teams are screwed. Without a doubt in my mind that is true.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
yes
I’m glad to see that someone understands a proper draft strategy. I don’t understand why we would take Locker if we trade away the pick, because we already have Clausen. Luck is the only QB in this draft that is worth taking the risk of drafting a QB in the 1st round, given we already have Clausen.
Agree with you wholeheartedly.
Who knows but the tough loss we suffered yesterday might make the difference in our first round draft selection, and the chance to get Luck.
Our glaring needs for better OLmen and DTs can be met through trades, FA, or lower round draft choices. Luck shows all the signs that he can be the Franchise QB any team needs to build around.
I know that 5 starts may not be enough to judge Clausen’s potential (to some), but in those 5, he should have shown more, at least once. He’s never had a QB rating of more than 76, but for the one game when he threw his ONLY TD pass, which we all know was just a fluke, due to N.O. leaving JStew all alone. Even with that, his TD/INT ratio of 1/3 in those starts (1/5 overall), nor his inability to amass a single game of 200 yds passing, is not a good sign.
http://www.nfl.com/players/jimmyclausen/gamelogs?id=CLA709185
Let’s compare to Sam Bradford, who also had some rough games in his first 5 starts – but he won 2 of them, exceeded a QB rating of 84 twice, and threw 6 TD passes, and had over 200 yds 4 of the 5 games.
http://www.nfl.com/players/sambradford/gamelogs?id=BRA101548
Or how about Mark Sanchez? He had a rocky rookie season last year, but at least showed a spark in his first 5 starts: 5 TD passes, a QB rating of over 80 on 4 of those.
My take: if it’s there, it make take time to develop, and the OL a QB plays behind has a whole lot to do with it, but…you should see some signs of greatness, early on – if it’s there. Where is it?
I meant to say that...
DT’s and OLineman could be found in free agency.
I was also thinking the same thing yesterday, I don’t mind the loss because it was at least a competitive game and gets us one step closer to the #1 pick. It was nice to at least have some hope in the 4th quarter for the first time in what seems like forever!
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
Joe Flacco
I used him in a different post but he is the antithesis of what you’re referring to in regards to a guy showing something his first 5 starts.
Flacco threw for over 175 yards twice in his 5 starts (Clausen has three times), he had a TD/INT ratio of 1:7 (Clausen is at 1:5) and his QB rating was 60.12 (Clausen’s is 62.64).
There are examples of players being late bloomers, as Flacco really turned it on after his 5th start. Kyle Orton had a bad first season and now he’s the NFL’s leading passer.
Conversely, there are examples of guys starting great their first 5 games and falling flat on their faces (Joey Harrington posted over 75 in three of his first 5 starts).
Clausen hasn’t done enough for me to declare him ‘the guy’ but given there are examples of guys who are just late bloomers I think it’s not prudent to say ‘we should have seen signs of greatness’ yet.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, fair enough about Flacco, but...
…in Flacco’s next 4 starts (his 6th through 9th), he threw 6 TDs and no INTs, and had QB ratings of over 109 on 3 occasions.
http://www.nfl.com/players/joeflacco/gamelogs?id=FLA009602&season=2008
Let’s revisit that comparison of yours after the next 4 games, shall we? Say about midnight, December 23?
If 5 starts don’t fit your parameters, will 9? At what point do you want to see “signs of greatness” from Clausen? Flacco is the one exception you can point to, that showed zip his first 5 starts, then amounted to anything – yet in 6-9, he was showing greatness all over the place. I could only hope Clausen does, but he ain’t shown it yet, has he?
Flacco had more of a team around him in 2008 than Clausen or Moore did this year.
Look at the drop off at the RB position as an example. They went from averaging over a TD a game last year to less than half a TD a game this year.
I maintain we need to draft Luck if the draft started today, but to put time frames, ultimatums or constraints on Clausen based on 2010 isn’t fair given how truly ineffective the Panthers have been at all positions.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
Are McCoy and Bradshaw blessed with contending teams, to make them look better?
I just want to see a glimmer. Just a glimmer.
And I get glummer, waiting.
Ooh, now I sound like Gantt! Glib is fun.
Well, Bradford has a coaching staff that coaches to help rookies. He completes almost nothing but short, easy passes.
I haven’t seen enough of McCoy.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
LOL!
I assume by ‘Bradshaw’ you mean Bradford, right?
With both Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy they are playing for teams that understand they’re rookies and aren’t asking them to do too much.
Both of them average 6.0 and 7.7 yards per attempt which represents being ranked 31st in the NFL for Bradford, and McCoy hasn’t started enough to be officially rated.
The difference between what Carolina is asking Clausen to do (and Moore before him) is sending the WRs on 10+ yard patterns and due to natural rookie discomfort he’s finding the short routes whereas both CLE and STL are sending their WRs on 5-7 yard routes.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
Don't forget
That these 10+ yard patterns are generally on 3rd and 15 with a full on blitz coming! lol
Clausen avewrages 5.3 YPA for the season, and has never gone above 7.0 in ANY game.
http://www.nfl.com/players/jimmyclausen/gamelogs?id=CLA709185
Does that mean the Panthers are asking him to do too much?? Doesn’t look like it? Looks like he’s ranked even below Bradford (yes, I did), which by your standards, isn’t saying much.
“Natural rookie discomfort”? Is that something he should use tough-actin’ Tinactin on?
I thought he was groomed and bred for this stuff. What happened to all that talk about how he had a pro-style offense at Notre Dame, preparing for all this NFL discomfort?
Said this before but...
I thought he was groomed and bred for this stuff. What happened to all that talk about how he had a pro-style offense at Notre Dame, preparing for all this NFL discomfort?
Just because he wasn’t as good as advertised immediately doesn’t ultimately doom his future.
Speed of the game mean anything to you?
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 6:07 PM EST up reply actions
Well, apparently, Master Smart-Ass, it meant less to the other QBs I compared him to, after their first 5 starts against the speed of the NFL.
I’ve never said he was doomed – just that I’ve yet to see a glimmer of the over-hyped talent he was reputed to be. Even by Matt Moore’s 5th start (same hyper-speed, I suppose), he was winning games and throwing TDs – and he, as you and others reminded me endlessly, wasn’t drafted, and had no particular college success.
People are making excuses for Clausen, and I’m sure it galls his rabid supporters to have to do so.
That came off as snarky I admit.
But to be honest I intended it that way. Clausen is still a rookie, and in possibly the worst situation ever barring David Carr in Houston. The fact that he is showing any sign of improvement has to be taken as a positive. But there never is any positive with you when it comes to Clausen. Either that, or you hedge it with something about Matt Moore or other rookie QB’s. I’ll admit, I’m a Clausen supporter. I want him to get his fair shot, surely you of all people can emphasize. Or commiserate. We’ve yet to see.
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 7:08 PM EST up reply actions
Emphathize I do, and I can't emphasize that enough.
Really all I want is for the Panthers to do well, and if that were to come from Clausen, I’d cheer right with you.
C'mon BigD...
This isn’t an ESPN interview and you’re not John Fox. Tell the truth. You want anyone else to lead the Panthers to success besides Clausen.
And not for nothing, Moore was a “VET”. He had one decent game against a bad team. Moore SHOULD have been head and shoulders above any rookie. Moore had been with this team and in the league for 3 years. Maybe he sucks at being QB, maybe it was the team and the coaches.
Clausen actually has an excuse though. He is a rookie, throwing to two rookies, behind half a OL, with veterans on the OL causing costly penalties, same Vets giving up sacks, also without coaching or gameplan, with no running game(which Moore definitely had in his first 5 starts). The list probably goes on, but you get my point.
If our revolving door at QB this year proves one thing...
It’s that it doesn’t matter much who we put in at QB, they’re going to struggle with our bad OL and young receiving crew. Every QB we’ve plugged in has struggled mightily. It would take a really good veteran QB to make us competitive.
I think bigdavis and James are proving one thing
We really have no clue what we have at QB at this point. Hence, passing on Luck with the #1 pick (which is almost guaranteed to be ours at this point) would be a huge mistake.
Clausen and Moore may or may not be the real deal when it comes to being an NFL QB. Even if Clausen becomes the best QB in December (similar to Moore last year) we really don’t know for sure.
I strongly believe at this point we should bring in Luck and let the best man win.
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 12:40 PM EST up reply actions
I strongly believe at this point we should bring in Luck and let the best man win.
That’s it in a nutshell.
It wasn’t an affront to DeAngelo Williams when we drafted Jonathan Stewart and the same situation applies here, even if there’s only one playing spot to win. Williams proved he should be the #1 guy with his performance and if Clausen outperforms Luck (should we select him) then the same situation applies.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
Then we're agreed. Let's hope for good Luck, to give us some hope for the future.
If Clausen’s signing was supposed to be a healthy competitive spur to Moore, then the same goes, the other way around.
But despite the compitition
My “hope” and the “hope” of every fan should be that Luck beats Clausen out, because otherwise we left a top 5 talent on the table when we drafted Luck.
By the way, I am for drafting Luck, if there is any confusion created by the above statement.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
If both succeed though you can flip Luck for a king’s ransom the next draft. Matt Barkley is the concensus #1 QB for 2012, and he is no where near Luck’s skill level.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
I agree, but...
I think Luck will end up being the better of the two. Although, I was thinking the same thing… say about the beginning of October next year when some unfortunate team has an injury at QB, we could trade Clausen away for players and/or draft picks.
What did anyone have to say about Luck last year?
Nothing. He was nobody. And still he is kinda nobody. Mockingdan made a good point about Luck a while back. He said something about Luck hasn’t taken over a game yet. He had a great first half against Oregon, but then followed it up with a bad second half. So he said he is still waiting for Luck to show that he can take over a game and that worries him.
Worries me as well. All I see is measurables. He has the size that you look for and a good arm. He does not look fast to me. He looks average. It’s not like he is blowing by people or anything. I mean he isn’t a statue, but he ain’t Rodgers either. I don’t know much about him. Just what little bit I can read and youtube. Every year though there seems to be 1 or 2 of these “once every bagillion years” type of players. And it usually doesn’t work out like that.
And that’s why some of us don’t want to draft Luck, because it essentially means Clausen’s career here is over one way or another. I’d rather not give up on a QB after one year just because of the new and shiny rule.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 1:34 PM EST up reply actions
I understand that.
But what if the new one remains shiny and the one already possessed stays tarnished?
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
What do we do if Clausen lights it up and the next coach trades him anyway because Luck has the higher pedigree and then sucks out loud? It works both ways.
Honestly I’m a little skeptical of this “Next Peyton Manning” stuff. You’d think a once in a decade talent would get hyped years in advance. They’re just getting around to hyping him like that this season. Color me not impressed.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
The hype was there around Luck this time last year too… it was just muted because he couldn’t leave early.
One scout said that is Luck was able to come out and Locker came out they would be 1 and 2 respectively at the QB position with Bradford a distant third.
What do we do if Clausen lights it up and the next coach trades him anyway because Luck has the higher pedigree and then sucks out loud? It works both ways.
Yes, but at least in drafting Luck you put the Panthers in the driving seat and it’s up to them to make the decision. It wouldn’t be a foregone conclusion that Clausen would be traded immediately because:
a) We wouldn’t get fair return
b) He’s not very expensive
The analogous situation would be Kevin Kolb, who according to Adam Schefter believes will be traded for a 2nd and a 3rd round pick around the draft. So… by that standard if Clausen stays, and plays well occasionally he should be able to be traded for more than it cost to get him.
It’s far more likely Tony Pike is gone after this season in favor of a true veteran. If the Panthers stay at #1 and draft Luck it will then be up to Luck/Clausen/Vet to compete and we’ll see how it all shakes out.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
I dont think they are getting rid of Pike
I think if they draft Luck, Clausen will be his back up and they keep Pike to let him learn. I think Pike will eventually be a good qb but he has to learn the nfl, gain some weight, & get more arm strength. Then he will be a top qb in the nfl.
Who gets cut then?
Fox is dealing with not having a veteran QB because he has to… a new HC wont stand for it.
Mark my words: There is no way we enter week one of 2011 with Clausen/Luck/Pike as the only QBs on the roster.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
They could put Pike on the PS
If someone wants to grab him, tough titty.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
You follow this stuff better than I, so I'll ask you, James...
I see no value in keeping Pike. The coaching staff pretty much treats him as a wasted pick, and to go get St. Pierre amd start him, rather than give Pike some game experience in a lost season, shows just how much potential he’s deemed to have.
But my question’s this: if (a big if) Matt Moore were to make a quick and complete recovery from his labrum surgery, would you envision him being resigned by the Panthers? He couldn’t demand much, I wouldn’t imagine. It’s not as if he has a losing record as a Panther QB, or anything.
Honestly, I think it’s a slim chance Matt Moore returns.
When I think ‘veteran’ it doesn’t mean a 3 year guy with less than 15 starts. I’m thinking a 5-10 year true veteran who was a full time starter at one point- a Jon Kitna-esque guy.
Now, if the Panthers choose to either trade back, or not select Andrew Luck (again provided they retain the #1 pick) then I think there could be a slim possibility of Clausen/Moore/Vet fighting in camp for a spot… but it could be quite a long shot.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
I have to agree with this
I think they let Moore walk as he’s not under contract, hasn’t proven himself to be the future and hasn’t proven he is going to come back from an injury that has ended many careers. That’s just too many questions for a player of his caliber.
While I'm in favor of a veteran presence, you don't really need much
It’s funny, Sam Bradford’s veteran presence in 2010 was our very own Jay Feely.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
True...
But AJ Feeley is also in his 10th season and has 15 starts, appearing in 23 games.
Furthermore, and more hilariously it appears Feeley has changed race since playing for us.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
Nice!
That made me think of Steve Martin in “The Jerk.” You know, when he doesn’t know he’s white…
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Love that movie.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
To me, this scenario is not likely.
Luck has more talent, both physically and on a cerebral level. I don’t need Mel Kiper to tell me what I can see for myself by watching some Stanford tape.
Even if Clausen turns out to have a respectable ‘Kerry Collins’ type career, passing on a potential Joe Montana/Peyton Manning kind of player would be a mistake.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Good to know you’re basing everything on pure conjecture.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
It's all conjecture when it comes to drafting players.
Who do you think is the future at QB for the Panthers? and how is that not based on conjecture? I don’t think any of the potential QB’s for the Panthers in 2011 have proven anything to anybody.
I don’t know. What I do know is that it’s hard to evaluate anybody given how terrible this team and coaching staff are right now, and I’d hate to give up on Clausen’s potential, or anybody’s for that matter, based on this season.
Honestly, if you put Luck in at QB right now, I really doubt he does much better, if better at all.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 1:58 PM EST up reply actions
I agree
But we also haven’t seen enough from Jimmy to pass on Luck either.
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Especially
Especially since I have a feeling Moore is done in Carolina too. With his contract being up his current injury (which by all accounts is very tough to come back from).
If Moore is gone, we don’t even have a #2 on our roster. Having both Jimmy and Luck would be a nice security blanket if the other goes down.
Wouldn't that be 'conjecture'?
Maybe he’s new and shiny, but Clausen is not new any more, and the shine’s wearing thin. Was his the luster of gold, or pyrite?
If you judge a player’s total worth by one season, sure. I don’t happen to subscribe to that way of thinking.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 2:49 PM EST up reply actions
And you're not?
How so?
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Oh, I know!
…You have a crystal ball.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
I don’t need Mel Kiper to tell me what I can see for myself by watching some Stanford tape.
My point exactly. I’ve seen the kid play, and he’s worth the #1 pick.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
You keep touting that....
But it adds nothing to your argument. Absolutely nothing.
Pac 10 competition is tougher than you’re willing to give credit for, and I guess that’s just your problem that you can’t see it, but whatever.
Face it. Luck is a good quarterback, and the Panthers will probably draft him if they get the #1 pick. He will compete with your boy Clausen for the starting job, and he will probably win.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Let's see how he does in whichever bowl game he plays in.
Let’s let that be our litmus test, what do you say, Mike?
If he stinks it up, chokes, fumbles, throws picks, loses it for his team, I’m off his big red wagon.
But if he’s the MVP, are you on it with me?
We should really waity till the end of the season to pass judge on Clausen
Then we can damn him or praise him
Ya boi Still gettin it in!!
They started hyping Clausen when he was, what? Six?
Where’s that gotten us?
And we should be so lucky, that Clausen starts to “light it up.”
Nice try, but I’m not stupid enough to fall for that one.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
I never agree with this guy
Right now though I couldn’t agree more. He should hae been all over ESPN for atlest 2 years. He hasn’t…
Thats better than....
Thats better than passing on Luck and watching whatever team does draft him end up with the offensive rookie of the year while the Panthers throw all of their eggs in the Clausen basket only to watch him do the same thing he has done this year.
That’s assuming Luck really is that good.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
True...
But again, the same thing could be said of any player in the draft. At this point Clausen hasn’t proven to anybody that he is the future of this team and if it’s not him, who is it?
That’s kinda my point. I’m not keen on the idea of getting rid of a potential franchise QB based on conjecture.
Hell, I’m not keen on the idea of giving away any potential resource based on conjecture.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
Nobody has said anything about getting rid of anybody....
Nobody has said anything about getting rid of anybody until the other has proven they are the future.
We are saying bring in Luck and let him battle with Clausen. If and when Luck or Clausen proves to be the future of the franchise then you have a bargaining chip in the other player. Or in my opinion keep them both around.
Honestly, I’m skeptical of the brain trust of the team following that same logic, if only because that’s how things are done in football. I can see them following the logic of “Boy, Jimmy’s been really great this year, but this Luck kid is projected to be even better, so let’s trade Jimmy anyway!”
Granted, some of you might be right and Luck does eventually become what everyone’s saying he will, but I don’t like the possibilities here.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Why?
You have offered no explanation as to why you doubt Luck will become an elite QB in the NFL.
And its me who is basing everything on conjecture.
What evidence can you point to that will tell all of us that Jimmy Clausen is going to be a better QB in this league than Andrew Luck?
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
What have you that Luck will be elite?
The fact he has beaten not a single good team or played from behind, showing his ability under pressure?
GSO
Hey Mike, we need SOMEBODY that can do those things.
Clausen hasn’t even beaten a BAD team, nor ever come from behind. We’re just theorizing that Luck might be that guy.
I agree with you that cutting or trading away Clausen before we see what Luck has would be a big mistake as well.
I don’t think all the eggs should be thrown in either basket until one of them proves themselves.
For all we know Luck is overhyped and will be a bust, but we haven’t seen that Jimmy is going to lead us to the promise land either.
Wait a minute.
You’re saying we’re all ASSUMING that Luck is the real deal.
Sure, but what’s different about you’re ASSUMING that Clausen’s going to turn the switch on, and start commanding respect from a defense, and tossing, say, a few TDs around? Right now his TD/OOB ratio stands at something like 1/40.
I’m not assuming anything. I’m saying the potential is great, so I’d rather not give up on him after one season where the rest of the team is absolutely terrible.
Dude, seriously, knock it off with the strawman fallacies. You’re becoming more and more like Procton every day.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
A Straw Man is an imaginary opponent.
You’re not my imagination, Slayer.
I thought I was cross-defining assumptions, and how we all were making a lot of them.
I will desist from further comments, as you have invoked the name of the Anti-Poster. I must now wear a garland of garlic, and make the sign of the Cross.
See, you just did it again. Thank you for proving my point.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
I think what we can all learn here is what getting too attached to a QB who's not all world will do to you.
Delhomme, Moore, Clausen, Luck (sort of).
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 6:13 PM EST up reply actions
I think his original point in calling "Straw Man" was
When you said:
you’re ASSUMING that Clausen’s going to turn the switch on, and start commanding respect from a defense, and tossing, say, a few TDs around?
He never said any such thing (that I recall). That’s where the straw man for comes in.
He did said he didn’t want to give up on anyone’s potential this year which I agree with to an extent because we’re just awful on offense.
"What do we do if Clausen lights it up"
That’s what he said, in a previous post. The transformation from ‘lights it up’ to ‘turning the switch on’ was an electronic metaphor on my part, apparently too much of a literary device for the more literal types around here.
I was one assumer calling another assumer an assumer.
I am less intractable than he, because I don’t give up on Clausen; I just haven’t seen anything from him yet to be confident about. He, on the contrary, is reluctant to give Luck a chance, and his only reason is that Luck is unproven against major competition, or in the NFL.
I just don’t understand what is wrong with letting Clausen, Luck, and a FA QB battle it out for the starting job.
What is wrong with that?
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Absolutely nothing...
And I can’t figure out why it’s a big deal if we draft Luck.
It’s not like if we draft Luck that we’re going to trade Clausen on Day 2 of the draft for a bag of peanuts or anything…
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Just curious
But what exactly would we be passing up by picking Luck?
Our obvious needs are OLine and DT, who are the projected 1st round Oline and DT prospects and are they worth passing on Luck.
I am one of the Luck supporters and think he’s the obvious pick, I’m just curious who else is in the draft thats projected to go in the 1st round at positions of need.
We can get guys in FA that can be good stop gaps for the immediate future (i.e. Keydrick Vincent) on the OL and DL.
Getting a true potential franchise QB with the #1 pick is a thing only teams like detriot, st louis, and oakland have a shot at year after year. Can’t remember who said it on here earlier, but I’d rather have 2 guys battling it out for the most important position on the field than being stuck with one guy who may not pan out.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
I agree Ivan… I think we’d be foolish to pass on Luck and can fill our needs for other positions in FA.
I was just trying to see the other side of the argument from the view point of who else could be of use to us that would likely be taken before we get to pick again if we take Luck with the 1st.
It really is too bad we don’t have a 2nd round pick too. For the record I am still all for Armanti until he proves trading for him was a waste. I haven’t seen much but the YouTube vids of the guy because I don’t really watch college football. But the kid sure looks to have some talent and speed, as much as I’ve hoped to see him play this year, giving him a year of NFL conditioning in the weight room and on the practice field may be the best for him. (This is in no way meant to start the Armanti argument we’ve seen numerous times this season, I’m just crossing my fingers and hoping he pans out and was worth whats going to likely be the 33rd pick in the draft next year)
+1
I still think Fox just has something against Edwards. Why else would he just let the kid sit the bench? Give him a chance fox, not like we have anything to lose.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
I was in this boat for a while too..
But at this point does he gain us anything either?
Let him sit in the weight room, gain some mass and get a better understanding of the game this year and then play next year with a coach that can utilize his talents rather than just the same old vanilla play calling we’re accustomed to.
That might be the answer.
More conditioning, new coach = break-out star in 2011.
Ah, Matthew Stafford - thanks for the reminder, Ivan
Another new QB to compare with Clausen, as to how they’ve done in the their first 5 starts.
http://www.nfl.com/players/matthewstafford/gamelogs?id=STA134157&season=2009
Stafford started with the Lions right out of the gate last year, and it certainly wasn’t with a great supporting cast. And he had a rocky start, no denying that. But even so, he had 3 TD passes after those 5 games, and had 2 ratings of over 87, and 3 games over 200 yds.
So why’s Clausen such a slow learner, again? If he’s got IT, shouldn’t we see something by now, other than great progress in not fumbling snaps?
Carson Palmer
First 5 games:
- 55.96% completion
- 2 games over 200 yards
- 4 TD, 8 INT
- 1 game with a rating over 70, overall QB rating first 5 of 63.44
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
he did throw 4 TDs though
the picks don’t worry me nearly as much as how scared clausen looks out there…He’s TOO afraid to make a mistake if you will…
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
Alright then... John Elway and Steve Young are actually closer
Elway
- 1 TD, 5 INT
- 40.88% completion
- Only two games over 100 YARDS!
- 32.6 QB rating
Young
- 3 TD, 9 INT
- 51.96% completion
- 2 games over 200 yards
- 55.26 QB rating
Honestly, we can play this game all night because for every guy who did well as a rookie I can find you one whose been a probowler and hall of famer who had a bad start
-
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
yeah but read the other part
throw statsitics out the window for a second. doesn’t clausen look confused/nervous out there?i want a QB who isn’t afraid to stretch the field. The thing that is turning me off so much is all he does is check down to goodson. He hardly attempts any throws downfield.
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 8:17 PM EST up reply actions
no, im all for giving clausen the rest of this season
and if he lights it up, fine, i’ll eat a ton of crow. But I haven’t seen much progress from clausen through 5 starts and 11 NFL games. I think clausen deserves 5 more starts to show improvement. thats all i ask for, serious improvement.
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 8:24 PM EST up reply actions
you realize you didn't disprove my point?
First of all, you can’t eat your words if you aren’t saying something that would get them eaten. So therefore, saying that you want to see improvement and then Clausen going out and showing improvement wouldn’t constitute you eating your words. What would constitute such an act would be saying that you don’t think Clausen is going to improve.
So which is it exactly?
Here is what I'm saying:
1: I don’t think Clausen is our QB of the future
2: I don’t expect to see improvement over the next 5 weeks.
3: I hope I’m wrong, I hope he does improve, and if he shows enough then I’m willing to give him a shot next season. But, if he stays about the same through the rest of the season, then I think we should draft Luck. That’s what I’m saying.
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
I want to see him throw deep too
I don’t see him as ‘scared’ though. Scared was David Carr who would basically give up on a play, tuck the ball curl up into a defense-able position and wait to be hit prematurely.
Clausen has myriad things he needs to work on, but I don’t see him as timid or nervous.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
If Elway only had 2 games over 100 yards...
He wasn’t throwing very deep… or at least wasn’t connecting.
I can't tell you whether he was throwing deep or not
Game logs dont have details from 1983 (lol)
Regardless, he averaged a paltry 4.54 yards per attempt.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
90% of the time he doesn't have time
So it is very understandable for me, knowing that he is a rookie, that he assumes he doesn’t have time the other 10%.
4 TDs, 2 games over 200.
There was your basic glimmer.
there arn't many.
Marcel Dareus, DE/DT Alabama : The only DT who is a sure-fire top 20 pick.
If Marshall walks, and given Gambles flakiness of late, there may be a need at CB, where the 2nd best prospect, IMO waits…Pat Patterson.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
But are either of those worthy of the #1 pick?
I don’t think so, but that’s just my take.
If we manage to win a few games and pick 4th-5th, then we should take the best DT/DB on the board. But, if we’re at #1, then we take Luck.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Exactly.
And the only case where Luck isn’t the BPA is if he’s not on the board.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Aren't you forgetting...
…Nick Fairley of Auburn? I thought he was listed as one the top DT’s available (okay, he’s a junior, but I see him jumping to the NFL this year). I think as a penetrating DT, he probably fits our scheme a bit better.
6’5", right at 300 lbs (prior to NFL conditioning), and runs a 4.8-4.9 40. He plays with emotion, a mean streak, and a non-stop motor (although he needs a breather a little too much right now). He’s had 10 sacks (and close to 20 TFL) so far as an interior lineman this year.
I say trade down to the teens of the first round (with a second round pick thrown in) to get him and team him with Greg Hardy for one of the best young DT-DE tandems in the league.
So you're willing to give up the #1 pick for a later 1st and a 2nd?
Please don’t ever become the GM. That offer wouldn’t come close to matching the value of a cost-controlled #1 pick.
(Please don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not intending this comment to belittle you.)
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Yup...I would in a heartbeat.
Don’t get me wrong…depending on the situation, a 4th or 5th round pick could be a viable requirement to make it happen. But to stay high enough in the 1st round to get Fairley, that implies a pretty decent 2nd round position as well. I don’t know what team values the top pick to that level…so there’s a good chance we could get even more. But given the Ricky Williams fiasco for the Saints years ago, I just don’t see a team giving us their entire draft for “Luck,” so to speak.
But any version of this deal would give us the opportunity to grab a great interior DLineman and and great interior OLineman (in the 2nd round…OG’s rarely make it into the 1st round). That’s hard to turn down given how much these are positions of need on our team right now.
And no worries, I didn’t take it as any sort of belittling, bw…just a difference of opinions. I honestly don’t think any one player selected in the 1st or 2nd position will profoundly affect our team in the way that 2 mid to upper picks in the first 2 rounds would, given our present needs.
And please don’t think this is a return volley of belittling when I say there IS no such thing as a cost-controlled #1 pick; it’s a pipe dream. Although I expect the league to roll back the rookie pay-scale/guaranteed money, it isn’t going to be by much. And given how our front office addresses monetary concerns, my suggestion makes FAR more sense financially and logically. We could wind up with a good to great interior lineman on each side of the ball for the same cost (or less) than the #1 pick.
You’re right, I will never be the GM of the Panthers…or even a little league team…but what I’m saying has just as much merit as any other suggestion in this thread. And this is coming from an Andrew Luck fan. ;-)
to further clarify...
…we’re dealing with potentially a limited financial return on ANYTHING next year. None of us know what ANY pick is really worth right now. I’d love to rape any team for their entire draft, for the option of taking Andrew Luck; I was just trying to stay on the side of realistic expectations. I would certainly NEVER just dangle “1st and 2nd for our (probable) top pick,” without checking the new financial paradigm and available market. It would be merely a bare minimum.
Because I don’t believe it would be a fair competition.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 3:36 PM EST up reply actions
How would it not be a fair competition with a new HC, and OC as well as a new QB’s coach?
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
In Slayer's defense...
There is a chance we hire Jim Harbaugh as HC. He would probably have a preference for Luck since he coached him at Stanford.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
As a counterpoint, wouldn't familiarity with Luck's strengths, or even weaknesses, be an advantage?
Would a winning coach, or a winning QB, be so bad for the Panthers for a change?
Neither Fox nor Clausen has been a winner. (not counting JC’s H.S. career.)
Apparently it would be bad...
Because it would mean that Jimmy can’t play for us anymore, which from what I’m gathering on this thread, is more important than a top-notch QB to compete with Golden Boy.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
I honestly hope we don't draft Luck
But that hope is predicated on that Clausen is somehow going to turn it on and start tearing teams up for the rest of the year removing the need to take Luck so we can focus on another position. I don’t want Clausen to suceed because of some personal affection for him but simply because he is the current qb for the Panthers.
3 months ago, I would have scoffed at the notion that the Panthers would even be DISCUSSED along with talk of getting the #1 pick in the 2011 draft.
Now I view your dream scenario of Clausen “tearing teams up for the rest of the year” is equally far-fetched.
But since my fantasy now might come true (albeit at a terrible cost to my pocketbook, as I bet a dime we’d win more than 7 1/2 games), I hope yours does, too. Even though it would mean mine would thereby be dashed.
Well, if we get Harbaugh as our head coach, it definitely wouldn’t be fair. Harbaugh’s not going to start anybody but the guy he coached in college. Period.
As for other guys, maybe I’m paranoid, but I can’t see any coach standing up to the pressure of not starting the QB you drafted #1 overall.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 3:43 PM EST up reply actions
Well, that would have to be an assumption that we hire Harbaugh. That isn’t a foregone conclusion yet. I have had similar worries on that, but I won’t assume he is the next HC of the Carolina Panthers just yet.
As for other coaches, I have faith that in a QB competition, if we have Luck and he is struggling in TC and preseason, that our HC will have the presence of mind to save his franchise QB from punishment by putting him out there to early.
It won’t be like Fox where he has nothing to loose by not putting these young guys out there as he won’t be deciding on their futures. A new HC will have to rely on these young guys to get the job done, and I doubt a smart HC who has just signed a long contract wants to ruin his new QB by shoving him out there if he isn’t ready.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Sorry Slayer, posted something identical below. Didn't mean to steal your thunder.
Great minds think alike I guess. ;)
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
Part of the reason is I doubt that it would be a fair battle.
Think about it, who is everyone going to be clamoring for in the starting spot? Your second round pick from last year who “struggled”, or your, and this is putting it lightly, highly touted top draft choice? It’s unfair to Clausen. Sure, in a perfect world, drafting Andrew Luck makes sense for the reasons given, and I’m not as opposed to it as i used to be. But as we found out this season, offseason conjecture and rosterbating are usually just as often right as they are wrong.
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 6:17 PM EST up reply actions
What's "fair to Clausen" got to do with it??
Is this the Carolina Panthers, or the Clausen Panthers?
Frankly, I’m sick of this losing, and want a QB who can win some games. My guy Moore won more than he lost, but he’s probably gone now. Clausen has only won….? Oh, yeah, none.
That's my feeling too
You can’t not draft the potential future of the franchise because it’s not fair to another player on the roster.
The Luck talk does't matter
With 2 games against the NFC west and one against ATL’s B team we won’t have the first pick. Look at cincy’s schedule or even Detroit and try to find a win. They beat us on strength of schedule.
Why are you assuming it's going to be Atlanta's 'B-team'
Big difference between the ’09 Saints and ’10 Falcons.
At this point the Saints last year were 11-0 and easily cruising to home field advantage.
At this point the Falcons are 9-2 with the 8-3 Bears and Saints as well as the 7-4 Eagles, Giants and Packers just behind them.
Atlanta wont be able to afford resting people as close as the NFC is this year especially if they want to lock up home field to prevent potentially having to travel to Chicago, New York, Philly or Green Bay in the Winter, or deal with the Superdome.
I guess I’m not seeing that Seattle or Arizona are locks either based on everything Ive seen. Shoot, Jake Delhomme GAVE us 10 pts and we still lost by one to the Browns.
Detroit wont pick Luck even if they get the #1 overall and Cincy still plays Cleveland which is winnable for them.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
Like you, I don't think we can afford to count any game as a win
Seattle and Arizona are better football teams IMO. They are winnable, but at this point, with all the injuries and inconsistencies, I expect to lose the rest of the games…
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 8:35 PM EST up reply actions
Breakdown of losing teams
The 2 and 9s:
Buffalo Bills: They’ve played close in every single game in the last 6 weeks, losing in OT three times to divison leaders (against the Steelers and Ravens who are tied as well as the Chiefs). They also face off against Miami, Cleveland, and Minnesota. Surely they’ll etch another win against at least one of those teams…
Cincinnati Bengals: The Bungles have lost 8 straight, and they have a tough schedule coming up. Let’s not forget though that they nearly beat the Steelers in week 9 and outplayed the Ravens in Week 2. They have a winnable game against the Browns coming up, but the rest of their schedule is not so forgiving…
Detroit Lions: They’ve been struggling without Matthew Stafford, but even if they do end up with the top pick, are they going to take another QB #1 overall? Detroit is also looking at a tough schedule down the road against Green Bay, Chicago and Tampa.
The 3 Wins:
Arizona Cardinals: They are playing San Fransisco right now to decide who will get to 4 wins this season. Then they will play St. Louis Denver, Carolina, Dallas, and San Fransisco again. I’m betting they win at least 1 if not 2 of these games. Talk about a soft closing schedule. They will control a lot of what happens at the bottom of the pile.
Dallas Cowboys: They finally started playing up to their potential recently, putting a thumping on the Giants and nearly offing the Saints as well, if not for a late fumble. They’re going to be going up against the Skins, which is always a close matchup and also Arizona.
Denver Broncos: They’re going to have a tough schedule down the road with all three division rivals to play against. They do get the Cardinals though, so we’ll see.
San Fransisco 49ers: They just to a 7-0 lead against Arizona and their next matchups include the Cardinals again as well as Seattle and St. Louis. How would you like to be in a division where your leaders have a losing record (Rams and Seahawks are tied at 5-6), huh? What a terrible division…
Of all of those, who are going to be looking for a quarterback? The 49ers and Bengals are really the only two I can see wanting one. Carson Palmer is starting to get a little old and 3 years down the road they may want to replace hiim. The 49ers QB situation is about as ours. Some may say the Bills, but honestly Fitzpatrick has played well and it’s their defense that hasn’t be able to stop anything.
nice breakdown
yeah, the team that worries me is the bungals…i think they would undoubtedly take andrew luck. palmer just hasn’t been the same since that knee injury
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
Ayone know the tiebreaker scenario as it pertains to the draft..
ie: Since Cincy beat us does that mean they finish ahead of us in the standings (and we get the #1 pick) in the event we both finish with the same record.
Strength of schedule for the previous season is the first tie-breaker for teams with the same winning percentage.
according to http://football.about.com/od/miscinformation/a/detdraftorder.htm
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 9:14 PM EST up reply actions
Believe it or not...
As of right now we have the exact same strength of schedule. Regardless of who wins tonight (we play both) our opponents throughout all of 2010 are a combined 102 wins out of 264. The Bengals’ opponents also have a combined 102 wins.
Those numbers include both teams played and teams to be played.
math fail...
the “264” number represents a full season, and isn’t even right. It’s 256 for a full season (16 teams with 16 games is 256 total possible wins). So after week 11 that would be 176 wins.
My head hurts now. Stupid math.
Either way: Our opponents right now are 102 out of 176 possible wins.
Atl b team is not a lock but if they beat NO it is likely
I just don’t think we can count on losing every game and if we win one we pick 3rd if those other teams lose out. Personally I think cincy is playing worse than we are. Some teams left on our schedule are also close to sucking as much as we are despite the records.
If Luck is thought of as highly as most believe it would be hard to see him make it that far down in the draft.
Okay
Add Luck to this Panther team…envision him being the starter yesterday. Now loose Luck and add the top rated OT to this team. Which one makes more on an impact?
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Tell that to Joe Haden.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Luck wouldn’t fare any better duders, if only because his O-line is outstanding, and ours is terrible.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
We do not know this to be true
duder.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Yet his point is valid to an extent
Our offensive line is terrible and nobody is discounting that. We certainly do need some players on the OLine. Personally I think we address the line in free agency and draft Luck.
We need Otah BACK
we rushed for 151 yards and gave up 1 sack yesterday. Thats a good performance out of an Oline.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
We gave up more than one sack, dude. more like three or four.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
Okay, so it was three
But the one where the safety came right up the A gap was clearly Clausen’s fault, so this point works for and against your argument.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
I never said Clausen was guilt free. His INT was indeed totally his fault.
I’m saying he’s not being given much of an opportunity to succeed. Luck would face the same struggles.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
He would, without question
Luck would deal with far more adversity with the Panthers next season than he has in his entire football career.
But so has Jimmy, and it hasn’t ruined him. I respect that, and have nothing against the guy. I just feel like Luck truly gives us a better chance of winning next season.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
How do you mean, "grade out"?
At the combine, running around cones and bench pressing?
He’s already been graded out by scouts (per post from James) more highly than any QB prospect since PManning.
I don't believe this is correct
James said that scouts believe that he could potentially grade out at 4.78 which would be the highest grade in a decade.
He's referencing a specific scouting company
that supplies information for Sports Illustrated and several other organizations (including the Eagles). I’m not sure they have released their gradings yet.
The process is ongoing
He’s currently trending to get that grade per the scouting company that supplies the info to SI, but until the combine is over he wont be assigned a final grade.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
Combine and pro days mostly
I’d like to see some objective numbers to go with the somewhat subjective analysis done so far. I would also like to see how Luck performs in his bowl game to judge how he performs against top tier NCAA competition.
I agree
It still boggles my mind that Otah made that big of a difference, but to me he’s proven to be injury prone and at the very least we need some depth here.
Although the offensive line has performed somewhat better the past few weeks they are still far from where they were last year.
Like James said earlier, us Panther fan’s have started counting mediocre games as good games just because we’ve become so accustomed to poor games.
We don’t know your original assertion of him making a huge difference in this game to be true either, so what’s your point?
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
My original assertion was an attempt to highlight the difference between Luck
And the rest of the field that is the 2011 draft class. When you have the #1 pick, you’ve got to hit a home run. The person who gives you the best chance to improve immediately is Luck. If we choose to trade down two spots and pick up the tackle from Boston College or whoever, then I think we can expect him to make far less of an impact (good or bad) than Luck.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
I just don't want to be Buffalo
they had guys with potential but concerns at QB (JP Losman and Trent Edwards) and they didn’t pull the trigger on much higher rated guys because they already had those options. They ended up missing out on Flacco, Kolb, and Aaron Rodgers because of it.
Pull the trigger and pay the piper later if it doesn’t work.
Too much talent at QB? Is such a thing possible at Carolina?
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed. It's not possible.
If we pass on Luck, and he goes on to have an illustrious career, and we struggle to win 4 games each year with JC, there will forever be a little place in history for the team that passed on the surest thing at QB since P. Manning.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Well why didn't you say so???!!!
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
I don’t understand the argument here. We pick Luck, keep Clausen, and get a decent vet in FA, and put Pike on the PS.
What is wrong with that? Everyone is happy.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Thats pretty much what us pro Luck guys are saying.
We are saying in the event that mid-season next year Luck proves to be the future and we have a glaring need that Clausen could be traded to fix then we have that bargaining chip.
I think the misconception is that some think we are saying sign Luck and trade Clausen for draft picks.
Until Luck proves himself he is no better than Clausen in my eyes but at this point neither has proven themselves.
Luck might not even leave school
after this year. The impending rookie wage scale might make all of this moot. No huge pile of cash for the #1 pick like there used to be.
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
Makes me think
old JR knew a bit about what was going on huh? ;-)
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
You talking about not having to spend a lot of money on a #1 pick?
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
More in reference
to the veritable king’s ransom in value for a high pick in the draft. Over the last 5-6 years a top 10 pick, especially a top 5 pick was almost unwanted due to the huge amounts of money involved. Teams were constantly looking to trade out of those spots.
When the wage scale hits, teams will be trying to trade up more than ever.
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
Cn you imagine the value of high draft picks
after the rookie wage scale?
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
No, everyone's not happy.
The Clausenites aren’t happy because Jimmy’s not in the game.
Apparently to the Clausenites, seeing Jimmy play is more important than seeing the Panthers winning with anyone else at QB.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
ND Alums?
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Probably.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
If that is the case then that is dumb (if that is the case). Letting Clausen, Luck and a vet duke it out for starting QB in my eyes is a good thing.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Exactly
This is what pretty much every pro-Luck post on here is saying. Not about Clausenites, just that a duel between Luck, Clausen and a yet to be determined #3 is the best thing for 2011.
I totally agree.
I just feel like some fans here (not going to name names) would rather us lose with Jimmy than win with Luck, based on the strong opposition to drafting Luck if we have the opportunity to do so.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
I think I speak for everyone here when I say that...
everyone wants nothing more than for the Lombardi Trophy for X year have the words “Carolina Panthers, Champions” engraved on it. We just have different ideas of how to do it.
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
KC Joyner the Football Scientist
calls Left Tackle the most overrated position in football.
I’m not saying it is unimportant. But I’d agree that it is overrated.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=joyner_kc&id=3521823
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, ecspecially if your QB is a southpaw.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
While I agree the LT as a position may be overrated.
You still need to be able to protect your QB. Look at the Colts, they can’t run, and now they have issues in pass protection. Look how much Manning has been affected. He’s looked somewhat similar to many Carolina QB’s, antsy feet, throws into coverage, dumpoff passes.
(reread again with an emphasis on “somewhat” before you post a reply :)
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
A bad OT can lose a game here and there; a great one has never won one yet.
It’s a QB-driven league, I’m sure you’ll agree. Not an OT-driven league.
It’s been demonstrated here that almost all Super Bowl winning teams have outstanding QBs to lead them, and even more so to get them there, through their regular seasons and playoff games.
The logical extension of that first assumption is that, to be a contender, much less go all the way, we need such a great QB.
Next step: how can you assume that Clausen is that guy? He might (!) be, given time, and significant changes in his mechanics, delivery, anticipation, aggressiveness, decisiveness, and will. But as of now, his record begs for a competitor to push him, lest we dwell in the house of mediocrity forever.
Luck is widely regarded to be a once-in-a-decade prospect, and while no-one on here has said we should dump Clausen, and throw all our eggs in Luck’s shiny basket, you seem to be commenting under that assumption, that it’s one or the other.
As they used to say decades ago, “Give Peace a Chance.” Give Luck a chance.
David Diehl
was the LT the year the Giants won the Super Bowl and he gave up 12.5 sacks that year.
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
Good point... but...
What if they draft Luck and add to the O Line through free agency like most of us have been saying? I don’t think anybody has said that the OLine would perform better if we had a better QB.
My point is, the upside of drafting Luck has a lot more potential than the downside of drafting him.
If we draft him and Clausen ends up being better then trade Luck.
The fact is...this happens sometimes.
Kellen Clemmens was drafted in the second round by the NY Jets. The next year (or two) they draft Sanchez fifth overall. Why? Because he has a higher ceiling.
You can be the only guy in the stands wearing a Clemmons/Clausen jersey, if you want.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
This wasn't directed at you, MM.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Lol, no worries
I can’t see how it could be. I’m all for drafting Luck and letting him and Jimmy battle it out.
For the record, I have faith in Jimmy too, I think he’s been dealt a pretty sh!tty hand this season. I think Moore is a heck of a player too personally, but given his injury and contract status I just don’t even see the point in talking about his future with Panthers because I don’t believe that there is one.
I agree
That’s too bad about Moore. I like him as a backup guy who could come in a win a few games if needed. He may not play football again with that horrible injury.
Clausen has been dealt a shitty hand. I do think that he has had opportunities to be better than he has, though.
The real question is, what do we do with JC if AL wins the starting job (which we assume he would)? I think he could be a backup for a year and then be traded. The problem is, with all 31 other teams passing on him, and ten or so of those passing on him twice, and the collective turd he has laid on tape, his value might not be very high.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
why are we drafting an OT?
Gross/Otah are both quality tackles
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
I think he wants a RG
Schwartz/MacBern/Williams/Robinson do not inspire confidence.
I say we can find an answer in FA, and hope one of these young guys can work out over time.
That
That and Otah has spent more of his NFL career injured than he has on the field.
I love the guy but we certainly need to address quality OLine depth especially with the potential 18 games season looming.
However, as ppalm said, I think FA is the answer for this rather than the draft.
Or perhaps find some depth later in the draft
Just not with a top 5 (and potentially the #1) pick.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
And that’s why some of us don’t want to draft Luck, because it essentially means Clausen’s career here is over one way or another.
The solution is simple: follow whatever team Clausen ends up on, if in fact he’s more important to some than the team as a whole.
You don’t turn down the chance to draft a once in a decade QB, ever.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
It’s not about Clausen. It’s about just giving up a potential resource willy-nilly. I feel the way way about Pike.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
But why pass on the potential resource of Luck...
When no other player really warrants the #1 pick?
What’s wrong with having two good, possibly great QB’s battle it out for the right to lead us to victory for the next 10 years?
San Diego did this in 2003, and it worked out pretty well for them.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Because I’m concerned if we do draft him, the other guys will never get a fair shot. And no, I don’t consider this season to be a fair shot.*
I especially have this fear if we do indeed bring in Luck’s college coach. You really think Harbaugh will start anybody over Luck? Yeah right.
*For the record, I feel bad for Moore too. He got screwed pretty badly as well.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
Like when Moore got a fair s
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
...sorry
(cont)
Moore was pulled after 7 quarters. When you have a new QB who has been given the franchise QB designation, there is pressure to get him on the field to see what he has.
Clausen has been given a shot, and he has been unimpressive.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
I like how the Matt Moore support group has jumped on the Luck bandwagon
There’s some really interesting psychology behind what’s going on here…
Was wondering when someone would bring that up.
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
The connecting factor is Clausen's lack of production, and wanting a QB who can win games.
As much as a pro-? bandwagon, it’s growing discontent with the sloooow progress of our 2nd round draft pick, who was touted as NFL-ready and possessed of great skills.
Luck is the next alternative that we have a chance to grab. Surely the other horsies on our QB carousel aren’t giving us a ride.
Then he simply wasn't NFL ready
Or at least not ready for this offense. Is that really such a bad thing though? I’m willing to bet that if you insert Clausen into Cleveland or St. Louis, he does fine. Neither of those teams ask a whole lot out of their quarterbacks. The Browns certainly didn’t need much from Jake yesterday…
To be honestly, I don’t think John Fox has a clue on how to develop a QB. When a 4th year pro comes out and struggles just like the rookie, it doesn’t say much for their grooming process.
In my case, the "psychology" is actually very simple.......
Speaking soley for myself, I’m really skeptical of Clausen’s leadership skills at the NFL level, his abiltiy to consistently win games at the NFL level and I have concerns over a rookie with a reputation for being “cocky” especially when he doesn’t back it up on the field. I’m just not sold on Clausen at all and thought Moore had more upside just as I think Andrew Luck has way more upside and brings more positives. Just a matter of personal opinion in my case. I need to see something of substance from Clausen to change my mind, otherwise naturally I’m interested in other options.
I wasn't in the Matt Moore support group, and I'm still driving the Luck bandwagon
I know you’re not pointing me out specifically, but I don’t want to be jumbled in that pile.
I commended Moore for his game against San Francisco because I kept my word to bigdavis on a wager we made, but I was far from a member of the MM support group.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Not everyone who is on the Luck bandwagon was in the MM support group
I’ve been on it too, but I’ve been as critical of Moore as anyone this year.
You know
I would like to think that most Panther’s fans were on the Matt Moore support group. I had high hopes for Matt and I have high hopes for Pickles as well, I for one support whoever is under center (except St. Pierre because we all know he has no future with the team).
At this point, I think most of the ‘Luck bandwagon’ is just concerned that if we don’t draft Luck we are essentially putting ourselves in the same situation as last year where we are giving the reigns to a QB that is unproven (not that Luck is proven).
I for one do not want to relive the 2010 season again next year because the team says “Jimmy is our guy, win, lose or draw” and find out about week 3 or 4 that Jimmy is indeed NOT the guy. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t, the fact is we don’t know.
In all likely hood Matt Moore is no longer going to be a Panther which leaves us with Clausen, Pike and St. Pierre. The only reputable QB’s that are become free agents (Hasslebeck, Grossman) could hardly be considered the future of the franchise (to me at least).
Call me a bandwagon supporter or whatever you want, but the bottom line is, I want the Panthers to return to greatness in 2011 and if Andrew Luck can make that happen for us, hell yeah, if Jimmy Clausen can make that happen for us then hell yeah, but at this point it looks like we will need at least one more QB on the roster and if we have the opportunity to pick the guy who is being touted as the next Peyton Manning that’s better than our other options in my book. Again, maybe Luck is the real deal, maybe he isn’t, but to me he’s the best option out there.
by MindMachine on Nov 30, 2010 10:34 AM EST up reply actions
If we draft Luck
The ideal is that we get a former pro bowler well past his prime. Then see who’s holding the clipboard at the end of the season and both QBs have a sound mentor. I really think we need two more QBs. That’s just me though..
If we draft Luck, and he turns out to be the best thing since Manning like all the scouts are saying he will be, then we can always trade Jimmy for a 3rd round pick and let him catch on somewhere else.
You just can’t pass up the opportunity to draft a franchise QB if he’s there at #1, especially when there are no other options that are worthy of the #1 pick.
If there were a few other guys who were legitimate #1’s then I could see a debate as to who we should pick, but if Andrew Luck elects for the draft, he has to be the #1 pick. The potential reward (a franchise QB for 10-15 years) is worth the risk of the #1 pick.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
I understand the logic of taking BPA, and I generally agree with it, as its served us well the last couple years. In this case, I feel like we have so many other holes (and potential holes) that need filling that I’m not super keen on the idea of getting a QB when we might two good ones already on the roster.
Now, if Luck does indeed live up to the hype, then I’ll support him because it’s best for the team, and I’m sure his awesome play would win me over. I’d still feel bad about using those two picks on Clausen and Pike though.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 3:47 PM EST up reply actions
But from what I understand there isn’t players available at the positions we need that justify not taking the BPA which in this case is Luck.
And we can get the best of both worlds by taking luck and plugging the other holes through FA.
If the team went into the draft worrying about the other players feelings at that position the team would be a disaster.
Honestly, with all the guys we have to re-sign, I don’t know if we’ll have the cap to plug in veterans. Plus this draft is horribly shallow.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
Plus this draft is horribly shallow.
Another reason we should take Luck #1 overall, because there really isn’t that much to choose from other than him that warrants the #1 pick.
Would I like AJ Green? Sure. Would I like Dareus or Fairley? Of course. Amukumara or Peterson? Bring either one of them on board.
But none of those guys are a better value pick at #1 overall than Andrew Luck. They’re just not.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Trade down with who?
Do you realize how much a team would have to give up to get the #1 pick?
Basically, unless Hurney feels like giving the pick away, it would take every pick in the draft from another team to get that pick and make it an equal trade, unless the Lions wanted to trade us Megatron for it straight up.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
I can name several teams who want that pick
Including Cards (Fitz +), 49ers (Vernon Davis +) etc
and I believe it could get done with picks
GSO
I can name 32 teams who want the #1 pick...
But the list of teams who would actually give up what it takes to get it is much, much shorter.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Oh yeah sure
And the Patriots could give up Tom Brady for the #1 pick too.
Aren’t hypothetical situations fun!? Anything can happen!
and I would not take Brady for the #1 anymore
b/c he alone at this age on those knees could not be our franchise QB
GSO
But we could draft Luck at #1...
And let him and Jimmy battle for the job, and the winner gets the position, and the loser gets traded elsewhere.
Really, what is wrong with this scenario, other than your fear that Clausen isn’t good enough to beat out a rookie QB.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
It's called free agency...
And we will have $70M in cap room.
We can shore up other areas.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Do so through free agency
If you miss on guys who fill ‘glaring problems’ then you’ve but yourself further behind.
Smart teams take the best player available regardless of position then fill their needs through free agency.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
Why not trade down though? get more assets
I would rather get a young DT that can be an anchor for years or a young shutdown corner with size and speed
GSO
The young DT and CB can flop just as easily as the QB can...
Fairley, Dareus, and Peterson are not sure things either.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
If you miss on said DT you’re in serious trouble.
My plan (from another thread)
- Draft Luck (if we remain #1)
- Sign Jonathan Joseph at CB
- Sign Brandon Mebane or Cullen Jenkins at DT
- Take DT with 3rd rounder
Problems solved.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 10:40 PM EST up reply actions
But that means Clausen can't play anymore...
Really, that appears to be the only problem with drafting Luck, because I’ve yet to hear a valid reason why we should pass on him if we have the #1 pick other than “we have Jimmy Clausen”.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
meh gamechangers at those positions would be nicer
Joseph I am partial too, USC!
But IMO Peterson has potential to be better than JJ by a lot, and Fairley more than those two.. and would fit our young young team
GSO
Possible but as I see it:
Possibility of probowler in Peterson OR Fairley < Surety of top 10 CB in Joseph, surety of top 15 DT in Mebane or Jenkins AND possibility of probowler in Luck
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
would not call them top 15 DT's, maybe Jenkins but he will be 30 next year...
and what say Jimmy can’t be a PB and that Luck has a greater chance?
GSO
Is JJ better than Marshall/Gamble/Capn?
I don’t know
But Peterson is being billed as the best CB prospect in a long time
GSO
Is he being graded as the best CB in the last decade?
Because Andrew Luck is being graded as the best QB in the last decade.
Better than the following…
Aaron Rodgers
Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
Ben Roethlisberger
Matt Schaub
Mark Sanchez
Sam Bradford
Matthew Stafford
Jimmy Clausen
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
JJ is better than all three...
watch the kid play…he is a spectacular corner
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 10:58 PM EST up reply actions
I will continue this argument at the bottom of the page
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 10:59 PM EST up reply actions
Joseph concerns me
The Bengals defense hasn’t been as good as advertised this year and I don’t know how much Josph has played into that. He surely would be an upgrade over Marshall though. I think Jenkins may prefer to stay with the GB though because they currently have a much better situation.
You think the Cards would trade Larry Fitzgerald to us, and the Niners would trade Vernon Davis to us?
Why am I even arguing with you? Seriously.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
for the #1 pick.. guess I read your post wrong about how it would take more than every pick a team has...
Cards would love to get a QB, and Luck would be popular in the West
GSO
Cards can get a QB with their own pick...
There will be more than 1 QB in the draft. Mallet and Locker will be decent options in first round after Luck is off the board.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
According to the scouts, he is.
That’s one thing you fail to grasp. According to scouts, who happen to know what they’re talking about, Luck is far and away a better QB than Clausen.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Personally..
I’m waiting for Luck to grade out before I get too excited about him or anyone else in the draft.
Sliced bread is out.
Fresh baked artisan bread is now where it’s at.
(Little known fact: Luck’s middle name is asiago.)
You are basically advocating that we shouldn't have drafted Clausen, because Moore didn't get a fair shot.
It is the exact same situation we are going to end up in if we have the number 1 pick. If we didn’t draft Clausen, where would we be now? Its about hedging your bets and never going all-in, and the Luck pick is arguably the safest way to do it.
The difference is we didn’t have anyone behind Moore, so we drafted to fill a need.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 29, 2010 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
We really don't have anyone behind Jimmy either...
We brought in Brian St. Pierre and Keith Null, so obviously Pike isn’t ready to be a backup.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Which in turn
makes drafting luck both taking the best player available and filling a need at QB since at that point our depth chart will likely be Clausen/Pike/? since I doubt Moore comes back and certainly hope Null and St. Pierre aren’t around next year.
Even if we get don't go with Harbaugh
A coach who drafts a QB will be naturally more invested in “their guy” (Fox excluded since he isn’t invested in any of our young players as near as I can tell).
Putting your team in position to win from your own five with 55 seconds left is pretty (expletive) impressive to me.
I see a lot of credit to Goodson, which is deserved, as that was an impressive effort, but who got the ball to him? Who got the ball to LaFell on the sideline for him to make an absolute beauty of a catch? Sure it was against the Browns, but we don’t exactly have a Mark Sanchez supporting cast for Pickles.
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
All of this is irrelavent BigD
Sorry, but these are all entirely different situations. We just found a running game, All these teams have one. These QB’s have a coaching staff that gameplans to utilize their strengths. They are not forced to use a gameplan that hasn’t worked/changed in over 2 years.
I don’t know what Clausen will be, I hope he is great. I don’t know what Luck will be I hope he is great. Best case scenario would be for Clausen to be great and for us to pick up another player that can lock up his position for 10 years.
I have an unofficial pessimistic
Jimmy Clausen. I know that people think the offensive line is bad, but both backs found wholes yesterday. If you go back and watch tape of Delhomme as a panther and Moore, they got rid of the ball. I’ve said it since this spring, all Clausen has done in every game is hit check downs and hitch routes…and at least 6 passes go out of bounds. It’s not about being a rookie, he’s already got David Carr syndrome. I’m sure the same thing is gonna happen this week that happened 2 weeks ago when I said Clausen sucked. Rest assured, I wont apologize this time. The only progress I’ve seen is he cut down the batted passes. He spends way too long in the pocket and is scared.
The fact that someone insinuated that I’m hating on Clausen because I was for Moore is childish. Clausen on his best day is about the same as Moore on his worst. I was happy with what Matt Moore did at the end of last season and I wanted him to have the year to prove himself. Bring in failbot 3000 and people are saying I’m going to have to watch failbot throw for 5 more games…I can’t do it. He’s honestly worse than any qb I’ve ever seen and I remember troy aikman’s rookie year, he at least occasionally looked good. Clausen looks bad all the time. His total passing yards was actually about 15 to 20 everything else was yards after the catch.
The only thing I’ll say is that I do not think Moore would have done much better with the way the offense is. I also would add that both Moore and Clausen were/are gunshy while in the pocket. I wouldn’t say they have David Carr Syndrome, as that usually involves running towards your own endzone in utter fear of getting sacked.
Rather they both take/took to much time in the pocket to make decisions. There were many throws that Moore made that made me wonder what in the hell was that. Clausen has done the same thing, namely the INT to Haden yesterday.
I’m not sold on Clasuen right now, but I wouldn’t say that Moore would have done all that better in this situation.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
i think moore has proved this season already that he can move our offense better.
people are looking at clausen’s yardage total and saying “oh he is moving the offense decently”. but like elecp said, its all YAC and check downs. Clausen is afraid to throw downfield, he panics in the pocket, doesn’t step up in the pocket, usually runs backwards, and takes 10 yard sacks instead of 5 yard sacks. He throws the ball out of bounds on way to many plays. I think some people are using the “rookie mistakes” card way to often, when in actuality he is just making quarterback mistakes. for example, there was one play yesterday where smith was open, and clausen threw him the ball, and it just came up like 2 yards short and smitty couldn’t get to it…I mean he had all the time in the world and just couldn’t get close with the ball. I’m sorry, but if Colt Mccoy and Sam Bradford can come out of the spread offense in college, and play this much better with less talent surrounding them, then jimmy’s play is unacceptable.
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks for remembering Colt McCoy, as a comparison.
I neglected to throw him into the mix of comps, in my previous post, mentioning only Bradford and Sanchez.
McCoy has, coincidentally, also started exactly 5 games, and he has no powerhouse team to rely on. Yet he’s thrown 3 TD passes, only 3 picks, has exceeded a QB rating of 80 3 times, and has over 200 yds passing 3 times. Clausen has shown nowhere near the level of talent any of those 3 comparable QBs have. When will he? Will he?
Moore DID do better. 28/41, 308 yds, 96 QB rating vs SF has never been even approximated by Clausen.
Disagree with you about Moore’s taking too long in the pocket. I put out a detailed post about his time of release. He threw into coverage too many times, but at least he was trying to make something happen. Clausen, on the contrary, hesitates, vacillates, and tends to the conservative outlet pass, seemingly (I don’t pretend to know what goes through his mind, but I’ll say it isn’t an aggressive, take-charge attitude, from the results) to void making a mistake which might lead to an INT. I’m frankly tired of no-nothing announcers (God, is Torry Holt the worst you’ve ever seen!) giving him credit for “maturity” every time he heaves it OOB.
Moore was NEVER gun-shy, even after he suffered the concussion.
I still have no evidence that Clausen is anywhere near the QB Matt Moore was, and until it’s there, I’ll maintain that Moore would’ve won games for us, if he’d been able.
by bigdavis on Nov 29, 2010 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
All I’m saying is that I personally, do not think Moore would have fared much better against teams we have played recently. With the way this O-line has been pass blocking, it is difficult for any QB to prosper.
And the SF game you put up stats on, lets not forget that Moore nearly cost us that game with that sorry pass that a SF lineman picked off and returned for a TD. Without a hurry up offense, and yes decent throws, and even better catches by Gettis and LaFell, we lose that game because of Moore’s errant throw.
I’m not trying to start a Jimmy vs Matty argument. I’m simply saying that I don’t put much faith in either guy at this point.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
'Moore was NEVER gun-shy, even after he suffered the concussion.'
That was part of the problem frankly. Too much Jake and not enough Beuerlein. Clausen probably has the opposite problem although that is probably more correctable than the gunslinger mentality given the proper pupil.
I'd think it were less correctable.
Aggression can be toned down, fine-tuned. Meekness and indecisiveness are traits that are tougher to overcome.
Now if Clausen is only exhibiting those traits because he’s only had those magical 5 starts, or it’s only the fault of our OL, and he can somehow show the true colors that his supporters still maintain are there, like a rose that has yet to bud out…then I’m wrong. But from what I’ve seen thus far, he looks for the easy way out, and is afraid to fail.
To be fair I suppose it depends on the student
If I had my choice between two coachable rookies who only differed in their approach to risk, I’d choose the more conservative one. Things are less likely to blow up in your face with the guy checking down more often than he should while he’s learning the ropes (which helps with confidence).
Ivan said Moore was gun-shy, and that that was a problem.
You say he was not, and that that was a problem.
At least he’s on IR now, and no longer anybody’s problem. LOL
Moore is a self-described gun slinger
I’ll take his word for it and especially so after him throwing into double and triple coverage so often. As you said, it’s not much of a problem either way.
that last throw to LaFell didn't look good to you?
I don’t remember YAC on that one. That would be considered an ‘occasion’, right?
that is 1 throw
literally 1 throw…are we that used to AWFUL QB play that we are trying to legitimize a quarterback because he made 1 good throw? are we really that desperate?
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
He threw 2 good passes yesterday.
The early throw down the middle to Smith was accurate, on time, and had velocity. The 4th quarter sideline throw to LaFell was excellent.
The earlier sideline throw to LaFell, unsuccessfully challenged (and wrongly so, IMO – LaFell made a GREAT reception, keeping his toes in, and securing the ball) was all LaFell. The pass itself was a wobbly floater.
The fact that Clausen CAN make those 2 good passes should encourage him to do it more often, yet he seems very reluctant to air it out, and that’s not a good sign in a rookie. He should be making his mistakes through aggressive attempts to win games, not being content to “manage” his team into mediocrity.
True, but...
I still wonder what Clausen (and Moore for that matter) could do with better coaching… it seems all of the QB’s in Carolina over the past 5-6 years are all terrible.
I think it has to do with the being coached with the game manager tactic.
I still think they need to start off with the quick slants, screens, that type of stuff and call the down the field passes in the right place (which are not on 3rd and long after two failed rushing attempts).
I’m not saying Jimmy has shown us anything but he’s been put in a position to fail far more times that he’s been put in a position to succeed.
All in all I just thinks it’s too hard to judge any of our young talent too much given the cards they’ve been dealt this year.
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
that is a valid point
but at the same time, the routes and the receivers are there, i’ve seen them open several times on TV, and clausen has elected to just check down. matt moore on the other hand in his starts, atleast would attempt some vertical passes. i totally agree slants are what we need to do but there is a level of execution that has to be made. The one slant we ran yesterday i can think of was to rosario and it was totally covered and clausen still threw it right to the cleveland defends and luckily the ball wasn’t picked off.
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
You're both right. Our play-calling sucks.
For months, I’ve been harping on the predictability of our running on 1st and 2nd downs, then having to pass on 3rd and long, so often. It does put our QB in a strong position to fail.
The slant pass is a great weapon, and one we’ve got 3 WRs adept enough to use with. Use it.
Clausen has been 1step forward, 2 steps back this season.
He has failed to show any real advancement from start to start. That observation alone has me skeptical as to whether or not he will ever figure it out. If he’s the type of guy that has to make every mistake before doing something right, then good lord son, get as many out this year as you can (while the get’n is good).
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
If you are willing to argue a point based on 1 throw...wtf was that interception by Jimmy
he had lafell literally wide open, and threw it right to Joe Haden…with the game on the line
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
Clausen on his best day is about the same as Moore on his worst.
Not really a fair statement, even with a healthy dose of hyperbole. Clausen’s best game was against New Orleans when he finished with a QB rating of 90.6, better than Drew Brees on that Sunday.
Clausen’s worst start was worse than Moore’s worst… but to say Clausen at his best equates to Moore at his worse is fraught with enough exaggeration that it is easy to confuse with bias.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 11:20 AM EST up reply actions
As I pointed out, that 90.6 should come with an asterisk.
It was his best game, but the rating is only there because of the fluke TD pass. I can’t do it, but I know you have the formula to. If you recalculate the rating, absent a TD credited to Clausen, it’d be well under 80, won’t it?
He was 11/21, for 146 yds that game, hardly stellar. If that pass hadn’t been thrown (I won’t count it as incomplete, just non-existent), he would’ve recorded 10/20, for 91 yds. And recall that the 55-yd TD to Stewart was only thrown as an afterthought, with Stewart waving frantically that they’d somehow left him totally undefended.
Without that asterisk, I think Clausen’s “best game” isn’t very good at all, and about equal to Moore’s 7th or 8th worst.
But as it’s been said, the comparison to Moore is moot, at this point. My comps to Bradford, McCoy, and Sanchez are more apropos.
If we're playing the asterisk game:
Where does Moore’s pass to LaFell fit in when LaFell single handedly broke tackles, or Smitty’s 4th down converted TD earlier in the year? Same situations apply.
Those touchdown’s were defended as legit, but Clausen’s needs an asterisk? Doesn’t really seem fair.
But, to play the asterisk game Clausen’s rating would have been 75.7 without the TD.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
Honestly I don't know why Moore/Clausen is even a debate anymore
Moore’s gone. Clausen is our man, unless you’d rather see Brian St. Pierre or Null at there. (because we know they sure as hell aren’t going to put Pike or Armanti in)
Disagree
He’s honestly worse than any qb I’ve ever seen
I’m going to assume you’re being hyperbolic there but in case not do the names J. Russell, D. Carr, R. Leaf mean anything to you. If you’re being honest then I do think you must have some type of bias against him to say such a strong statement.
I think we all thought Clausen was going to play better but he his far from the worst qb I’ve ever seen and he is making plays on occasion. Besides Lafell’s last catch, the first qt scoring drive to smith on 3rd down was a good play, I think the play where Clausen was about to run for a first but at the last sec threw to goodson was definitely a heads up play. There are definitely some things he could work on but he is improving and he is a rookie. I would also like to point out that Clausen’s worst game was against the Bears w/o Smith and really before any of the rookie wrs had stepped up.
actually
Jamarcus Russell has won games and looked good on occasion. David Carr wasn’t always a bad qb…and Ryan Leaf was mentally challenged he doesnt count. Maybe he isn’t the worst I’ve ever seen, but he’s certainly not a 1st or 2nd round pick and I think the rest of the league knew it. When Most teams pass on a qb twice, that should tell you a little bit about a player who was supposed to be first round talent. Draft aside, there are alot of problems with this team this year and most of it boils down to the wealth of rookies. I’ve seen progress across the board with our young players, but not with Clausen. If he’s not the worst qb yet, give him time. Those players you mentioned had time to develop their reputation, Jimmy’s catching up.
As far as Russell is concerned
Per Wikipedia:
He has shortest tenure with the drafting team among quarterbacks taken number 1 overall in the NFL draft.44 Also among those quarterbacks, Russell has the worst starting record.29In addition, Russell’s 2009 passer rating of 50.0 was the lowest rating by a starting quarterback in the NFL since 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamarcus_russell#Future_in_football
Clausen may end being thrown into the worst qb ever hat but I he may end up in the best too and I don’t think 5 starts on a struggling team is enough to make a sound judgement either way.
On the Rosario play
Was that Jeff’s idea of a ‘trick play’?
That was truly a wtf? moment. Maybe they were hoping the defense would be as confused as we were.
jeff davidson can't read, write, or count to 5, let alone call plays
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
Lol, I know, it was meant as a joke.
The play was truly a head scratcher though, although in all reality many of Davidson’s calls this season have been head scratchers.
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
i think the commentators found it amusing
they were like “a draw play to the tight end is carolina’s version of a trick play”. what they really meant was “carolina is freaking awful and is the laughing stock of the league”
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
Haha
I must have been laughing so hard I missed that commentary!
by MindMachine on Nov 29, 2010 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
My Take:
At this point here is what I think we should do this offseason:
1 – Draft Andrew Luck
2 – Sign a legitimate NFL starting guard
3 – Sign a good versatile back up Offensive lineman, similar to what geoff hangartner was
4 – We have 2 3rd Round Picks (Thanks Julius)
1 – Draft the best DT available in the 3rd round
2 – Draft the best CB available
5 – Pursue a TE in FAs who isn’t one dimensional.
6 – FIRE JEFF FREAKING DAVIDSON
I feel like Gettis, LaFell, and Steve have the potential to be great together. I feel like our offense isn’t that far from being decent, just need a QB (Luck) and consistent offensive line play (A real guard and Jeff Otah back). Our defense needs a real defensive line, this patchwork one that we have just isn’t cutting it. We really aren’t that far from being great, just a few areas of weakness and awful coaching have made us into the worst team in the NFL.
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 1:01 PM EST reply actions
Yep
Very similar to what I was saying above. We are an offensive line and defensive line away from competing competing right now.
Get Luck in here to compete with Clausen, beef up our lines via free agency and add a rounded TE and a quality corner via either free agency, drafting or trade and this team can make a run in 2011.
You forgot one thing
Re-sign DeAngelo/Kalil/Johnson/Anderson/Davis (Maybe)/Possibly Hayden
by Ol' Uncle Munnerlyn on Nov 29, 2010 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
If Goodson continues to light up during games, we might have to consider letting D Will walk. He is going to command a lot of money unless he goes for a big hometown discount.. No team can afford having two premier starting RB’s on the same team without suffering the consequences in other areas of the team money-wise.
Kalil, Johnson, Anderson, and Davis are all must signs. Everyone else is up in the air to me at least.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
This is my single biggest fear of the off season
As I said above Williams will be a monster somewhere else if we let him walk and Goodson has way to much potential to be a one hit wonder.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Goodson and think he’s unfortunately been the MVP of the team this season. I just don’t want them to say “we’ve seen enough in Goodson this year, we don’t need Williams anymore”.
Goodson may pan out, he may not. But in my mind there is a good chance he pulls a Matt Moore and shows enough at the end of a lost season and the next year looks like a mistake while Williams is the #1 rusher in the league.
It all boils down to economics. We cannot afford to sign Williams to a big contract and let guys like Davis or Anderson, or Kalil walk because we spent a good chunk on Williams. Or we cannot sign any impact FA because of our money situation with Williams.
As I said above, having two guys like Stew and D Will is a huge luxury… a luxury that is tough to afford.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
From my understanding
Aren’t we one of the teams with the most cap space at this point? I’d rather have Kalil walk than Williams personally. I agree with Davis and Anderson. I think Williams, Davis, Anderson are our three biggest priorities for signing free agents.
I hate to think this… but the thought has crossed my mind that the driving force behind putting Williams on IR was to lower his value perhaps? Didn’t he finish the 09 season on IR (or at least inactive due to injury) as well? (I could be wrong, that seems like so long ago now).
Only thing is though a RB is only as good as the guys blocking in front of him. You let Kalil walk, and who replaces him? Kalil, while a little guy, has done really well at C for us IMO. Letting him walk would be a mistake.
That is what I am saying. You can’t hurt the entire offense by letting Kalil walk just to have Williams on the team. In my eyes that is not good practice at all.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
I'd rather not let any of them walk personally
I just have think Williams is the best running back in the league in my opinion and has suffered from exactly what you said, lack of good guys to block in front of him.
Would you let Chris Johnson walk so that we can keep Kalil and Goodson?
Personally, I think Williams is better than Johnson, Stewart and Williams and has had an off year in the worst year possible for him (being a contract year).
This
With the $70 million in cap space (projected) that we’ll have for next season, I don’t think signing everyone who has played a key role recently will be a problem.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Thats what I am hoping for.
And all that I’m saying, is that Goodson doing what he’s doing now is going to convince the front office that we don’t need Williams enough to offer him a new contract.
I just think this would be one of the epic off season fails of 2011 if it happens (letting Williams walk that is).
I would let Williams walk because we already have a potential Pro Bowler in Stewart behind him. Johnson does not have that in Tennessee. If we can keep Williams and resign everyone else and get a couple of good FA and sign all of our draft picks, then I am all for keeping him.
But I do not want to sacrific other players for the sake of keeping a luxury. This isn’t a situation where Goodson is our starter if D Will walks.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Goodson did start over Stewart yesterday
Although that point is moot due to Stewart coming off injury and the coaches that started Goodson will not be with the team next year.
That said, I’d rather sign Williams and trade Goodson to a team that needs an RB.
As ERL said above, with $70 mil in cap space next season we should be able to sign our key free agents as well as add a couple more in places of need.
Ok. Just so you know, I’m not arguing with ya. Just trying to say that if there is a snafu in all this, that I wouldn’t want a few guys getting sacrificed for another guy.
I really hope we still have Double Trouble out there next year, with a side of Goody’s Headache Causer.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
No worries dude
I just don’t want to see Williams walk and it worries me that the better Goodson plays the rest of this year the more expendable Williams becomes.
I am glad Peppers is gone but when he was here he was one of my favorites (and still the only Panthers jersey I’ve ever owned) and now Williams/Beason/Stewart are probably my favorites and I hate to see another one of them walk especially with the Panthers getting nothing in return again.
+1
I’ve heard talks about possibly getting Beason to sign a long contract extension (think James eluded to this… not sure).
To me, Beast is the best MLB in the NFL. Perhaps I am a homer, but I would take him over Ray Lewis, Patrick Willis, or anyone else right now in the league. Guy plays with determination on every down. Definitely need to lock him up.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
That would be nice too
I’m a homer as well and think that if we signed a couple DT’s in free agency (Cullen Jenkins perhaps?) and have Anderson/Beason/Davis behind them that would be a scary defense to play against.
Yup
Two or three more key pieces and this defense could be dominant.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
The only problem with letting Kalil walk...
Is no one else on the OL can even snap the football. Remember the MacBern at center experiment earlier this year? We need Kalil.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
nice touch, lol
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Didn't Kalil have a couple pretty horrible snaps last week too?
One going about 10 feet over Goodson’s head on the wildcat play?
I don’t think letting Kalil walk is a good idea either, I just think Williams is a bigger value than Kalil.
I agree
I’d rather have D-Will if push comes to shove.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
If you're talking about D-Will and J-Stew, I'm completely behind you...
…but if you want D-Will AND J-Stew at the expense of an offensive lineman who has been our most consistent performer over the past 2 years (granted, not the best in the past few games), I don’t know if I can back you on that.
We can have a 2 headed RB monster…but if they have their legs cut off before they ever meet the enemy, are they worth it? Will and Stew are GREAT and I LOVE them; but behind a shitty line, they’ll never accomplish anything other than mediocrity (see: the 1st half of this year). If push comes to shove, choose one head of the monster and hope Goodson and Sutton can viably fill in (which I believe they can).
Our OLine needs HELP…and jettisoning our best interior lineman would be a horrible idea. I hope it doesn’t require an “either-or” response since I’d love to re-sign them both. But if I had to make a decision, either D-Will or J-Stew must go so we can keep Kalil (granted, Kalil shouldn’t be paid as much as a top-flight RB).
Just my 29.5 lire.
It is a short-sighted preference, I admit.
But I think we can replace what Kalil does easier than we can replace what D-will does. The tipping point would have to be the health issues with D-will. But I remain steadfast with my statement.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Yeah, but how many times have we seen that out of Kalil?
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
We have a enough money (supposedly) to sign a couple of premier FA. I’m not exactly sure who will be going into FA this year, but if there are some DT’s or OL out there who are good, we should pounce on them immediately. JR has saved this money, and he damn well better spend it on guys who are great in the trenches.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
The truly funny part
about all of the Andrew Luck discussion. With the impending rookie wage scale, there won’t be a king’s ransom waiting on the top pick. Luck might just take his Stanford education a couple more years and make all of this moot.
LOL
by adamwanderer on Nov 29, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
There will definitely be a king's ransom for the #1 pick
With a rookie pay scale, the #1 pick becomes highly valuable.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Maybe this loss
Excercised the Delhomme demons. It has been like this team has been cursed since we dumped Jake, So maybe him getting a win against us in that fashion will lift the curse. Or maybe this dismal laughable season has me believing in voodoo. I need a drink.
One positive thing out of Sunday's game
I officially hate Richard Marshall. He’s the closest thing to pathetic we have outside of Jeff Davidson.
According to Fox “He was struggling a little bit,”… apparently the decision to bench him was made before the practice week even started.
I’m still not understanding it myself, Gamble ‘struggling a little bit’ is far superior to Marshall struggling consistently to me, if anybody should have been benched for performance it should be Marshall.
Maybe he called told Fox how stupid an idea it was to play St. Pierre in the Ravens game and got in Fox’s dog house… lol.
Getting a little annoyed about one thing I keep reading...
Why do people feel the need to discuss Moore in comparison to Clausen? There’s a few facts that I feel the need to bring into light because some people just don’t seem to get how irrelevant they make this argument.
First of all, Matt Moore is on IR. He’s not going to be relieving Clausen anytime soon. He’s done. It doesn’t matter if Moore wouldn’t do any better (or worse) than Clausen because this season for him is long over with. Secondly, Moore is coming off the most detrimental injury (arguably) a QB can suffer. The chance that he will ever be as good as anyone ever thought he could be are slim as only 3 QBs have ever come back to the game after said injury and only one QB has ever been any good (hint, he plays for the Saints). Finally, when you add in the fact that Moore is going to be a free agent this year, the chances he will even be playing for us next year are slim to none. I honestly don’t care if you hope Moore returns or you want him to be resigned. You’re grasping at some very slim possibilities and if you need a Brett Favre hug or something to help you settle with those emotional attachments, this isn’t the place for it.
That being said, you can’t defend Clausen by saying, “well Matt Moore wouldn’t be any better.” No kidding, really? The guy with a torn labrum wouldn’t be any better than the healthy QB? I never would have guessed… Oh you were talking about some hypothetical situation where maybe Moore isn’t injured? Well sorry for slapping you in the face with a little bit of reality because that’s not the case. Clausen needs to stand up and walk on his own two feet and if you’re satisfied with the baby steps he’s taken thus far you are more easy to please than I am (or my expectations are just higher). Someone please tell me what development you’ve seen from Clausen since his game against the Bucs. What did he do better?
I honestly don’t care if Moore is worse than Clausen (or vice versa) because it doesn’t matter. You’re choosing between dog turds and monkey feces at this point because they’ve both played like shit and I expect better. At the very least, I expect improvement, which we didn’t see from either QB.
by aceofsween on Nov 29, 2010 6:21 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Well said, ace. I Rec'd your post.
I think Moore got into the conversation as another instance of comparison with an unproductive Clausen. The real topic on this thread is the lack of an “Optimistic” for our starting QB, and the advisability or not of using the likely #1 draft pick on a potential replacement for him, the even higher-touted Andrew Luck.
So much of this (and any blog exchange that merits more than, say, 50 comments) is difference of opinion, and conjecture, and supposition, and disagreement. If all we had to do here was cite stats and facts, it’d bet boring real quick for all but the stat geeks, wouldn’t it?
Go Panthers! And if I (and all of us) weren’t already looking forward to a better tomorrow, we wouldn’t be reading all this, would we, much less contributing to it?
You got my rec...
Just for the trifecta of synonyms for excrement in one sentence.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
All of this repetitive arguing...
I think I’m hearing voices in my head. Haha. Really, my head hurts after reading all of this. Forgive me, guys, if I take a small break. The fighting amongst ourselves is worse than actually being 1-10. Too much “I’m right; you’re wrong” going on thanks to this poor season we’re in. I salute you, best Panther blog in the world.
Go Panthers.
"'Only problem I have with Armanti is knowing he would have been there 2-3 rounds later.' to which Darin Gantt replies 'Wouldn't have been 1 full round later.'"
Can't say I blame you D-ranged.
But if it means anything, your generally rational and always positive posts have brought me back from the brink of posting things I’ll later regret countless times. So for that reason I’d love it if you stayed. :)
by Flowing Willow on Nov 29, 2010 7:11 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not leaving..
Just taking a step back and evaluating self. I’ve been a part of too many debates that progress nowhere myself and feel as though I’ve just gotten too caught up in the general dismay we have collectively generated due to this terrible season. There’s nowhere to go but up and, with that, everyone believes their idea is either the best or only way to get back on track. I also believe a couple of people are just here to argue for the sake of arguing but, hey, it’s easy to do with a 1-10 team haha. I’ll still be following the great posts, just gotta get a little less involved for a while and get back to enjoying football week to week. CSR is my most-visited website, just ahead of my email and facebook. That cannot be healthy haha.
OFF TOPIC speaking of FB, if I remember correctly, didn’t you say a while back that you didn’t do the FB thing? If so, have you caved yet or still holding out? lol
"'Only problem I have with Armanti is knowing he would have been there 2-3 rounds later.' to which Darin Gantt replies 'Wouldn't have been 1 full round later.'"
good for you.
I’m glad to see that you are taking a break from your poorly formed arguments. I am now very optimistic about the future.
My... how the opinions here have changed
Don’t post a whole lot but do lurk here most every day. A month and a half ago when I first brought up the idea of drafting Andrew Luck, that idea was negatively received by many. Nice to see that more folks are jumping on the bandwagon. Season after season of watching the Panther offense being led by a “game manager” has got to come to an end. QB is the most important position on the field, its high-time we had a playmaker in that position.
Can’t agree more with James’ post about a Luck/Clausen/vet to be named later QB competition for the starters spot in 2011.
Take the world as it is, not as it ought to be.
I think it's the grass is always greener thing honestly
I’m in no way saying taking Luck is the wrong move or that not taking him is wrong either. I just think it’s real easy to hear about how Luck is supposed to be the next great qb in this league and not start drooling and obsessing over him especially for our beleaguered franchise. The thing that scares me about Luck is what if he isn’t the answer. I know the general consensus is that we have to take a shot on him but isn’t every qb whose drafted 1st overall supposed to be the next great qb. If I’m not mistaken J. Russell was called a not miss prospect by by Mcshay or some other highly touted analyst.
I’m beginning to wonder if Clausen is so concerned about getting his first win that he is worried about making mistakes and losing the game for us. He definitely can make some really good throws but doesn’t always seem willing which is frustrating.
If we end up with the #1 pick then it will be the most difficult decision this franchise has ever faced considering the fanfare that Luck brings with him. I’m not so quick to designate a pick as others but all possibilites do need to be considered.
The thing that truly truly matters is what Hurney and whomever our next HC think of Clausen, there are definitely things they’re privy too that we aren’t. They have film from all angles to see who is open and what not. I think the most important thing is for Clausen to finish the season. So far he played 3 games, sat for 4 weeks(counting the bye) played a game, sat a game and now has played another, it would be nice if he played 6 games in a row so we can fully see what he is or isn’t capable of.
Can only elaborate on what I've seen firsthand
Having watched Luck & Stanford play 6 times over the last 2 seasons, once live, I’ve been thoroughly impressed by the kid’s physical tools, physical skills, and the way that he plays the game. Because of what I’ve seen of Luck firsthand and the pathetic season that the Panthers are having, I think the potentially once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to draft such a blue chip QB should not be allowed to pass us by, regardless of who is where on the depth chart.
That being said, it doesn’t mean that I have given up on Clausen. I agree with many of the others here on the fact that the jury is still out on Clausen. It’s much too early to tell where Clausen’s potential may take him. Especially when considering; his Rookie status, the offensive mastermind that calls the plays, the lack of a seasoned NFL starting QB to serve as a mentor, an ineffective line, a beat-up offensive backfield & a mostly rookie receiving corps.
Sure there are many needs on this team right now. By the time a new coach is in place, those needs may change greatly depending on the schemes of the new regime. If nothing else the off-season should make for an interesting ride.
Take the world as it is, not as it ought to be.
by Cold Steel on Nov 30, 2010 12:39 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
you have seen him play 6 times and you evaluate on that?
But you brought up some good points on Clausen about the lack of a seasoned mentor.
and +1 to final paragraph
GSO
Sorry dude...
Stanford games are kinda hard to find in the ACC area. Would love to have seen more of his games. He’s blown me away in all of the games that I’ve seen, not that I’m an NFL scout or anything.
Do you ever watch a college player and just think, "WOW! That guy is gonna be special!? That’s been my impression of Luck every time I’ve seen him. I hope that it works out that he calls Carolina home and in 18-20 years when he’s done rewriting most of Favre & Manning’s passing records, that he’s led us on a few championship runs as well. Maybe I’m dreaming, time will tell.
Take the world as it is, not as it ought to be.
If that's the case then we better draft him
That is one all order right there though. Might as well throw Marino’s name in there. Luck= best QB EVER!
A QB would have to throw for atleast 400 yards and account for 5 TD’s every game for me to say something like that.
If we get the number 1 I’m pretty sure we draft him. Maybe Hurney works some magic and fills 3 positions of need. Its all good in my book. If we do take Luck and he isn’t a top 5 QB in the NFL within 3 years, then this will be the biggest mistake we have ever made.
I’m gettin more and more worried because of all this hype. Its too much and it just seems too good to be true.
by Steve785 on Nov 30, 2010 11:17 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I don't interject too often
But after looking through the posts on here you’ve definitely taken a “your tribe vs my tribe” mentality on your posts. (You aren’t alone unfortunately ) The rejection of opinion is fine I guess. But here is someone offering an opinion based on personal experience (six times no less) and your response is “too small of a sample size?” Really?
You do realize professional scouts often don’t go to see a player play live half as many times as he has? They watch a lot of tape and go to workouts many times. They are also often present to view other players while they go to see a live game.
This seems to have become debate team fodder lately, with the players being married to “their” position. Like court lawyers defending their client regardless of the merits of their client.
There is no way to know who will be right and who will be wrong for possibly another 5-10 years. This is speculation at best and has very little to do with finite principles or discrete mathematics.
My opinion on this matter has been stated a number of times. I do not want to be the Buffalo Bills, scared to pull the trigger and married to their current QBs (JP Losman and Trent Edwards – passed on Kolb, Flacco and Rodgers), drafting on need and letting opportunity pass us by.
Go Panthers…
by adamwanderer on Nov 30, 2010 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
Here's Peter King's take on it
“• The Panthers are going to have a tough call to make. I’d be surprised if Carolina — which has Atlanta twice and a short-week Thursday-nighter at Pittsburgh in its last five games — avoids the top pick in the draft. And while owner Jerry Richardson goes through a coaching change and the CBA negotiations, he and GM Marty Hurney are going to have to decide whether it makes any sense to pass on Luck just because they drafted a good quarterback prospect, Jimmy Clausen, in the second round last year.
Clausen’s been OK this year; he actually was close to heroic late in the game at Cleveland on Sunday. But I think unless the Panthers get the kind of three-top-picks offer to drop down a bit in the first round, there’s no way I wouldn’t pick Luck first overall. It’s the kind of decision that could torment them for years if they pass him by.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/11/30/mmqb-mailbag/index.html#ixzz16nohFyHe"
I used to hate Jimmy Clausen and ND
But I stopped hating after he put up an amazing last year, especially while having a major toe injury.
I am just a supporter of our rookie QB who at one time was the “franchise QB” we have all wanted. Oh how quickly you turn, ye of little faith.
Jimmy has shown in this short time that he is still adjusting to the speed of the game. Which is any rookie QB’s hardest task. He has shown he has the skills, just needs more experience. He has shown the ability to learn from mistakes quickly and put the past (whether it be the next week or play) behind him, as well as playing good under pressure.
To give up on him this early is pathetic. We are 1-10 so what? Look at Elway, Young, Favre (another non 1st rder), etc. The Falcons gave up on Favre and look what happened. BE PATIENT PANTHER NATION!!!
I just want us to rally and support our highly talented (NOBODY CAN QUESTION THAT HE IS) rookie QB, not already talking about the next shiny toy… Stop being “that” fanbase and support the young guy, he is getting better every game and playing for the worst team in the NFL.
If we trade down and select Peterson/Prince/Fairley/Dareus/Austin, AND get many many more picks + assets (maybe a player the caliber of a Brandon Mebane), that puts us in a better situation long term IMO
Andrew Luck was first underrated and under the radar that now he has become overhyped. He could be great, but keep in mind he has never really had to lead a comeback or play under much pressure this year. Jimmy Clausen has shown that, and has done so in the NFL (limited sample size)
If Jimmy does not show enough by April to be our future franchise QB (which he was thought enough of by our staff before and has shown signs of), then the FO will make that decision. The entire team stinks, put Luck under center and it will still stink. Jimmy is doing the best he can and is proving he belongs there. I believe he is developing good rapport with our rookie WRs and looks to get stevie involved some. Also, keep in mind a new QB means new learning for the WR’s and the RB’s.. another year of getting adjusted.
LET’S STAND BEHIND OUR ROOKIE QB AND HOPE THAT HE DOES WELL ENOUGH TO WARRANT A TRADE DOWN BY OUR FO SO WE CAN ADDRESS ANOTHER NEED TO FIT WITH THE YOUTH MOVEMENT WE HAVE GOING ON HERE
Think about it: we have talented young guys at QB, OT (Otah), RB (duh), WR, C, DE, LB, S and one at CB… Would love to have a young impact DT
GSO
You have your opinion, and I have mine.
I’m not going to change your opinion, and you’re not going to change mine.
I’m physically and mentally hurting from arguing with you over this, so I’m going to stop.
I hereby recuse myself from this argument.
I’m taking a break from this place. I’m tired of arguing with Clausenites over the mere mention of Andrew Luck’s name, and the potential that he might be our draft pick. Tired of the headache, and tired of the bullshit.
Congrats, you win Mike.
Peace out.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
I am tired of PANTHERS FANS giving up so easily
this is the worst season since Wink-e… we were successful for a decaded (a Super bowl run even) and are in an extreme youth movement gearing up for a great next decade! I just wish people would stop saying that Jimmy sucks (basically) a few starts into his career on the worst team in the NFL
Plugging Luck in would NOT help at all, he could not get close to saving this team
GSO
No one said jimmy sucks
We or they just say he has not proven that he is the man for job YET?!
Ya boi Still gettin it in!!
note the basically
Why else would they be clamoring for Luck after only a few starts on the worst team in the NFL?
GSO
IDK Man
Maybe its just frustration.. I think if Jimmy shows some considerable inprovement like actually throwing deeps balls, and quick decisions then maybe the talks will quiet down. But until then they won’t as along as he keeps just showing improvement in handling snaps. Bottom line is its just frustration from some upset fans who want to win and the first and easiest person to blame is the QB whether or not its Clausen, Moore, Pike, St. Pierre, Edwards, Null anybody. Its human nature. Even though I am a Luck supporter myself I am also a semi Clausen supporter and I respect you for sticking with Clausen (Your guy) until he very end despite the constant barking from other fans.
Ya boi Still gettin it in!!
He isn't my guy
I used to hate him, but I am supporting him b/c I like what I have seen in college and now and think he is our franchise QB.. but mainly b/c he is our starting rookie QB and deserves our support..
GSO
The success of the Carolina Panthers is what deserves our support.
Remaining loyal to one player is admirable, but in the long-term it can be hindrance to team’s success.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
I just can't justify passing on a potentially great QB
Clausen wasn’t a winner in college, and honestly hasn’t showed very much in the NFL. I agree he is in a shitty situation with an awful line, but still…as I have noted many times, there are many mistakes that he is making that aren’t rookie mistakes, they are quarterback mistakes. Andrew Luck might not be everything he is hyped to be, but what if he is? If we miss on the best QB to come out since Manning, then we will be kicking ourselves in the head. I understand that you want us to pick up good players by trading back, but at the same time, a franchise doesn’t get a #1 pick very often, there will always be another draft, there will not always be another #1 pick.
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 11:03 PM EST up reply actions
BTW
idk if you saw the reply up there, but regarding Jonathan Joseph, I would argue he is better than any CB we have right now. Gamble is easily the most overpaid CB in the league, Marshall has had rough season, and the Cap is great – but i don’t consider him a shut down corner
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 11:07 PM EST up reply actions
Why is gamble the most overpaid?
You never here about him during the game and that is good.. he is a great cover man
and Capn is much younger and will get better
GSO
i love cap'n, don't get me wrong. might be one of the best 7th rounders ever
i have to disagree on gamble, and i think the coaches are seeing the same thing…he’s been benched the past two games, and he seems to play too soft. the only asterisk here is that as our pass rush gets better, our secondary will improve just because they won’t have to cover so long.
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 11:11 PM EST up reply actions
Manning wasn't even the highest rated QB in his draft, so that is a fallacy
Clausen played on one of the worst defensive ND team ever.. please tell me what mistakes he makes that are forever mistakes?
What has Luck done to prove he is the best thing since sliced bread? He played against the worst Pac-10 competition in years and has never really had to come from behind and play with pressure. I need to see a lot more before a dub this RS Sophomore the best QB prospect in a decade and a half.
GSO
The Whole NFL Draft Is Just One Big Guess Game
Its all about who can draft the best players that fit a teams system. There is no way of knowing how any of these guys will pan out period. Luck may be the next freakin Legendary All- World QB for all we know or he may be the next Jamarcus Russell or neither we may just be a Jake Delhomme average.. At this piont we do not know
Ya boi Still gettin it in!!
Mike, you said:
Is JJ better than Marshall/Gamble/Capn? I don’t know
But Peterson is being billed as the best CB prospect in a long time
Herein lies the problem. If we are going to have these discussions they the premise must be balanced. If the supposition is that the scouts are right and Andrew Luck is the best QB prospect in years, then the premise can also include Patrick Peterson being the best CB prospect in years.
However, Luck cannot be overrated by scouts in the same argument that lauds the evaluation of Patrick Peterson. Simultaniously, someone cannot hail Luck and denegrate Peterson.
It’s a pointless discussion until we can learn to accept the following four universal truths:
- Andrew Luck could be a bust
- Anyone else the Panthers select could be a bust
- The Panthers could pass on Luck, end up with a bust at another position and he becomes a probowler
- The Panthers could select Luck, he is a bust and they miss out on a probowler at another position
As it stands right now in November nobody has any clue what kind of players these guys will be in the NFL. By nature the scouting process is designed to try and estimate how these guys will be, and extensive time is spent t try and lessen the propensity of guys failing to live up to expectations, but it’s not a perfect process by any means. Every team has picks who pan out, and picks that don’t.
The grading process during the draft is not narrowed down to position, they evaluate every player against each other. As it stands right now Andrew Luck is trending as being the highest graded player in the draft which mean scouts are saying both he has the greatest potential out of anyone in the draft, and the chance he will be a bust is less than anyone else in the draft.
If you disagree with their scouting reports, that’s fine, we all have opinions (I believe Prince Amukumara will be better than Patrick Peterson for example). However, all we as fans have to go off are our two eyes and what those who make fan more than any of us do scouting say is the case.
In all of these arguments I shy away from personal opinion and lean on scout’s opinion not because I don’t have an opinion myself, but rather because objective third party consensus is a better basis for discussion than conjecture.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 11:10 PM EST reply actions 7 recs
This
i far to often allow my personal opinion to get in the way. but this is exactly what needed to be stated. well said sir, rec’d.
by SouthernPanther on Nov 29, 2010 11:12 PM EST up reply actions
I doubt this is the case, but I don't know if Luck has played against an NFL caliber DB's this year
The defenses in the Pac 10 are the worst of the major conferences by far
GSO
DBs Luck has seen:
- Raheem Moore (UCLA): #2 FS in nation, projected as 2nd round pick. (Luck had 126.17 rating)
- Darin Walls (Notre Dame): #17 CB in nation, projected 4th-6th round pick. (Luck had 119.67 rating)
- Nate Williams (Washington): #5 SS in nation, projected 3rd-5th round pick. (Luck had 140.11 rating)
To remain fair though, let’s look at the #1 WRs Patrick Peterson has faced:
- Julio Jones (Alabama): #4 ranked WR, 1st-2nd round pick. (Jones had 10 receptions for 89 yards and a TD)
That’s it! If the knock on Luck is that he hasn’t seen NFL DBs then what about Peterson? He saw ONE NFL caliber WR and played poorly against him.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 30, 2010 12:08 AM EST up reply actions
No he also shut down Aj Green I though
and Julio he has played more than once
But yeah was not sure about Luck, wanted some research into that
Still, the Pac 10 defenses blow harder than any other major conferece
GSO
This year LSU didn’t play Georgia. Last year they did, but Green DESTROYED Peterson (5 rec, 99 yards 1 TD).
Last year vs. Alabama Julio Jones took Peterson to the woodshed (4 rec, 102 yards 1 TD)
More I read about Peterson the more worried I get. Seems he can’t cover a single top WR.
He got absolutely DECIMATED by projected top 10 WR in 2013 UNC’s Jheraine Boyd to the tune of 221 yards
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 30, 2010 12:28 AM EST up reply actions
They go zone often if I am right
And then he wouldn’t be defending them. Just something I heard, an LSU fan would know
GSO
I had Peterson high early season and hear of him more because I'm an SEC guy (go USC!), but Prince has been quite stellar and if I remember from a game earlier this year has crazy %'s against balls thrown to him
but I just love peterson’s physical tools, with some NFL coaching he could be proper amazing and a gamechanger
GSO
No he didn't
- Jones: 4 receptions, 102 yards, 1 TD
Burned by him in 2008 too:
- 7 receptions, 128 yards
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
Jones Stats
11/6/2010 @LSU L 24-21 10 89 8.9 19 1 1 5 5.0 5 0 0 0
11/7/2009 LSU W 24-15 4 102 25.5 73 1 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
11/8/2008 @LSU W 27-21 7 128 18.3 26 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
Not seeing a bad game here….
Although I didn't know these stats...
…these are instances that should cause some concern, for sure. I’ll admit this actually isn’t my rationale for not selecting Peterson with a top 5 pick; I’ve never been a proponent of selecting a DB in the first 10-15 positions of the draft. I’d like to site references or statistics, but I won’t…it’s purely an emotional response.
Besides, even a shut down corner doesn’t move the ball on offense. Which do YOU think is more of a need right now?
I know our secondary has had some glaring miscues from time to time, but I just don’t see it as important enough to address in the first round unless we’re trading down…THEN I don’t see a corner good enough at that draft position. Our biggest issues are in the trenches; if we can protect our QB from pressure, our passing game will start to work; if we can apply pressure to opposing QB’s, our secondary will be more impressive.
I think people are trying to put a band-aid on the symptoms in this situation (passing yards on each side) instead of realizing that you can’t just bandage a bullet wound…you have to dig a little deeper for the root cause and deal with IT…THEN you can stop the bleeding.
Let Clausen, the WR’s, TE’s and DB’s continue to mature…and get some talent and beef into the 2 lines; that’s where we need the infusion of ability.
Clarification:
This is one draft in which I am NOT a proponent of BPA…although I usually am. We MUST draft for need…and need to effectively assess where we can trade to acquire that need. No reaching…just quality assessment of talent and quality assessment of screwing another team for their draft position.
I like Prince more as well
I think Peterson will be a safety in the NFL.
by Steve785 on Nov 30, 2010 11:36 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Meh
He’d be a great safety, but I can all but promise you he will not play safety until he is over 33 (or loses the physical ability to play corner due to injury).
He is too good in coverage (particularly “press” coverage) to put him 12 yards deep.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
he doesn't look fast enough to me.
I could be wrong but he just doesn’t look fast IMO.
by Steve785 on Nov 30, 2010 12:55 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Hopefully he will run at the combine or at LSU's pro-day.
He’s one of those guys who doesn’t ‘look’ fast, but he is one of the nation’s premier punt returners, and those guys can’t be slow.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
I'm not saying he is slow
Just that he doesn’t look fast enough to go step by step with a lot of NFL WR’s.
No, I know
I think he does, and he certainly has the ability to beast out in a cover-2.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
+1
Heck even on draft day no one really knows how any of these guys are going to pan out. There are lots of different variables involved when it comes to making a successful NFL Player. They have to have the right system, coaches, supporting cast, will, etc. There is absolutely know way of knowing how any QB will respond in a NFL environment. Andrew Luck is really young (I think 20) and who knows despite all his intangibles he may fold under the pressure of the NFL. Luck may end up like Ryan Leaf for all we know but the real question is are we willing to risk that?
Ya boi Still gettin it in!!
Good post James. I say we roll the dice on Luck. Could he be the next Drew Brees or Payton Manning? Perhaps. Could he be the next Ryan Leaf or David Carr? Perhaps.
The point is you only have this chance to pick a potential TRUE franchise QB once in a very long time (unless you are as I stated previously oalkand, detriot, buffalo, or st louis). This guy could very well be it. I’d rather have a QB roster of Luck/Clausen/FA vet than Clausen/Pike/FA vet.
At least if Luck flames out, Clausen can get another chance at being the starter with perhaps a better team around him.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
By whom?
He didn’t grade out to reflect that, and nobody except Mel Kiper had him that high.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 30, 2010 12:29 AM EST up reply actions
Per CBS
Throughout Notre Dame’s storied history, perhaps no recruit was placed under the microscope like Clausen during his tenure with the Irish.
Former head coach Charlie Weis had a noted reputation for developing quarterbacks, including Tom Brady during his time with the New England Patriots.
Many professional scouts felt that Clausen’s ability to master Weis’s pro-style offense, make good decisions and his overall competency at the position make him very attractive to quarterback-hungry franchises. He is a classic drop-back quarterback with above-average accuracy, good mechanics and a very quick release. In 2009, despite the offense’s struggles, Clausen showed mental and physical toughness and the ability to command the huddle, to keep his team into games well into the fourth quarter.
GSO
Quarterback-hungry franchises, and Franchise QBs are not the same.
Much in the same way as money-hungry politicians, and moneyed politicians are not.
Lots of criticisms in the same article in their analysis section:
- Very good, but not great, accuracy on short-to-intermediate throws
- Puts strong effort into each pass, sometimes overthrowing. Winds up a bit when trying to unleash a fastball, allowing defenders to react. Drops right shoulder to get better trajectory on deep passes. Needs to better sell ball fake and pump fake to draw in defenders.
- His average height and tendency to wind up could hinder ability to get the ball through the line.
- Takes too many chances downfield, eschewing his underneath options and trusting his receivers but not acknowledging safety help over the top. Also throws late over the middle or across his body, which he won’t get away with in the pros.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
Strange about the last one...
Makes me wonder if he’s even being given the option to throw downfield.
that was a head scratcher for me too
by SouthernPanther on Nov 30, 2010 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
...but St Pierre is throwing 88 yard bombs.
Not sure it can be pinned on JD + JF this time.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
BSP threw *a* bomb
One, a single bomb. Clausen has thrown some deep balls as well, just not with any regularity.
Take it for what it's worth.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
As I mentioned elsewhere, throwing a deep ball more often accomplishes many things:
First, it loosens a defense. Second, it sometimes succeeds by having a defender fall down, or stumble, or confuse his coverage (how many times had that happened to our secondary?) Third, it sometimes results in goal to go, because of a DPI call.
And those are just the extra benefits that accrue to an offense that attempts those throws, not even counting the actual completions.
But to so infrequently attempt them accomplishes none of the above, and only reinforces the conviction of DCs that we’re predictable and easily defended.
Whether it’s the fault of out OC, or of a QB who has such a play called, but doesn’t move his feet quickly, or react quickly, or spot the open man downfield, who knows? But I have seen several occasions when Smith or another WR is waving for the ball, left unattended, or steps ahead of his defender, downfield, and the ball is not thrown to him.
Generally, second round guys are not considered true franchise QB’s. My statement is based on the fact that most of the time, highly picked QB’s turn out to be franchise QB’s.
Luck fits that profile right now. As I said though, I do not understand why there is an argument with this statement:
I’d rather have a QB roster of Luck/Clausen/FA vet than Clausen/Pike/FA vet.
Where am I wrong in saying or wanting this?
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Psst. C'mere, Ivan.
When you don’t elicit a bunch of replies, it’s usually because nobody can disagree with you.
You are not wrong. In any way.
Those 4 universal truths are really more 4 distinct possibilities, are they not?
…and of course, there is a 5th, that:
The Panthers could select Luck, and he becomes a probowler.
it's both
They are possibilities, and it is truthful that all of those possibilities could become a reality.
ONCE AGAIN:
RALLY BEHIND OUR YOUNG ROOKIE QB…. LET’S SUPPORT HIM!!!
He is QB for the worst team in the NFL and is learning without a mentor vet QB.. give him and break and just enjoy watching what might be the franchise of our team.
GSO
I think the vast majority are rallying behind Clausen. But, let’s not confuse that with being sold on him at this juncture.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
by James Dator on Nov 29, 2010 11:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Give it up James...
Mike is taking the position that if you are for drafting Luck you are against Clausen being successful. That is a logical fallacy that he needs to sort out on his own.
It's not that
It is that we could get better and younger at a more needed position, while increasing our assets
GSO
I have noticed many are saying that Clausen is not a franchise QB and that "Luck is the answer! halleluah!"... that is who I am directing these comments to
all but 2 of the teams Jimmy has faced have been top 10 in pass defense
give the guy a break, he is getting beat up and pressured constantly, yet standing strong
GSO
Question:
Based on the history of the NFL, what has a greater chance of happening?
a) A #1 overall QB being a bust
b) A 2nd round QB becoming a ‘franchise QB’
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
Actually...
The only people who seem to be throwing Clausen under the bus were the ones who were stalwartly defending Moore (no surprises there really), and even they haven’t come close to saying that Clausen will never be a good starting quarterback. They’ve mostly been reiterating more moderate talking points (from James most notably).
Drafting Luck isn’t an indictment against Clausen. Wanting to draft Luck because he’s the best talent coming out of college doesn’t show a lack of faith in Clausen. The two are mutually exclusive. Personally, I hope Clausen lights it up next year while Luck is sitting behind him. Would end up with a scenario similar to the Chargers and is that such a bad thing really?
The only effect one has on the other is in the case that Clausen plays lights out down the stretch and wins our next 5 games. Hoping we lose the next 5 games though is a different matter that people have stopped short of saying thus far.
Better yet...
Who the hell would you draft #1 overall? Notice, I’m not giving you the option to trade down (because in all likelihood, that might not even be possible).
I know it's not directed at me...
…but we should (and almost certainly will) trade down…unless we hire an offensive-minded head coach who believes Luck is the savior of the franchise.
if I was forced to pick the #1 overall?
Andrew Luck, no question. He has more impact as a player than any other single player available.
But I wouldn’t want to do that…not with the needs on this team. I’d want to trade down, take a top flight DT from the SEC (Fairley out of Auburn, maybe Dareus from Alabama) and pick up a 2nd rounder (plus more…this is just on the conservative side) for a very good OG.
2 VERY good players and other possible depth performers is worth one potentially great one; not only do they fill more holes, but it’s also hedging our bets because if one doesn’t turn out, we have a couple or 3 more who may.
But as was stated earlier in this thread, “I hope you’re (me) never our GM.” I imagine he’s probably assessing it correctly. ;-)
My only issue with that is that we can get guys in FA to fill the void for the next year or two. If Luck is the real deal, we only have one chance to get him. Only one. Or we could trade down, get a DT that could or could not becoming the next Kris Jenkins.
I used to think getting a DT was the main priority, but I’ve changed my tune. We need to draft this kid. You cannot get franchise QB’s in FA (the saints are the exception with Brees, and his success wasn’t even certain). You can always dip into the FA pool and pick up a DT or CB to fill the void for a couple of years or so.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
I am not debating if Luck is good or not, he is. I just believe that he
has been underrated to the point he is overhyped and people are jumping aboard without looking at what we have at hand. People already want the shiny new BMW ’11 when they have only put 50 miles on the ’10 model.
And I believe our franchise is set up to get more young stars at different positions. We have acquired most of our rising stars through the draft so why not keep it that way?
GSO
lets say Luck doesn't come out
Then who do you pick? Nobody. No one is worth it. That may be where a lot of this hype is coming from honestly…
by Steve785 on Nov 30, 2010 11:46 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
If Jimmy would turn it on & play lights out over the last 5 games...
that would put an end to all discussion of what should we do with the #1 pick in the 2011 draft. Clausen has the opportunity to insure his own future job security and take Andrew Luck out of the equation if he plays well and helps lead the team to a few wins. Oh, the irony…
Take the world as it is, not as it ought to be.
Ok, I’m directly making this comment to you Mike Train:
I’d rather have a QB roster of Luck/Clausen/FA vet than Clausen/Pike/FA vet.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS STATEMENT MIKE?
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
he already said fill 2 or more poitions of need instead.
by Steve785 on Nov 30, 2010 11:50 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Ok, so stick with the Clausen/Pike/FA vet then? Well, if that is the case, then I pray that Clausen plays better. As of now, I have not been impressed with anything our QB’s have done. Bad team or not, Buffalo and Detroit are doing well in the passing game with relatively less than what we have.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
And, to add, other positions can be filled via FA. We have tons of money to spend on FA this year, and with guys like Cullen Jenkins on the D-line and numerous offensive linemen out there, we can fill these “voids” for at least a couple of years.
I have no problem building through the draft. But for the love of God I do not understand what the issue is with this reasoning. Fill several voids through FA, then draft Luck and let him battle with Clausen to find out who the true QB is. Unless you are afraid that Clausen isn’t going to be able to outplay Luck, I don’t see what the problem is.
My understanding is that the new rookie cap is coming in this year (unless that has changed), so the millions upon millions spent on these rookies won’t be an issue. Like one of you guys said earlier, this draft is not very deep, so what is the issue with spending a #1 pick on the top rated QB?
Filling 2 or more positions of need isn’t an answer because that can be done through FA. I still do not understand why you Clausen supports do not want to see Luck compete against Clausen in TC next year or the year after.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
We have at minimum three FAs to re-sign. Combine that with the money we’ll spend on the draft and I’m not sure we have any money to spend on that many quality free agents.
not to mention there are other teams out there, so there’s no assurance we’ll get any of those FAs to begin with.
by SlayerGhaleon on Nov 30, 2010 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
The money spent on draft picks should not nearly be as much as in previous years. As I said in the post above, unless the rule is staying the same, the new rookie cap will allow us to spend quite a bit less on a potential #1 pick than in previous years. Unless I am wrong on that, I personally consider that a moot point.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Yes
I have been looking at the players scheduled to be free agents come next year and the only players at QB worth looking at are Hasslebeck, Pennington, Grossman and Orton. The DT and OG pool has much more talent.
I wouldn’t mind Hasselbeck as a backup. Though I think Kitna would stay with the Cowboys given the way he has played this year in relief so far.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Nope
I like the idea of a Clausen/Luck/Hasselbeck or Luck/Clausen/Hasselbeck depth chart.
He’s IMO the best free agent QB out there for mentoring those two young guys.
Although I’ll never forget the “we want the ball and we’re gonna score” line right before the pick 6 in the playoffs a few years ago! That was classic.
That’s why I mention him as a stop gap. The guy still has talent, but by no means do I mean for him to be a permanent solution.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
We have a lot of cap room
but we don’t have unlimited cap room.
We expect to resign the following guys next season:
Charles Johnson
Thomas Davis
James Anderson
Ryan Kalil
Dante Rosario
We may also resign Richard Marshall although that is no guarantee. Jon Beason’s contract expires but I would not be surprised if he gets extended next year. We also have D-Will as a possibility. I am assuming our mediocre DTs and Jeff King don’t get resigned.
I think a significant amount of cap space will be chewed up in this process. We would have room for some “holes” to be filled. I can tell you that a veteran QB is a big one. A penetrating DT would be one. An all round TE like Zach Miller would be good too.
We would still have OL needs. We probably need a help at Safety because Godfrey looks like a bust at the moment. We also need help at CB.
The other option is trading down to upgrade at multiple positions through the draft. Trading down to Arizona at #4 for instance would give us an additonal 2nd rounder and a 4th rounder in 2011 AND an additional 2012 first rounder. From there we could put our self in a position where we have two first round picks and a second rounder. We could take a DT, a corner and safety/OT at the top of the draft.
I don’t think there is a correct answer here. At this point, the promise of Luck is has got everyone drooling.
I highly doubt we resign Marshall. The guy has been a disappointment all year long, and has done nothing to help his case for a big contract. And his attitude last year when this mess came up will not be forgotten by the FO.
As for safety, don’t forget we have Jordan Pugh, and the kid has looked good when he has played in relief of Godfry. And yes Godfry has looked bad on several occasions, and his job security needs to be reviewed in the offseason.
The other option is trading down to upgrade at multiple positions through the draft. Trading down to Arizona at #4 for instance would give us an additonal 2nd rounder and a 4th rounder in 2011 AND an additional 2012 first rounder.
This is an interesting proposal, one that would have to be weighted carefully and would have to require the team being fully confident in Clausen’s ability to be “The Guy” for the Panthers. If by season’s end Clausen has played better and the team is confident with him, then this offer would probably be taken in an instant. On the flip side, Luck might look mighty good with that number pick if Clausen fails to impress these last few games.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
First of all...
I am not a “Clausen supporter”. I couldn’t give a shit if he died right now. Honestly I don’t. Some might think that is mean, and they are probably right. As long as we have a QB that is capable of winning games in a Panther jersey, I don’t care what name is on the back of it. Bottom line! Nothing else matters to me when it comes to these players. I do not have any emotional or whatever attachment to any player on the team. The good ones I want to stay. I want to what the one’s with potential have. The bums I want gone.
If we draft Luck then he better win the job and be amazing at it or it is a complete waste of a pick. And then we have no use for Clausen (which I couldn’t care less because now we have a good QB). Clausen will then be traded for whatever and that is fine.
If we trade the pick we could possibly get 3 blue chips instead of just 1. We could really use 3 really good players. a DT, CB, and a OT/OG would be ideal. Especially if Clausen is good. If not then oh well. We can find a game manager. And I am tired of having game managers! If we can get a Revis, K.Williams, and a Hutchinson, I will gladly pass on Luck. That is 3 huge additions to the team. And will make the team better. Better now and better in the long run.
Frankly I am not sold on Luck. All this sudden hype is just scary. It is weird and is telling me to stay away. I get the money thing is not a problem. I have been watching TV and reading the site.
Got Tickets!!!
I just got my tickets for the Dec. 19 game against the Cards. Hellz Yeah, is anybody else gonna be there?
IT AIN'T SIZE OF THE DOG IN THE FIGHT BUT THE SIZE OF THE FIGHT IN THE DOG
Free
From a salesman in my office. But who cares Its against the cards. They have a chance to win and reguardless it should be a good game. Beside how you gonna throw tour team under the bus like that. I know we havin a bad season but I’m still a fan and will be a fan no matter what the record is.
IT AIN'T SIZE OF THE DOG IN THE FIGHT BUT THE SIZE OF THE FIGHT IN THE DOG
Not throwing them under the bus
Rumors have been that ticket scalpers were selling them for $5 the past couple weeks, and still couldn’t manage to get rid of them all. That’s all I was referencing.
I think people are totally forgetting about free agency
The argument that we could use the top pick to trade back and pick up more talent to fill holes is a valid point. but holes can be addressed through free agency, something we have the money next year to do. Offensive line, defensive line, corner, TE, all these things can be covered in FA. What if we drafted luck and signed several solid FAs, wouldn’t that be better than not taking the potential next great QB for a shot at another position?
by SouthernPanther on Nov 30, 2010 11:02 AM EST reply actions
Thats what a good number of us have been saying
It’s hard to find because it’s been such a long post…
But yes, there are IMO no free agent QB’s worth staking our 2011 season on, while there are many DT’s and OLinesman that should be available.
Draft Luck and fill the other holes via FA is what most of us Luck supporters are saying.
by MindMachine on Nov 30, 2010 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
FA's are stop-gap's IMO
I like that we build through the draft. Signing a FA just puts it off for a couple years.
I think if we sign Luck it will be a while before we are competitive again. If we take Green, and a RG, and change the gameplan to a more WC style offense, we could be competitive next year.
We would have to sign a DT or two and a CB in this scenario. Which would be fine because there aren’t really any DT’s in this draft that I’m crazy about. We could take Prince as well and I think we would be competitive. We have enough WR’s with enough talent to get things done over the next year or two. Green would be Smitty’s replacement. This is gonna be a big deal. (Sorry that this is running on but I’m thinking of new things as I go) if we took Prince (trade back) then having two first rounders next year would be huge.
We need a DT, CB, RG, and a OT. Not in that order or anything. We might need a OLB, MLB, another CB, and a S.
That’s a lot of needs.
by Steve785 on Nov 30, 2010 12:08 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
per my post above:
And I believe our franchise is set up to get more young stars at different positions. We have acquired most of our rising stars through the draft so why not keep it that way?
GSO
I agree with building through the draft too
But I also think a few positions are going to need to be filled via free agency and there are more options out there in FA for DT and Offensive Line than there are for QB and the point remains that there will be at least one new QB on the roster next year.
If not Luck, who do you think we should bring in for QB?
A vet to mentor Clausen
Kitna like
But I really believe we will succeed most and better ourselves as a franchise by broadening our assets and continuing to build upon our core by drafting gamechangers at needed positions (Fairley/Dareus, Prince/Peterson) We need some muscle up front, (6’5 300 lb 74 tackles at DT vs top RBs) or a fast star CB to make their own island (or “Prince’s Palace” haha) and potentially two gamebreakers at different positions. We have built our new core on great drafting and being smart with our 1st rd picks instead of going with the “beauty pick” (Beason over Quinn, starting the dual star RB trend by drafting JStew, etc), so why not continue to do so?
Hell, we might even could draft AJ Green/Julio or even a little Kyle Rudolph to open up a whole new dimension in the passing game, unlike anything we’ve seen post Walls
There is just too much great talent and potential in different positions in the 1st round to hedge our bets on him and not gather up some of this gamechanging talent that will be available and further help our team in areas of need
GSO
It's hard to say
I know I have been one of the Luck supporters, but my point at least is that we don’t know, and until we do know who the future is I don’t think we pass on Luck’s potential.
I have a question for those of you that don’t want Luck.
What do we do next year if we beef up our line, get a new coach and Jimmy still plays like he’s played so far this year?
I think he would.
But there is no way to know. My opinion is that he would be better, maybe not night and day better, but noticeably better.
No one is saying that Jimmy has had a lot go his way this year. He has been dealt a shitty hand. It’s not really about JC, though.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
What makes you believe he will do better,
As a 21 year old rookie fresh out of playing against the paltry defenses of the Pac-10 and not used to playing under pressure
GSO
He 'appears' to have more physical talent.
He ‘seems’ to have greater command and more control as the leader of his team than Jimmy did at ND. He has far more power on his outs and his deep routes. He is quicker, faster, and more athletic to the point where he will still be a premier ‘athlete’ on the NFL level. He is a strong runner, and is very elusive in the pocket. He will make throws down the field under pressure.
If you look at Jimmy a year ago, and then you turn on Luck, its not close. And both QBs played against shitty defenses, this aversion you have to PAC-10 defenses has nothing to do with Andrew Luck as a football player. He is making the right decisions regardless of what the defenses are doing.
I’m not just going to sit here and say “Well…because he’s Andrew Luck and people told me he’s good!” Fans have the luxury of being a bit more informed than that these days.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Jimmy had 3700 yds 28 tds 4 ints while coming from behind many times
Had 5 tds 300+ yards VS Luck
yet Jimmy did not look as spectacular as Luck? I absolutely laugh at that notion
GSO
Look at Jimmy last year and Luck this year
You can’t take Luck’s first year as a starter, as a Redshirt Freshman, and compare it to Clausen’s third year as a starter.
Laugh all you want, but you have to look at both in their most recent body of work (in college).
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
And Harbough loves to run the ball
So you have to look at efficiency rather than the accumulation of statistics.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Jimmy had great mechanics in college
but not so much right now. I personally think his foot injury is bothering him. That is one of the reasons I haven’t written him off as a potentially elite QB.
Perhaps Luck is overrated but after watching him play, I don’t think so. In every measurable he is a superior prospect with the possible exception of accuracy, but that is debatable. He has a much stronger arm. MUCH stronger arm. He is taller, bigger, faster and is developing at an incredible rate.
If you won’t take our word for it Peter King just wrote about this very topic.
• The Panthers are going to have a tough call to make. I’d be surprised if Carolina — which has Atlanta twice and a short-week Thursday-nighter at Pittsburgh in its last five games — avoids the top pick in the draft. And while owner Jerry Richardson goes through a coaching change and the CBA negotiations, he and GM Marty Hurney are going to have to decide whether it makes any sense to pass on Luck just because they drafted a good quarterback prospect, Jimmy Clausen, in the second round last year.
Clausen’s been OK this year; he actually was close to heroic late in the game at Cleveland on Sunday. But I think unless the Panthers get the kind of three-top-picks offer to drop down a bit in the first round, there’s no way I wouldn’t pick Luck first overall. It’s the kind of decision that could torment them for years if they pass him by.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/11/30/mmqb-mailbag/index.html#ixzz16nVgElpJ
by adamwanderer on Nov 30, 2010 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here
But for some reason people seem to think that those of us saying draft Luck are saying that Jimmy’s a bust and it’s time to move on.
I think King hits the nail on the head in two places, first “Clausen’s been OK this year” and “It’s the kind of decision that could torment them for years if they pass him by.”
This is all conjecture at this point but say we pass on Luck and he ends up being every bit of what they say he is and Clausen ends up being no better than he is this season, that makes us not only makes our front office look terrible but more importantly would leave us with the question mark at quarterback which at this point is still a big question mark.
This is pretty much the concensus.
You can’t pass on a guy like this. If for no other reason than it will haunt this franchise forever if we pass on him, and then he turns around and has a Hall of Fame type of career somewhere else…Just like you don’t pass on a John Wall or Lebron James kind of player…even if you just drafted a good prospect at their respective positions the year before.
He is as close to a slam dunk as it gets.
The QB play this year has been bad. I understand that they have not had much help, but I will not be convinced that QB is not a need until I see more from the QBs on our roster. And they’re running out of time.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
by ERL on Nov 30, 2010 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
horrible post, take that +1 away, -1
How can you possible say that Luck is comparable to a James of Wall type player?? absolutely not!!!!!!!!!!
Luck is a good player, but there is no way he is a guaranteed elite player, there is as much chance of him being a bust.
PLEASE CALM DOWN ON THE OVERHYPING and wetting yourselves over this QB you just recently heard about
Luck is not as close to a slam dunk as it gets, he is NOT THE BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD etc
get off andrew Luck’s balls and believe in our current QB
And it is so sad that you truly judge Jimmy’s performance on this horrible team so seriously. I will reiterate he is on the worst team in the NFL. Give him a fucking break and stop salivating on highlights of Andrew Luck
I can show you hundreds of players with amazing college highlights that didn’t pan out
GSO
If we pass on Luck
we become the Bills. Why can’t you understand that?
by adamwanderer on Nov 30, 2010 4:30 PM EST up reply actions
THAT IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT
YOU HAVE ZERO FAITH IN OUR ROOKIE QB AND THAT HE WILL SUCCEED.
You are why I am sick of this fan base. Sorry indeed
GSO
Fan base becoming similarly sick.
We are Panther fans, not necessarily Clausen fans, as you are. You’re the one calling OUR team the worst in the league.
We are....
Why would I lie and say we aren’t? I still support the team and our starting rookie QB, until he proves me otherwise.
GSO
How many times do I need to say that nobody is writing Clausen off.
I think most of us would be more than happy if we draft Luck and Clausen beats him out for the job.
look at every adamwanderer
He clearly says that if we pass on Luck we become the Bills.
Lots of backing up Clausen there!
GSO
OK
But BigDavis, James Dator, ERL, Ivan and myself had all said we support Clausen but are concerned that he hasn’t shown enough to pass on Luck.
by MindMachine on Nov 30, 2010 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
James has not said that he is concerned about JC yet
And actually showed the first 5 games of other QBs as well for comparison.
I just don’t see how fans could be so adamant to write off and say we have to get Luck no matter what
GSO
It's easier when you're 24, I guess.
Hell, I’m 70, and I don’t repeat myself so often as he.
You sure do assume a lot about people, Mike
For one, it must be tiring convincing yourself that everyone else is an idiot.
This rookie QB you are claiming we have shunned needs to win a game before we can start to feel secure at that position.
Your stance on this issue is hypocritical and frankly your comments are coming off as childish.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
No question
But you can’t say that Jimmy has only contributed positively, but is being dragged down by the horrible line and receivers around him. He is just as (if not more) responsible for the collective failure of the offense as anyone else (during his starts).
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
PLEASE CALM DOWN YOURSELF
Man (or should I address you as dude, or duders?) you are as redundant as they come. This is what? the 4th time you’ve used the sliced bread analogy about Luck? And for you to yell at somebody else about wetting oneself, salivating, riding balls, and throwing the f-bomb out there, then calling somebody else’s post “horrible” – Who do you think you are??
So you can’t stand the thought of your boy Clausen not having the slavish devotion from others that you lavish on him? We get it. Let it go. The draft decisions will be made by paid professionals on that horrible, worst team in the league, not by you, not by us.
Your opinion is yours, but it’s no better at this point than anybody else’s here. Your strident repetitions are boring, and have by now lost all the attention they may have been getting, about 50 posts ago.
Is that you in that pic, or your daddy?
You’re acting about 12 years old. Calm yourself, and behave like a grown man.
Not the person who flagged another for supporting the same team
but okay I will 100% listen to you.
GSO
I keep repeating myself because noone seems to pay attention
I am telling people to stop giving up already and have faith, not jump ship to Andrew Luck. I could care less about JC, I hated him before last year. And do not tell me how to act/write please.
Good, flag me, see if I care. You have so much power!!!!!
GSO
And we have repeated over and over
that we do support Clausen and just don’t think he’s proven ENOUGH to pass on Luck.
I have no power. I am merely reacting.
We (the fan base that sickens you) heard what you had to say, and responded dozens of times. Now it’s just repetitive.
No-one’s called your posts “horible,” as you’ve said about others. No-one’s said you were stupid for having your opinions. We’ve discussed alternative ideas, logically and calmly. You’re now teetering on being considered a drunken ranter. Chill, and let it go. The debate is moot, and out of our control, anyway.
Umm... actually I'll say it..
The question that sparked this whole line of responses was horrible. It was a trap, whether by design or not, by someone whose goal was not to seek out the answer to the question he asked, but to argue with anyone who dared say yes to the question in order to prove a point that is ultimately only self-righteous.
Mike is on a Crusade against the people who he believes are against Clausen. The problem is that people simply aren’t saying they are against Clausen. However, in his conviction, he has sought out anyone whose faith in the rookie is wavering and believes that any notion entertained that would ultimately lead to Clausen’s possible benching is proof that you do not like Clausen, do not want Clausen playing for the Panthers, and do not want Clausen to be a Panther.
lol
Gotta give him credit for sticking to his guns if nothing else!
I found myself thinking “Geez, is this guy Jimmy’s brother or college roommate or something?”
Mike is about as subtle as a sledgehammer.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
+1Million
I come on these boards to talk and debate with other fans that love the same Panthers as I do.
Honestly, I don’t even watch college football and wouldn’t even know who Andrew Luck was if it wasn’t for CatScratchReader.
Exactly, many fans are jumping on him b/c people keep talking him up and his physical tools
with little knowledge
GSO
So I ask you again Mike
What specifically are you jumping on Clausen from if not his college career?
So Clausen’s 1TD, 5 INT’s, 7 Fumbles and 0 wins is enough to make you think he’s the future of the Panthers?
sorry that I can logically disprove anything you throw at me
as to why we shouldn’t write Jimmy off just yet
GSO
Wow, I didn’t know peter king could write something about us that wasn’t full of crap or derogatory.
In any case, what he is saying is how I feel about it. I don’t hate Jimmy, in fact, I was a big supportor of his and desperately wanted to see him to great. But with our draft position staying at #1, I can’t justify moving down unless we get an unbelievable trade proposal from a team desperate enough to want Luck…
I don’t see that happening.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Considering that I am severely a "ground and pound" enthusiast, but still agree completely with this...
Speaks highly of my opinion on this guy.
To elaborate: I think most QBs are overrated. I think teams put too much in their QB’s lap. I think the overall shift to a pass heavy NFL has hurt the game.
I’m not a guy who would run the triple option if he were an offensive coordinator, but I think the importance of running the ball and establishing your physical dominance at the line of scrimmage has been nearly forgotten.
I was the guy saying we should have drafted Terrance Cody instead of Jimmy. At that time I didn’t know much about Jimmy, I was just going off of my opinions expressed above, and thought that Moore showed enough late in the year last year. But, this in no way affects my opinion about drafting Luck.
So despite all of these tendencies and opinions that I have that should discourage me from wanting another early-round QB, I still think Luck is a no-brainer. But I have no personal vendetta towards Clausen. I like the kid, and think that he could be an above-average NFL QB. It’s just a question of whether you want to settle for a guy who, IMO ‘more than likely’ will be a good but not great QB, or shoot for a guy who appears to have the potential to be super great.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
by ERL on Nov 30, 2010 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But this is easy
Raw athletic potential. Physical size. Natural arm strength. Foot speed. These things give Luck a much higher potential ceiling the Clausen.
Honestly this isn;t complicated. It is only complicated because you seem to want to defend this to the “last man” and are making it complicated.
I support Clausen. I hope he does well. But for example if I were drafting a point guard in and could choose between Kirk Hinrich and Deron Williams…I pull the trigger on Williams because of potential.
by adamwanderer on Nov 30, 2010 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
Actually
You are naming the exact things that had scouts loving Jake Locker and he was another underrated then overhyped guy..
Jimmy has all the skills and abilities, training, pedigree, natural talent, etc etc etc as Luck does
GSO
I pray you are never the GM or talent evalutator
of any franchise I pull for. If you honestly believe that I kinda feel sorry for ya man. Really.
by adamwanderer on Nov 30, 2010 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
Looking at your picture you seem like a young guy
so let me offer you a few tips.
Don’t make broad generalizations.
Don’t assume so much about how people formulate their opinions because of how you go about forming yours.
by adamwanderer on Nov 30, 2010 4:32 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah like I said
a young guy.
You make broad generalizations and you make assumptions about how much people know about football, how they evaluate a player, and whether or not they watch youtube.
I can say this because I was young once just like you are right now.
by adamwanderer on Nov 30, 2010 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
And probably not as smart
Just b/c you were young does not mean you were ANYTHING like me. So please don’t rehash to your past and try “teaching” me something. You are jumping on the Luck bandwagon and have given up on our rookie QB after 5 games…. That is not an assumption that is fact
GSO
Yet again more asumptions
and broad generalizations.
“Probably not as smart.” – that one is interesting.
“You are jumping on the Luck bandwagon” – bandwagon implies copycat behavor or ascribing to a group or side based on recent succes. You could of course be referring to argumentum ad numerum the concept that because many believe it then others do too. Fair enough a friend asked me to take a look at some tape of Luck as a freshman and I did. I had been touting him ever since and watched his development.
“have given up on our rookie after 5 games” – I have done nothing of the kind. I made what people call an assessment of ability based on performance. Such things can be done even in spite of limited resources for the aforementioned party. Primarily because the assessor has significant experience or natural ability in apprising young talent.
“That is not an assumption that is a fact” – You might want to look up the definitions of those words to make sure you actually understand what they mean.
by adamwanderer on Nov 30, 2010 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
adam, is this not becoming eerily close to what it was like some months back, when trying to reason with another now-departed poster became tiresome and annoying?
I flagged a particularly obnoxious post, that insulted the Panthers, the fan base, individual posters, and was vulgar. He replied with something immature, something along the lines of “Go ahead, flag me, I don’t care.”
I flag a trollish post about 1/10 of the times I Rec a good post, and I announce both, because I don’t wish to do it anonymously.
Very much so BigD
some interesting studies on internet interaction and social norms. Patterns of behavior and archetypes. I’m beginning to think “He Who Must Not Be Named” was not an anomaly.
by adamwanderer on Nov 30, 2010 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
How do you know that we haven't formed our opinion about Luck from watching him play...scouting him, if you will?
That’s same way we have developed an opinion about Clausen, mind you. We watch, we see, we gain impressions, we sense tendencies, we observe body language, attitude and maturity.
Clausen trails Luck in maybe all of these categories. And every NFL scout in the world agrees with us, and not you. What does that tell you?
And don’t question whether or not we are fans of the Carolina Panthers. We want them to improve. Your obsession with JC is no different than me calling everyone out for wanting a DT who would take Ed Johnson’s job. Its no different. Do you know what hypocrisy is?
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
how does clausen lack in those 3 cats?
and when has Luck carried a team from behind and under pressure?
GSO
Except no
He doesn’t. Do you watch them closely? There are several throws that Luck makes routinely that I have yet to see Clausen even attempt.
He can throw off balance, and seems to have a knack for finding his receivers at just the right time, especially on the deep routes.
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
Hey, you forgot the sliced bread.
If you’re gonna repeat yourself, don’t leave anything out.
You’re now a laughing stock.
It’s Tuesday – go get a job.
I was going to quit this site...
But I can’t resist this.
Fallacy #1 – you misspelled fallacies.
That is all for now. I will now go crawl back into my bandwagon.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
Don’t quit man you’ve had some well educated posts for sure.
I agree, it has been frustrating on here this season, but it’s nice to have some Panther conversation being as how I live in Vikings country!
I just can't take the bullshit anymore.
I’m tired of going in circles over who our goddamned quarterback is, or isn’t. I’m tired of arguing ad nauseum with someone who is too blind to see the importance of a franchise quarterback, and to ignorant and/or stubborn to understand that maybe, just maybe, Jimmy Clausen isn’t the answer, and Andrew Luck is.
I quit arguing about it last night and up to this point because I was physically and mentally hurting from all the fighting, debating, and name-calling that someone (not going to name names) resorted to when Clausen’s ability was called into question.
I don’t like being accused of being a “sad sad fan” because I expect more from our quarterback than a 1:5 TD/INT ratio and 0 wins, especially when that quarterback is the second coming of the messiah because he played in a pro-style offense at Notre Dame.
I’m standing on the edge, and I’m about to just say fuck it, and jump off.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
That's your response?
You know what Mike…. FUCK YOU.
I’m tired of you, and I’m tired of your bullshit.
That’s it. I’m done.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
there is no reason that my post should be taken seriously
and I did not take yours seriously either. This is a blog for sports and you are saying
I’m standing on the edge, and I’m about to just say fuck it, and jump off.
that is way overboard
GSO
It's called a metaphor.
I guess they don’t teach that in grad school any more.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
I did not realize that one could freak out and start talking about real life and that he can't take the bullshit etc (what BS?)
I am sorry though. But I am still not sure why you took it to saying you are going to “jump off”… way too extreme noone should have that power over you
GSO
Make sure you have some blankets. It gets chilly outside this time of year BW.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Have we not told you 15 times?
Are you reading the replies to your questions?
In 2005, Steve Smith became the first player since Washington Redskins' receiver Art Monk in 1984 to lead the NFL in receptions for a team that ran more often than it passed. In Steve Smith we trust.
We could get a player in Fairley that IMO is better than Cody (a true gamechanger)
He is destroying SEC Olines and after being in the NFL training program will be downright unstoppable
GSO
No position in football
is more important than an elite QB. I would go so far as to say an elite QB is worth two elite players of just about any other position.
Elite QBs define franchises for a decade or more. They are without price. Priceless.
You could hypothetically offer the Colts Polamalu, Andre Johnson and Holati Ngata and they would reject the offer.
by adamwanderer on Nov 30, 2010 4:26 PM EST up reply actions
Negative
Was Tom Brady elite when drafted in the 7th rd?
Peyton has only one 1 super bowl and he is one of the best QBs ever.
Jake Delhomme took us within a botched kick to a SB win
Trent Dilfer won a SB
Brad Johnson
Kurt Warner started out as a grocery man, he was not considered “elite”
Rivers has never gotten close to winning a SB
etc etc etc etc etc
Ask the early 2000’s Ravens if a stud QB was important.
GSO
The Ravens had a helluva lot more than just a stud DT mind you.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
So we have dominant CB’s, dominant DE’s, and Ed Reed at safety? Wow, I didn’t know that.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
I'll actually defend Mike in this one
I think he’s saying we have more than just a stud DT (which we don’t have).
I think all three of our LB’s are studs and personally am a fan of Johnson, Hardy and Gamble as well.
That’s why I didn’t put the LB’s there because we have a great LB corps, and Johnson and Hardy are young guys who might be great in the future. But I cannot with a straight face compare our CB’s and S’s to the Ravens CB’s and S’s of that SB winning team.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
We have a talented defense is what I'm saying that could be lights out next year
and Ed Reed played for the Miami hurricanes when the Ravens one… get facts straight :)
GSO
Yeah, that’s why I corrected myself. Nice try pal.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
not to be that guy...but "won"
sorry to do it
by SouthernPanther on Nov 30, 2010 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
haha yeah
i have a droid and it screws up what i’m trying to say all the time
by SouthernPanther on Nov 30, 2010 5:36 PM EST up reply actions
haha
i do agree here…i’d much rather have polomalu, johnson, and ngata
by SouthernPanther on Nov 30, 2010 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
psh, I got Pete's back. The guy was the only major talking head to back us going into the year
…then again, its probably what cursed us. I’d rather be cursed though than have to deal with Failsinkas at ESPN. The guy is the embodiment of everything I hate in a person.
Still didn’t answer his question. Seeing a pattern here…
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
No he didn't.
But I know the reason. He’s on a Crusade against the people who are supposedly against Clausen.
Problem is those people don’t really exist.
Um, no?
Don’t put words in my mouth. If you’re going to argue with people get your facts straight jack.
Going to have to step your game up if you want to get in the ring with me.
You are not good at answering the questions people ask you Mike. I myself have repeatedly asked you what is the issue with having both Clausen and Luck on the same team here. Never have gotten an answer there, perhaps because you just want to argue the point, IDK.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
I have answered many times. I want gamechangers at other positions
there are 700 posts on here, sorry
GSO
Which can be done through FA. We can get the guys necessary to plug the holes and be productive at the same time, while having two young potenial franchise QB’s at the helm.
Do you disagree with that?
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
No, we have been drafting gamechangers at every position, why change that?
Why get a 30 yr old vet DT for 1-2 years when we can get a 22 yr old wrecking machine?
GSO
Why stay with a guy who hasn’t proven very much on the field when we can get a potential franchise QB?
Look, we can go back and forth all day here, but the proposal I’m making makes sense to quite a few people. I don’t see the harm in having two young guys out there at QB….
And I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you have a problem with that.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
because scouts who study this shit say so...thats it
nothing can be proved for certain. people are saying the risk of passing on luck is too much not to pull the trigger. thats it and thats all.
by SouthernPanther on Nov 30, 2010 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
I’m willing to bet they have a better percentage of getting things right for scouting footballs players than yourself.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
where did i say that?
where did i say scout’s are always right? what does clausen have other than hype from scout’s that he will be a great NFL QB?
by SouthernPanther on Nov 30, 2010 5:35 PM EST up reply actions
I've asked and received an answer from Mike for this
He said it’s not Clausen’s college hype but rather his performance this year that has led him to believe we have enough to pass on Luck.
Do you argue in circles like this with everyone else or just us on this site?
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
MP was supposedly in graduate school, too.
I guess it goes with the territory.
Maybe there’s extra credit for Most Words Recorded On An Internet Blog, or something like that.
maybe you just weren't able to get into graduate school?
So you stick to using an analogy comparing me to MP
GSO
Never thought about it.
I got married at 21, got a job, supported a family, made 238k in 1986, the year you were born.
Even when I was 24, I didn’t think I knew it all, and I didn’t tirelessly argue with people about opinions.
Of course, it was a far different society then, and people faced each other more often.
If you truly couldn’t stand MP, then take it seriously when you’re compared to him. That’s all I’ll say on the subject.
I only argue when needed, I have been a proud member of this site supporting the Panthers
And the only reason this has gone in circles is due to the epic amount of posts
GSO
Half are from you, I'd guess.
Once you let it go, this thread will fall from its own weight.
Either you don’t listen, or you just like to see your name in print.
You are the one arguing, and repeating, and repeating, and…
i want to reply down here to some of the stuff above:
people have such a negative view of FA for some reason. there isn’t this imaginary gap where you can only build through the draft OR free agency. You can build through both. I guess its just because the panthers have never been that team that does a lot in free agency, but we act as if we sign a free agent we will stop focusing on the draft…that isn’t true….there can be a happy compromise.
by SouthernPanther on Nov 30, 2010 4:58 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I too agree
Look at what the Jets have done this year through free agency. The Eagles as well, drafted Desean Jackson and grabbed Vick through free agency. The Saints grabbed Brees through free agency and Bush and Colston through the draft. The list goes on and on.
+1
The Pats, Ravens are excellent examples. Well said.
by adamwanderer on Nov 30, 2010 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
where did you read "stop building through the draft in that statement"
i clearly said there can be a happy middle ground where we use the draft to find young cornerstone players, and fill certain holes through free agency…this is not a situation of extremes, there is a middle ground.
by SouthernPanther on Nov 30, 2010 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
so we agree...i have that exact sentence in my paragraph
use the draft to find young cornerstone players, and fill certain holes through free agency
by SouthernPanther on Nov 30, 2010 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
Good God man
Really? Do you need to argue your point to death on everything.
It seems like none of us are entitled to our own opinion.
hm???q
I am stating my opinion and replying to his post. sorry.
But I know everyone has their own opinion, that is what makes this country great!
GSO
Right and you are entitled to it
We realize that your opinion is that Jimmy Clausen is the future at QB for the Carolina Panthers and that building through the draft is the best way to build a team.
Some of us are saying that we want Andrew Luck to be on our roster and that we think there are a couple free agents out there that we can pick up to fill other holes.
We get it dude, but there is no need for name calling and insults.
I am just wanting our fanbase to realize that it takes more than a few starts to really say that he isn't our QB
so far he has not shown me that he isn’t our franchise QB and has given me no reason as to why we shouldnt trade down to acquire great talent at other positions
As I have said before, look at other QB’s first 5 games… many are similar to Jimmy
GSO
We realize that it takes more than 5 starts and honestly I could give a sh!t less about what ‘other’ qb’s did. Fact is, that has absolutely nothing to do with Jimmy or Luck. Point is he hasn’t shown us that he IS the our franchise QB either.
I think a good amount of the fanbase is a little gun shy about going with a guy that isn’t 100% proven due to the situation with Matt Moore last year.
We are going to need at least one QB added to the roster by next year anyhow. You are high on drafting as well and the Panthers draft strategy has generally been take the best player available which in this case is clearly Andrew Luck. I say we add Luck and Hasslebeck personally.
See post below
He has shown he can play under pressure and get us in position to win the game when it’s on the line. He has shown he can make a mistake and put it behind him whether it be the next play or week
GSO
Ok, here it is:
Every last one of us here at CSR want the best for our Panthers. We are currently in a big disagreement about the dumbest thing I have argued about in a while. I want the team to succeed, and I can give a rat’s ass about who steers the ship in the right direction.
Be it Clausen or Luck, I do not care. But I would rather have both of these guys battle it out, so that we never, ever, EVER say “what if”. “What if” is a statement used by the bills, lions, and raiders. WE ARE NOT THE LIONS, BILLS, OR RAIDERS. I want both Clausen and Luck to compete for the QB position here. Then we can determine who will be our Franchise QB.
Any holes we have can be filled through later rounds in the draft or in FA. So for the final time:
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP ARGUING ABOUT THIS STUPID BS! WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM HERE!
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
I just want people to realize that they should not give up on Jimmy yet
Sure luck may be a better QB but who knows? Until then we should have faith. He HAS gotten better every week as well
Keep in mind… 3 of th 5 defenses he faced were top 10 in pass defense. that should count for something.
GSO
………….nobody, NOBODY has given up yet. We all want to see the best guy on the field. Please, just read what I said, my damned fingers are tired of typing the same damned thing over and over again.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
People who are giving up arguing with you. This is stupid. We wanted Clausen to succeed. Nobody on here has openly campaigned for him to lose so we can get Luck.
WE ALL WANT THIS TEAM TO WIN. Just stop this stupid fucking argument. It is pointless and pissing everyone off. Let Clausen and Luck battle it out and may the best man win.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
but I am done, nothing more can be said about this
EXCEPT:
LETS GO PANTHERS BEAT THE C-HAWKS ON SUNDAY AND GET WIN #2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jimmy may end up sucking, we get Luck and then win and I will be happy…but at this point I don’t see that happening and I hope Clausen continues to show he is our franchise QB so that we can draft an impact player on defense. If he doesn’t, here’s to Andrew Luck (I will support him as well)
GSO
We do get that man
As Ivan said ‘be it Clausen or Luck, I do not care’. That is exactly what I have been saying as well. If we draft Luck and Jimmy truly is the better QB then he will win the job.
I am giving up on this thread, and I encourage all otheres who have wasted precious time in their lives today, trying to reason with MikeTrain, to do likewise.
It is apparent to me that he is engaged in some school project, which is based on seeing how many adults can be strung along on one discussion, for as long as possible.
This is the quintessential definition of “hijacking” a thread.
Out.
see above, I am done
sick of people thinking I am anti-Luck or anti-Panthers or whatever they think.
I am just supporting our starting QB and believing he will succeed, sorry bigdavis to take so much time out of your important life!!!!!!
GSO
Hurrah!
I for one find it somewhat entertaining at least! I can’t really get angry at words like some I guess.
Although this has certainly been an argument of biblical proportions! (you know how an argument about religion never ends! haha).
I look forward to the posts of next year (if there is one) when we are dominating the league with whoever our starting QB is!
Congrats all... seriously, you've achieved quite a feat
I’m stuck in meetings at work so I can’t check this post and I come back to this?!
November 30th, 2010- The day comments were closed on the MMO for the first time.
I’m so tired of the QB arguments it’s unimaginable.
Follow me on Twitter! @James_Dator
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Cat Scratch Reader
Related FanShots on Cat Scratch Reader
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Report: Tebow sends cease and desist letter to maker of Jesus-y Jets T-shirts
- Joe McKnight says too much McDonald’s helped him gain 16 pounds in offseason
- Nick Mangold says goodbye to some chest hair on ‘Late Night with Jimmy Fallon’
- Saints will honor suspended Sean Payton with empty chairs
- Junior Seau’s home burglarized just days after his death
