Veterans

[PhillyB]

2 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Given the average career is around 3-4 years I would think your definition is a little restrictive given few guys make it that long and it doesn't fit the way the NFL describes veterans or sets veteran pay scales. But I understand the casual definition that fans and talking heads use when referring to seasoned veterans which might be a more descriptive term.

okay yes but in this discussion it is obfuscating and useless to try to change the definition of veteran because you and we all know what we're talking about when we say veteran.

[panthers55]

7 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Is Ron still the coach? We will find new old guys to replace the roster holes of old guys leaving. I think Ron's head would explode if we had a youth movement.

Yeah because he doesn't use rookies even though he starts rookies every year as they mature and grow like he did with Jackson off the bat and particularly late in the season like he did with Moore and Samuel. 

Oh that's right it is only due to injury even though Smith and Funchess got reduced roles even when healthy after Moore and Samuel emerged. And Norv got criticized preferring CMC over a more seasoned veteran in CJ.  Yeah let's keep that huddle myth going strong.

[Waldo]

15 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

ron has no problem with youth. we're a drafting team over a free agency team, after all, philosophically. it's actually starting them he seems to oppose.

honestly we are set up nicely for vets to be sprinkled at various levels of the roster. probably one on the offensive line, one at defensive end, one at nickel, one at safety. one or two peanut tillman types in there can complement the young guys nicely.

I was under the assumption that a youth movement was when the young guys come in and learn on the field and not the bench. Ron also has been quoted as saying that he prefers the vets do the coaching/mentoring to the young guys and the coaches step in to make adjustments from there. Ron has a history of not playing better and younger guys over vets he has picked. I would love for this to change but I will believe it when I see it.

[Waldo]

10 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Yeah because he doesn't use rookies even though he starts rookies every year as they mature and grow like he did with Jackson off the bat and particularly late in the season like he did with Moore and Samuel. 

Oh that's right it is only due to injury even though Smith and Funchess got reduced roles even when healthy after Moore and Samuel emerged. And Norv got criticized preferring CMC over a more seasoned veteran in CJ.  Yeah let's keep that huddle myth going strong.

Jackson started when the guy we tried to sign failed his physical and the other guy got hurt. Nice try. Usually the 1st round guy starts and the rest sit til injury forced his hand. Even with young guy mistakes, Smith and Funches where under producing and still getting the majority of the reps till the losses piled up.

[panthers55]

4 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

okay yes but in this discussion it is obfuscating and useless to try to change the definition of veteran because you and we all know what we're talking about when we say veteran.

And I helped clarify that using the term veteran to only discuss guys who have been in the league 10 years or more is inaccurate and needed clarification. That isn't obfuscating, that is doing just the opposite, providing context and refined accuracy. Before you criticize me for clarifying your point, why are you arguing and trying to hold on to your general and less accurate description. 

[panthers55]

4 minutes ago, Waldo said:

I was under the assumption that a youth movement was when the young guys come in and learn on the field and not the bench. Ron also has been quoted as saying that he prefers the vets do the coaching/mentoring to the young guys and the coaches step in to make adjustments from there. Ron has a history of not playing better and younger guys over vets he has very picked. I would love for this to change but I will believe it when I see it.

Not at all true. Ron believes that who he and the coaches think is the best guy for the job gets the start. I would suggest almost all coaches prefer veteran starters over rookies until the rookies learn our scheme and master the transition to the NFL.  Younger guys may be talented and athletic but most aren't better until at least half way through their rookie year.

You have seen it, you must not know what you were looking at.

[PhillyB]

2 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

And I helped clarify that using the term veteran to only discuss guys who have been in the league 10 years or more is inaccurate and needed clarification. That isn't obfuscating, that is doing just the opposite, providing context and refined accuracy. Before you criticize me for clarifying your point, why are you arguing and trying to hold on to your general and less accurate description. 

because the accuracy of the term is defined by the number of people who use it. CMC isn't a veteran because the vast majority of football fans, players, and coaches use the term to describe players in their late twenties and early thirties.

veteran isn't an inaccurate term if we all know what everyone means by it. you don't look smarter for making a highly contentious technical point. why don't you just roll with what everyone else is and has been using as the benchmark for the term since the beginning of time and help us have more productive conversations?

[panthers55]

7 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Jackson started when the guy we tried to sign failed his physical and the other guy got hurt. Nice try. Usually the 1st round guy starts and the rest sit til injury forced his hand. Even with guy young guy mistakes, Smith and Funches where under producing and still getting the majority of the reps till the losses piled up.

Jackson started because he was the best guy we had beside Bradbury. Sure we had injuries but we also had veterans. Just like CMC last year when we had Stewart. If you remember part of the reason DJ didn't get more carries was his tendency to fumble the ball. He improved as the season went and his carries and receptions improved as did his chemistry and trust with Cam. And that is the biggest point. Ron doesn't decide who gets on the field, the coordinators do. Cam ultimately decides who gets the ball.

 

[Waldo]

After 4 years a player is considered a vested veteran. Just google it. 55 is just living in his own world so he can argue.

[PantherNation123]

5 minutes ago, coralreefer_1 said:

Hes just mad and wanting to lash at at you, because i schooled him. Don't take it personally. Bro man is angry posting trying to save face. People get so damn extra heated like kids around here

There is your problem right there.  You didn't "school" anyone.  This thread is about veterans, and you made it into a meta tear-fest

[panthers55]

29 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

because the accuracy of the term is defined by the number of people who use it. CMC isn't a veteran because the vast majority of football fans, players, and coaches use the term to describe players in their late twenties and early thirties.

veteran isn't an inaccurate term if we all know what everyone means by it. you don't look smarter for making a highly contentious technical point. why don't you just roll with what everyone else is and has been using as the benchmark for the term since the beginning of time and help us have more productive conversations?

Here is an article which mentions Bradbury and talks about his leadership. They call him a veteran.

I guess they are inaccurate too. Or again maybe you are using a general term in a specific reference to a certain type of veteran.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiolJHZ-JrgAhVQKawKHYpyAJwQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcatcrave.com%2F2018%2F08%2F02%2Fcarolina-panthers-james-bradberry%2F&psig=AOvVaw0mqUDLiNSudX77GnjD9fmV&ust=1549124524297861

The reality the term veteran is a general term that refers to both older veterans and younger veterans. Using words like older veteran, seasoned veteran, established veteran all provide clarity and make sure we are all on the same page. You seem to be more concerned with winning some kind of argument than acknowledging the obvious that adjectives by nature help clarify general terms and are therefore more accurate. 

You could have said yes you are technically right and let it go instead instead of arguing. You seem the one limiting productive conversation making a mountain out of a molehill after admitting I was right.

Lighten up, Francis.

[panthers55]

47 minutes ago, Waldo said:

After 4 years a player is considered a vested veteran. Just google it. 55 is just living in his own world so he can argue.

Then if a veteran is any player not a rookie and a vested veteran is a 4 year player then why is the term only reserved to guys in the league 10 years or more? Seems my world by your own admission is the real world.

[coralreefer_1]

17 hours ago, PantherNation123 said:

There is your problem right there.  You didn't "school" anyone.  This thread is about veterans, and you made it into a meta tear-fest

I schooled him and you know it. I made a joke way back at the first reply. This dude got all upset and went off over it. He got upset because he knows very well he is the exact type i referenced. I did not make anything. Philly got upset at my comment and made it into a meta tear fest he lost ~

[panthers55]

4 minutes ago, coralreefer_1 said:

I schooled him and you know it. I made a joke way back at the first reply. This dude got all upset and went off over it. He got upset because he knows very well he is the exact type i referenced. I did not make anything. Philly got upset at my comment and made it into a meta tear fest he lost ~

The problem is the idea that this is a contest and you are winning or losing. I should know, I get caught up in it like my discussion with Philly so while I admit the same flaw, I don't see it as win lose although I do say if I think I am right or wrong. Maybe the point for all is stop making things a pissing contest and I will try and take my own advice.