McCaffrey: Because, of course

[frankw]

7 hours ago, panthersphan said:

Should've never traded CMC. Anyone saying it was a win trade for the Panthers is either clueless or a homer (or both)...

Just imagine what an incoming offensive minded head coach could do with CMC here... 

 

Are we gonna even resign D'Onta? Or try and fill that void via free agency or the draft? I mean there are some names in FA but we'll never be able to find another CMC. 

Do what just about every other team in the NFL is doing. Draft one and keep building the oline there will be holes for any back worth their salt to run through.

[KSpan]

33 minutes ago, Call Me James said:

It is what it is. End of the day I don't think a player should win comeback player of the year for coming back from a tweaked hamstring and a rolled ankle.  

Agreed. Give it to someone like Brandon Graham, coming back from a torn Achilles in his mid-30s to log 11 sacks.

[Bear Hands]

7 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Been mulling this over, and decided in order to clarify the real issue here, I'll tell ya what I've seen in the time I've been watching the Panthers.

This team has had...

One of the best offensive weapons since LaDainian Tomlinson in Christian McCaffrey...

One of the most physically insane specimens to ever play quarterback in Cam Newton...

An equally insane physical freak on the other side of the ball in Julius Peppers...

One of the best linebackers in the history of the game in Luke Kuechly...

A tight end capable of three straight thousand yard seasons in Greg Olsen...

A hard hitting and incredibly resilient linebacker in Thomas Davis...

A backfield that could drive opposing defenses nuts with both power and speed in the combo of DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart...

And speaking of power and speed, one of the most intimidating receivers ever to see the field in Steve Smith.

There's more of course, but the point is that we've had plenty of great players.

Do any of those guys have championship rings from their time here, though?

No.

Why?

Because for all the talent we've been able to put on the field, what we haven't had are coaches who knew how to maximize the skills those players possessed.

Newton spent most of his career being coached by Mike Shula. Shula and Rivera used him In a way that would have made Buddy Ryan proud, but what they should have been doing from early on is maximizing his passing. That didn't really happen until Norv Turner got here.

Turner did more with Newton in a single offseason than Shula did his entire career here, but by that time Newton's body was already starting to wear down. Eventually, the price of playing him the way Rivera had done came due and not only was that dominant physical specimen gone, but the throwing arm which conceivably could have sustained his career much longer was damaged as well.

Likewise, you had McCaffrey here for his first few years. Similar to Newton, Rivera used him, and used him, and used him, and used him. Rarely in the most effective way possible mind you, but never short on quantity...and thus, wear and tear.

McCaffrey's had better career luck than Newton in that he's now getting the chance to go and work under an offensive coach who knows what to do with him. We've yet to see whether the wear and tear from Rivera's coaching shortens his shelf life like it did Cam's, but at the very least he's got a better chance to be what he can be than he did before.

So yeah, we've had talent. Sometimes more of it, sometimes less of it, but more often than not it's been there.

To quote the great Pete "Maverick" Mitchell though, "It's not the plane. It's the pilot."

The dream we have this offseason Is that maybe we can finally find our "top gun" and he can guide this team and its players down the right path.

Until we do, we're just gonna keep wasting potentially brilliant careers.

Here's hoping...

Coaching is really the biggest factor when it comes to having a SB winning product.  I think an argument can be made that a great to elite QB can mask coaching deficiencies and help offset issues (See Panthers 2015), but if you don't have the right guy as HC, you're going nowhere fast.  If you have the right coach and haven't found a QB, let's say have an average to good QB, you'll still see hints of success and can even make a run.  But you don't see many SB winners with a flash in the pan HC.  You do see a lot of SB/Conf Champ losers with flash in the pan QBs though.   

These next few weeks are bigger than any draft.  Huge decision that will make or break our time as fans for the foreseeable future.  

  

[Mr. Scot]

24 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

Coaching is really the biggest factor when it comes to having a SB winning product.  I think an argument can be made that a great to elite QB can mask coaching deficiencies and help offset issues (See Panthers 2015)

That season proves the exact opposite, actually.

Coaching is why we lost that Super Bowl.

[Krovvy]

12 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

This is what we call...a double standard.

If you want to use something like that, it's up to you, but in doing so you forfeit the right to complain when somebody else does the same.

I would add you also open the door to anyone who wants to say that Newton dragged us down during the losing seasons he had here, and you will have nullified your ability to argue otherwise.

Yeah, it's called positional value. A quarterback is the most important position in sports, with the NFL ensuring that year by year with their rule changes. On the other hand, running back is one of the most devalued positions in the last 30 years. To the point where teams are generally picking up late round prospects and undrafted free agents for their Super Bowl runs.

Running back's production is readily replaced. It is what it is.

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, Krovvy said:

Yeah, it's called positional value. A quarterback is the most important position in sports, with the NFL ensuring that year by year with their rule changes. On the other hand, running back is one of the most devalued positions in the last 30 years. To the point where teams are generally picking up late round prospects and undrafted free agents for their Super Bowl runs.

Running back's production is readily replaced. It is what it is.

And yet you want to hold a runningback more responsible for losses than you do a quarterback..

Your position is totally inconsistent.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Mr. Scot

[SmokinwithWilly]

3 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

That season proves the exact opposite, actually.

Coaching is why we lost that Super Bowl.

That and the NFL wasn't going to let a corporate icon like Manning go 1-3 in SBs and go out on a loss. 

[Krovvy]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

And yet you want to hold a runningback more responsible for losses than you do a quarterback..

Your position is totally inconsistent.

Yeah, you're not getting it. I'm not holding Chrisitan responsible. I'm saying that him being on the team does not move the needle. It didn't. A quarterback bad or good always moves the needle.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, Krovvy said:

Yeah, you're not getting it. I'm not holding Chrisitan responsible. I'm saying that him being on the team does not move the needle. It didn't. A quarterback bad or good always moves the needle.

I get that. The problem is you want to give him credit for the good without accepting any blame for the bad. And using your logic, there would be plenty of that.

It also helps to understand that an NFL quarterback's primary job isn't to be the offense himself, it's to get the ball to playmakers and let them do the work.

This is again why wins and losses are a team stat, not an individual stat.

[Krovvy]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

I get that. The problem is you want to give him credit for the good without accepting any blame for the bad. And using your logic, there would be plenty of that.

It also helps to understand that an NFL quarterback's primary job isn't to be the offense himself, it's to get the ball to playmakers and let them do the work.

This is again why wins and losses are a team stat, not an individual stat.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not Frank, what I was initially trying to imply was Christian does not move the team's needle. At the end of the day we weren't winning with him and even after he left ground production improved without him. It's just the nature of running backs.

[frankw]

[Mr. Scot]

5 minutes ago, Krovvy said:

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not Frank, what I was initially trying to imply was Christian does not move the team's needle. At the end of the day we weren't winning with him and even after he left ground production improved without him. It's just the nature of running backs.

That depends on the offense.

If you do things the way we've typically done them, yeah I'd agree. But the Shanahan's approach makes a huge difference.

[Brooklyn 3.0]

3 minutes ago, frankw said:

Who is that talking to you? He has a cool watch.

[Krovvy]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

That depends on the offense.

If you do things the way we've typically done them, yeah I'd agree. But the Shanahan's approach makes a huge difference.

No, you're right about that. The Panthers didn't know anything other than use and abuse. He needed to be worked into an offense that used his game breaking aspects to the fullest, without force feeding him every possible snap.

This trade honestly probably honestly gives Christian a real shot at a full, healthy career. One where he'll still be very productive, if not more productive since he won't be missing as many games.