Reich/Fitterer noon press conference

[TLGPanthersFan]

I don’t know guys sounds like we are going Hooker. /s

 

[Lame Duck]

Just now, TLGPanthersFan said:

I don’t know guys sounds like we are going Hooker. /s

 

I’m fine as long as we don’t overpay for that hooker.

[TheSpecialJuan]

 

[TheSpecialJuan]

 

[TheSpecialJuan]

 

[*FreeFua*]

1 minute ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

 

Fitterer also said he was talking to Burns agent but not about him

Here’s a look at Todd France’s client list…

https://fanspo.com/nfl/agents/todd-france/28450
 

Give me Leonard Floyd please 

[LinvilleGorge]

13 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

you think base means how often you are in a certain package. Thats not what it is ... its based on how you assemble the roster. 3-4 completely changes for your talent acquisitions for your dline and lbers vs 4-3. 

You are taking this stuff like its a madden playbook, rather than how you assemble your franchise.

You are clearly just intent to argue semantics today and I'm not in the mood for it. "Nickel" has nothing to do with your front seven alignment. You can run it as a odd or even man front. It has to do with having five DBs on the field. 

[SmittysLawnGuy]

So juicy half this thread is 2 guys arguing about Defensive alignments. Get a room!

[TheCasillas]

4 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

You are clearly just intent to argue semantics today and I'm not in the mood for it. "Nickel" has nothing to do with your front seven alignment. You can run it as a odd or even man front. It has to do with having five DBs on the field. 

You dont build your roster for Nickel alignment. I am not arguing semantics. I am clarifying the statements you are making that are inaccurate... ie nickel is a base alignment. It is not.

 

If we were building for Nickel, why in the world would we have 9 Lbers to 6 CBs on the roster?

Edited March 20, 2023 by TheCasillas

[LinvilleGorge]

7 minutes ago, SmittysLawnGuy said:

So juicy half this thread is 2 guys arguing about Defensive alignments. Get a room!

I'm done. I'll leave him screaming into the void about whatever semantics he wants to argue about.

[TheSpecialJuan]

 

[rayzor]

22 minutes ago, panther4life said:

I personally like Stroud slightly more than Young, but it sure seems like they are leaning Young but certainly forcing themselves to make a decision sooner than they have to. 
 

The statement of wanting see  2-3 years  or 1000 plays on tape to evaluate pretty much confirms it won’t be Richardson. I’m starting to feel stronger and stronger after, that Young and Stroud will be the only 2 QB’s taken top 10.

i don't think they are forcing themselves to do anything. i think they had a clear idea of what they wanted early on and just as a natural progression started paring down on those traits and honing in on what they want and it's coming down to basically these two guys.

we really shouldn't be surprised if they make up their mine soon, assuming they don't already know (in their collective gut) who it is already.

[ForJimmy]

13 minutes ago, Lame Duck said:

I’m fine as long as we don’t overpay for that hooker.

If it’s Hooker Irsay will trade whatever we want to acquire it.

[LinvilleGorge]

Intestine that we're intent on waiting until after the draft for Burns' extension. I know Fitts said they're not looking to trade any current players but the strength of this draft class on paper are the TEs and edge rushers. Almost makes me wonder if the right guy is there at #39 could we trade Burns of we can get an offer close to what the Rams made us? I know we turned it down at the time but things change and I have to think that a wheeler and dealer like Fitts is going to try to recoup some of that draft capital we gave up to get to #1.