Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Was Chark a mistake?

Jmac

By Jmac,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jmac Grand Master

Jmac

Posted
Posted (edited)

No word at all on his status. With his past history, I would be leary of having confidence in him to say healthy. Hammys can be problematic. They just traded for a speedster, but he is not a #1 receiver.

So what to do? Wide receiver by committee? Doubt we will get the guy we need waiting for cuts?

Can they succeed with what they have? Hope this doesn't come back to bite them in the ass.

 

 

Edited by Jmac
  • Poo 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tukafan21 Grand Master

tukafan21

Posted
Posted

Yes, I said it was a mistake the second we signed him, he's far too injury prone to make him our top WR option for a rookie QB.  

No problem with the player himself when he's on the field, but the problem is he's never been able to stay on the field.  If he was already on the team, so be it, but to sign him as our #1 outside WR was a big mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon Snow Grand Master

Jon Snow

Posted
Posted
Just now, tukafan21 said:

Yes, I said it was a mistake the second we signed him, he's far too injury prone to make him our top WR option for a rookie QB.  

No problem with the player himself when he's on the field, but the problem is he's never been able to stay on the field.  If he was already on the team, so be it, but to sign him as our #1 outside WR was a big mistake.

Who said he was the number 1 rw? This team has a different no.1 target on every play.

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zaximus Veteran

Zaximus

Posted
Posted

I'm sure they knew it's possible he'd miss games but probably felt like it was worth it, and it probably was.  He has immense talent and we needed his skillset.  If it doesn't work out then we aren't out of a lot.  I don't think there was a lot of options but we chose two of the best in Thielan and Chark.   Hopkins eventually was available but at a way higher price with the same concerns as Chark. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tukafan21 Grand Master

tukafan21

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Who said he was the number 1 rw? This team has a different no.1 target on every play.

I hate this argument, because being the #1 target on a specific play call doesn't mean they're the #1.

If all our WRs were healthy for the entire season, as things stand right now (i.e. before knowing if TMJ or Mingo could break out and become the top option), Chark would be on the field for more snaps than any of our other WRs.

THAT is what makes him our #1 WR, it's not about being the main target on any given play, it's that he'd be on the field more than any other WR.  Plus, he'll line up almost exclusively on the outside, whereas Thielen will be mainly in the slot and both Mingo/TMJ are likely to take slot snaps as well.

Regardless of how things shake out, it's clear that the staff's plan was for Chark to be the top WR in terms of the depth chart and snap share just based on the rest of the WR room.  So whether or not he was going to be the #1 target in any given play is irrelevant, particularly if/when he's injured and isn't even playing, because then we don't have enough quality WRs to put on the field in his place anyways.

Yes, I understand that this offense will be predicated on coverage and Bryce just making the smart reads as opposed to focusing on one WR as his top target, but that doesn't mean there isn't a snap share pecking order, of which, Chark was planned on being at the top of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tukafan21 said:

I hate this argument, because being the #1 target on a specific play call doesn't mean they're the #1.

If all our WRs were healthy for the entire season, as things stand right now (i.e. before knowing if TMJ or Mingo could break out and become the top option), Chark would be on the field for more snaps than any of our other WRs.

THAT is what makes him our #1 WR, it's not about being the main target on any given play, it's that he'd be on the field more than any other WR.  Plus, he'll line up almost exclusively on the outside, whereas Thielen will be mainly in the slot and both Mingo/TMJ are likely to take slot snaps as well.

Regardless of how things shake out, it's clear that the staff's plan was for Chark to be the top WR in terms of the depth chart and snap share just based on the rest of the WR room.  So whether or not he was going to be the #1 target in any given play is irrelevant, particularly if/when he's injured and isn't even playing, because then we don't have enough quality WRs to put on the field in his place anyways.

Yes, I understand that this offense will be predicated on coverage and Bryce just making the smart reads as opposed to focusing on one WR as his top target, but that doesn't mean there isn't a snap share pecking order, of which, Chark was planned on being at the top of it.

Chark also is the only WR with coverage altering ability.    His ability to get vertical. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • LinvilleGorge
      2024 College Football Thread

      By LinvilleGorge · Posted

      Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...