Panthers will keep Jonathon Brooks on NFI list

[WarPanthers89]

Article: Panthers head coach Dave Canales said this summer that the team hoped to have rookie running back Jonathon Brooks in the lineup around Week Three or Four, but it will be a little later than that. 

Adam Schefter of ESPN reports that the Panthers will leave Brooks on the non-football injury list for the start of the regular season. That will remove him from the active roster and will leave him ineligible to play in the first four games of the regular season. 

Brooks tore his ACL during his final season at Texas, but the Panthers still selected him in the second round in April. 

Miles Sanders, Chuba Hubbard, Mike Boone, Raheem Blackshear, and Jaden Shirden are the other backs on the roster in Carolina ahead of their final cuts.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/panthers-will-keep-jonathon-brooks-on-nfi-list

[Mage]

I'm excited for his arrival.  The ACL doesn't concern me that much.  And I do agree we probably shouldn't have taken him in the 2nd.  But what's done is done, and at the end of the day he's a very talented runner.  

Edited August 27 by Mage

[MHS831]

Smart decision.  Your early schedule is not that difficult and you have 4 RBs who can hold down the fort.

[pantherclaw]

Where he was drafted doesn't concern me. You don't get talented players by sitting back and hoping they'll fall in the draft. 

There is truly no reason to rush him. Would prefer him to be fresh and strong for the 2nd half of the season anyways. 

[Prowler2k18]

30 minutes ago, Mage said:

I'm excited for his arrival.  The ACL doesn't concern me that much.  And I do agree we probably shouldn't have taken him in the 2nd.  But what's done is done, and at the end of the day he's a very talented runner.  

If we hadn’t taken him then Dallas definitely would’ve. We got a decent stable of backs to rely on until he’s fully recovered and ready. Brooks has the potential to be a star in the mold of Jamaal Charles (another Longhorn and HOF RB) if we do this right. 

[strato]

1 hour ago, pantherclaw said:

Where he was drafted doesn't concern me. You don't get talented players by sitting back and hoping they'll fall in the draft. 

There is truly no reason to rush him. Would prefer him to be fresh and strong for the 2nd half of the season anyways. 

The exception would prove the rule on that one. Excellent point except you almost have to do just that most of the time. The value part is often overrated though, about where you pick a guy because if you want him he may not be there when your next turn comes. Most of the time, there is your decision. 

(I don’t think in this case he would have lasted a lot longer)

Then when he is still there halfway through the round after you passed, it really gets tempting.

And if you look at it a certain way, RBs being a dime a dozen sort of allows you to gamble on one you think is special. We’ve got four basically nobodies and the RB roster is not a real worry. 

I feel like things tend to balance out too, like if you misjudge a player high a lot of times you guess right on a 5th rounder or something. Sometimes it offsets. 

 

Edited August 27 by strato

[mrcompletely11]

I will never understand the trade for Brooks or the actual selection

[WUnderhill]

I’m assuming this is just a matter of having the extra active roster spot for the first 4 weeks as opposed to having Brooks take the spot knowing he’d be back week 3 at the earliest.

[Ricky Spanish]

10 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I will never understand the trade for Brooks or the actual selection

We traded back in teh 2nd and got a 2nd next year out of the deal, along with other draft capital, we saw a guy we rated #1 at his position sitting there who was going to be drafted by dallas so we used the later round draft capital to move ahead of dallas and get him.

After all was said and done we didn't really lose anything from trading up to get him

[CRA]

15 minutes ago, strato said:

We’ve got four basically nobodies and the RB roster is not a real worry. 

 

 seems like just last year we paid a RB top 10 guaranteed money (at the time)....and that nobody instantly became a backup lol 

watch the Panthers end up doing what they always do....continue to botch this backfield by extending Hubbard too lol

[Prowler2k18]

7 minutes ago, CRA said:

 seems like just last year we paid a RB top 10 guaranteed money (at the time)....and that nobody instantly became a backup lol 

watch the Panthers end up doing what they always do....continue to botch this backfield by extending Hubbard too lol

Having a rookie basically red-shirted RB allows us to extend Hubbard with a contract commensurate of a backup RB, which is where he’s most effective IMO. He and Brooks would make a dynamic duo in our offense. Of course that depends if Hubbard wants to stay or go for a starting role elsewhere after this season.

[strato]

25 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I will never understand the trade for Brooks or the actual selection

I think, if you mean (edit) selecting him in particular or taking a RB in general… in particular I think it is another concession to the near field passing game, he does what they want do do.

It is all about the QB. Was, still is. That is it, period. If I get to guess. 

I am a hard no on a RB in the 1st, no doubt. Also no trading future year selections. Within the year I don’t worry about it too much because you do not win them all and really, you don’t always know which one you will win on. 
 

I am not sweating it yet. Probably will not sweat anything until they talk about giving him a long term deal at big money… if they ever do. 
 

Edited August 27 by strato

[pantherclaw]

1 hour ago, CRA said:

 seems like just last year we paid a RB top 10 guaranteed money (at the time)....and that nobody instantly became a backup lol 

watch the Panthers end up doing what they always do....continue to botch this backfield by extending Hubbard too lol

Don't think it would take a lot to retain Hubbard. 

[Shocker]

There should be absolutely no reason to rush him back.  Fine with this