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!

     

If Bryce doesn’t produce, we moving on?


TheBigKat
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tr3ach said:

This is what I found.  I don't even see how South Carolina fits within those rules honestly but I don't have a Rand McNally map if Charlotte handy lol

"By League rule, a "local" player is determined to be a player who is from the "local metropolitan area as defined by a current Rand McNally map." That means the player must be from within the shaded area of that metropolitan map. That League policy can be vague and also can be advantageous to some clubs over others."

it gets really weird.  But you got a straight shot down to Columbia and I guess straight up to VA if you are the Panthers.   I would assume the western mountains and western NC/SC ends up drawing a line and boxing them out of that area.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, CRA said:

it gets really weird.  But you got a straight shot down to Columbia and I guess straight up to VA if you are the Panthers.   I would assume the western mountains and western NC/SC ends up drawing a line and boxing them out of that area.  

 

It's probably something as simple as all of NC and SC are considered local as it's the CAROLINA Panthers and doesn't reflect a particular state or city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

It's probably something as simple as all of NC and SC are considered local as it's the CAROLINA Panthers and doesn't reflect a particular state or city.

I invested way too much time in it and then couldn't find the exact map.  Similar one shows they pretty much can go to Columbia and up to VA which aligns w/ their local visits.   Then then encounter "micropolitan areas" going westward that would cut them off I think trying to get into western south and north Carolina. Seems like a certain mile radius would make the most sense.  Got to think some areas like the Northeast teams could take advantage of a lot more schools. 

 

Players who attend college or reside in a club’s “metropolitan area” can be given a physical examination without counting against the 30-player limit, unless the club provides transportation for the visit. Also, a player who attends college or whose hometown is in a club’s “metropolitan area” may be timed and tested at the club’s facility, as long as the club does not provide transportation.

“Metropolitan area” is defined as contiguous suburbs. There isn’t a 25-mile, 50-mile, or any other type of mileage radius rule. The league office uses the 2011 Rand-McNally Road Atlas to determine the metropolitan area of a city.

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just get rid of the 30 visit limit? Seems dumb and arbitrary and it seems like you'd want to give prospects the opportunity for as much exposure as possible. Borderline draftable guys probably aren't getting much attention at all on top 30 visits but that would likely change if you get rid of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Why not just get rid of the 30 visit limit? Seems dumb and arbitrary and it seems like you'd want to give prospects the opportunity for as much exposure as possible. Borderline draftable guys probably aren't getting much attention at all on top 30 visits but that would likely change if you get rid of it.

yeah, I don't know why any of it exists today.  Maybe back in the day it made more sense as maybe you could argue it would benefit the wealthiest owner vs a different franchise (that couldn't pay for and bring in the entire league to their home)? Who knows.  Seems stupid in present times. 

  • Pie 1
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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • First on T-Mac, I 100% expect him to be the top WR from this class, however I think expecting him to put up 1k+ as a rookie isn't necessarily fair, especially since you're putting it in perspective of how many other rookie WRs have done that in recent years. And Thielen is the reason for that. Not many (if any) of those 1k+ rookies had someone like Thielen there when they were drafted, and no matter how good T-Mac is this year, Bryce is still going to lean on his existing chemistry with Thielen unless he's drastically lost a step this offseason and just can't get open like he's been able to in his career. As I pointed out in another thread the other day, looking at MHJ last year is the way to look at T-Mac's season if Thielen plays a full and healthy season.  MHJ had McBride "steal" 110+ catches and 1,100+ yards in what was a pass happy offense (Kyler was 9th in the league in attempts), it's going to be hard for any rookie to put up more than the 800ish yards he had last year in that scenario.  Especially if we follow a similar game plan to last year and be a run heavy team. In terms of XL, you're completely right, jumping up to get a project 2/3 isn't smart, and if we knew we needed a future slot from that pick, yes, Ladd would have been a much better pick. But at this point, those are all sunk costs, even taking T-Mac at 8 is now considered a sunk cost. Forgetting the past or who we maybe should have taken last year now knowing future roles, I still think T-Mac, XL, Coker can be one of the Top 1-3 WR rooms in the NFL in a few years, I honestly think they really do have that potential in them.
×
×
  • Create New...