Total Meltdown Scenario... presented by WFNZ

[panthers55]

Shockey didn't play a single snap in the 2007 postseason.....

He was hurt.

And Steve Smith broke his leg in 2004 and missed 15 games that season. And...... What happened over 4 years ago has no relevance on this year or that he is injury prone because he missed the playoffs 4 years ago. Football is a contact sport and guys get hurt. Because it was the playoffs that story got tons of press and that is why he is considered injury prone. But that is more press than reality. He gets hurt because he is tough and doesn't run away from contact. It happens.

[panthers55]

are you implying Chud's scheme wasn't very TE friendly and didn't aid Shockey in having good numbers?

if you think last season showed Shockey is a better recieving option than Olsen I would greatly disagree w/ that.

If Chud can get his hands on a TE he likes......then Carolina won't bring back Shockey. Chud's TE isn't on this roster.

Sometimes you argue so much trying to prove a point you miss the other person's point altogether. My point is that if the system is so friendly that anyone can prosper and it inflated Shockey's numbers then why were his numbers as a function of targets and opportunities better than Olsen's. All things equal, Olsen who people say is better than Shockey, should have had much better numbers than Shockey but he didn't. Again look at the facts not your opinion from watching TV. So apparently it must either be that the system isn't as TE friendly as you suggest, Shockey must be better than you think, or Olsen must not be as good as you think. Feel free to take your pick.......... I go for number 2 but to each his own.

And as I have told you ad nauseum, if we don't bring him back it will be money not production. At 4 million we might very well not bring him back. We will have to make tough choices. Whatever we do I hope they are the right ones. Could we find a younger TE who is the next Jimmy Graham, I hope so.

[L-TownCat]

Sometimes you argue so much trying to prove a point you miss the other person's point altogether. My point is that if the system is so friendly that anyone can prosper and it inflated Shockey's numbers then why were his numbers as a function of targets and opportunities better than Olsen's. All things equal, Olsen who people say is better than Shockey, should have had much better numbers than Shockey but he didn't. Again look at the facts not your opinion from watching TV.So apparently it must either be that the system isn't as TE friendly as you suggest, Shockey must be better than you think, or Olsen must not be as good as you think. Feel free to take your pick.......... I go for number 2 but to each his own.

And as I have told you ad nauseum, if we don't bring him back it will be money not production. At 4 million we might very well not bring him back. We will have to make tough choices. Whatever we do I hope they are the right ones. Could we find a younger TE who is the next Jimmy Graham, I hope so.

Both of them are very good AND this is a TE friendly system. The part that is left out completely is that Cam is a helluva QB that bought time in and around the pocket to find the open reciever waaaay down the field. Most of the time DC's tried to take away Cam's safety blanket(TE's). Next year I feel that DC's will be much more worried about the vertical threat and leave our TE's open over the middle!

[CRA]

And Steve Smith broke his leg in 2004 and missed 15 games that season. And...... What happened over 4 years ago has no relevance on this year or that he is injury prone because he missed the playoffs 4 years ago. Football is a contact sport and guys get hurt. Because it was the playoffs that story got tons of press and that is why he is considered injury prone. But that is more press than reality. He gets hurt because he is tough and doesn't run away from contact. It happens.

hey, I was just responding to someone who claimed Shockey's 2007 Superbowl ring was valuable experience he could add here.......

Shockey didn't play in that postseason run. Therefore, someone shouldn't bring up. No one was crediting Steve Smith for stuff he did in 2004.

[CRA]

Sometimes you argue so much trying to prove a point you miss the other person's point altogether. My point is that if the system is so friendly that anyone can prosper and it inflated Shockey's numbers then why were his numbers as a function of targets and opportunities better than Olsen's. All things equal, Olsen who people say is better than Shockey, should have had much better numbers than Shockey but he didn't. Again look at the facts not your opinion from watching TV. So apparently it must either be that the system isn't as TE friendly as you suggest, Shockey must be better than you think, or Olsen must not be as good as you think. Feel free to take your pick.......... I go for number 2 but to each his own.

And as I have told you ad nauseum, if we don't bring him back it will be money not production. At 4 million we might very well not bring him back. We will have to make tough choices. Whatever we do I hope they are the right ones. Could we find a younger TE who is the next Jimmy Graham, I hope so.

b/c Shockey was more of a checkdown option and saw more reps than Olsen = better #'s.

I don't think Shockey is bad. Loved the signing. when Cam was about to be thrown into the fire. Needed a vet. Needed a mouth. He brought it all.

Different needs this year. We could upgrade Shockey's spot from a talent aspect.......the other stuff he brought means less now that Cam won't intentionally let the vets do the talking.

Olsen is better than Shockey only in terms of being a WR option. Shockey does the rest better. That is why I want an upgrade if we can get one.....Olsen is not Chud's definition of his TE. Neither is Shockey at this stage. So excuse me for wanting our OC to get what he really wants at one of the most important positions of his offense.

[csx]

I'm not saying this just to argue, but many would say Shockey is the better receiver. Olsen's hands seem to disappear at times. I agree with them at the moment though Olsen has more of a future obviously.

[frash.exe]

why are you people obsessed with either of these players?

Moss can no longer separate and was basically cut from three teams his last year in the league.

Jeremy Shockey can no longer separate from anything and is a glorified 6th lineman. The Panthers could easily replace his production with a late round blocking tight end.

but noooo something something attitude goo goo ga ga

Ricky Proehl wasn't insanely productive by any means but he extended a lot of drives for us

Some players are good at getting yards but you also need the guy who makes those tough catches too

Also Shockey is apparently proud to play in our colors, which is like the fifth time in this team's history that's happened for us

[csx]

Ricky Proehl wasn't insanely productive by any means but he extended a lot of drives for us

Some players are good at getting yards but you also need the guy who makes those tough catches too

Also Shockey is apparently proud to play in our colors, which is like the fifth time in this team's history that's happened for us

Exactly, if an NBA team needs role players to win when loaded with superstars then a football team sure does as well.

[Woodcookedbbq]

My only memory of Barnidge is catching that errant pass from Matt Moore in the Vikings game 2 seaons ago for a big gain.

[CRA]

I'm not saying this just to argue, but many would say Shockey is the better receiver. Olsen's hands seem to disappear at times. I agree with them at the moment though Olsen has more of a future obviously.

Olsen can simply beat guys in coverage that Shockey can't.

[Newtons2ndLaw]

Guys, guys, we can have BOTH.

[panthers55]

b/c Shockey was more of a checkdown option and saw more reps than Olsen = better #'s.

More reps as in more plays on the field or more targets. Olsen actually was targeted with 17% of Newton's passes versus Shockey who was targeted with 12% of Newton's passes. Olsen was targeted 88 times while Shockey was targeted 62. Olsen had 6.1 yards per target while Shockey had 7.3. Olsen had a catch rate of 51%, Shockey had a catch rate of 59%.

Olsen caught 45 balls for 12 yards a catch, Shockey caught 37 balls for 12.3 yards a catch. Shockey had a better success rate, and both had a TD for every 9 catches.

Tell me again how Shockey was only a checkdown guy and saw more reps.

As for giving Chud what he wants, if there is another Jimmy Graham waiting out there who can be had on the cheap or picked up late in the draft, by all means lets get him. Until then Shockey is a good alternative.

[megadeth078]

Guys, guys, we can have BOTH.

^this. Sometimes you guys think way too hard...

Also to the people saying "hopefully we can find us a Jimmy Graham", are you guys saying that we should draft a tight end even though we have much greater needs on the other side of the ball and even though we already have two tight ends just so we can save ourselves a couple million? I didn't realize that our cap situation couldn't be fixed and we had to resort to creating more needs to save money. Also, you guys can call him Jimmy Graham, but I'll call him Drew Brees' tight end.