Minter

>>The team isn't giving Davis a shot at SLB even with Fields gone, are they?

Again, they have Short and Draft. You can ignore that all day, but it's still true. They feel he's a safety right now. Of anything, I'd still rather him line up at safety.

>>Saying he's the worst safety we have is just stupid and wrong.

Actually, I said he was better than Emanuel. And I don't think that's far off from where you are. But you've defended Branch to the death before.

Plus, I've said plenty of good things about Henning, including as you'd probably remember, calling him a good QBs coach, even when I did feel that he was calling abhorrently bad games.
Even at my strongest defense of Seifert, I still put 2001 squarely on his hands. I know you like to blow things out of proportion, but you'd figure you could remember all of it if you can remember the shit you went crazy over.

And no, selective facts have never convinced me of anything. I get it - you're a hardheaded pain in the ass who angers easily and turtle shells the rest of the time. I'm not going to apologize for not automatically seeing exactly what you want me to see, after you tell me what you want me to see. Unless it's in mocking, of course. Again, you're confusing "not agreeing with you" with "being wrong".

 

#5) Teams almost universally play their "play-makers" at weakside linebacker because those are the players who will be in a position to fly around, making tackles and causing turnovers. SLBs do not have anywhere near the same ability to fly around, which is why so few teams put talented players at SLB. If you look at the depth charts around the leagues, the SLB list reads like a "Who? Huh? What?," while the WLB list includes Pro Bowlers and future Hall of Famers.

Mark Fields?
Lavar Arrington?

Not trying to get in the "who's dick is bigger" debate, but just thought I had to say something.









For the record mine is bigger.

 

I've been reading some of the thread. Those are very good points why Davis probably won't be a SLB. I don't think its conclusive about what will happen 5 years down the road, but I'll accept it for planning for what will probably happen this year and next. Thanks for the summary.

 

when you're not foaming at the mouth, you really are a joy to read. all in all, you generally make a good case and improve my football IQ when i can keep up with what you are talking about.

anyways. a couple of football questions related to your post. note, i'm not trying to poke holes but rather for further enlightenment of a dim mind.

points 2 and 3 -- in your view is it not feasible that TD could gain strength and size during offseason workout programs? apparently it did not work out well for Nelson, but we have seen others like the Hoov make pretty significant increases. also, i can also remember a Panthers tackle, though his name isn't coming in, that made the switch from borderline TE to a starting tackle during his career by putting on strength and weight.

point 4 -- i'm seriously confused on this issue from various posts and i think quotes that i have read. i see mags is saying that he has 4.4 speed despite a 4.55 combine time (realizing of couse that these numbers twist in my head, so bear with me) and yet i thought i read a player quote saying he wasn't as fast as Branch. i know that Branch supposedly has good speed, but i didn't think it was 4.4 speed and certainly didn't think it better than that. i keep reading about TD's amazing explosion on the ball. is it that he has great immediate reaction and very quick (explosive) first steps as opposed to an eye-popping 40? if so, how would that translate to the question of where he is best suited to play?

point 5 -- i never really thought of Fields as a "Who? Huh? What?." there were many here, including myself, that thought him our best LB and some that thought him the heart of our D and our MVP. he was also probably our best blitzer. and i have to wonder who caused more turnovers when he was at the top of his game here -- him or WW. my guess is that it was Mark by a good margin. so i'm not sure that i accept this point.

you may have maybe already addressed this question but do you think that TD will stay at SS throughout his career as a Panther? I suppose if WW moves on there would be a great chance that he would be shifted to WLB. but per chance that we can resign WW, what would you project?

 

I, personally, do. the 12 BP he ran at combine never seemed right, and yeah. I expressed concern with it, but I also never felt it was indicative of his ability. I don't think he's topped out at 230, but I don't think that he's topped out like Jason Peter, Matt Campbell, Frank Garcia, etc who all gained weight to be near 300 and each of which had problems staying healthy.

All the same, I don't know if he needs to be larger than 230, and whether or not 230 would cause a change in the things I'm personally concerned with him being a LB, either at S or W.

Supposedly ran a 4.4 flat at combine. I don't think I've ever seen it on the field.

From what people have said, he's been that explosive at times, especially against the run. Whether he would be wasted at LB, because of his amazing closing speed, is hard to say. I'd personally like to see him make a go of S first, and the team's pushing that way, too.
point 5 --

Very much agreed. And while Fields had more size, he was a guy who was pigeonholed to the weakside and expected to play there, because he was quick and started out not separating that well. I saw him year after year and never felt he was a great fit there. And yeah, he was our best linebacker every time he was on the field.

I personally would rather see him stay at SS. If Witherspoon moves on, Davis would probably be a weakside candidate, as it's the "easier" choice. You leave Short and Draft on that side, you find a cheapie MLB. I'd rather WW not leave, of the two potential FAs, and yeah, I'd rather have Davis at SLB of the two, if necessary based on whether the guys at SLB work out. He's the same height, size, and build as WW. He's a good match to the TE, comparatively. He's better at holding his gap, and neither are good at shedding. It wouldn't be perfect, no, but I feel it'd be a better use of his skills.

 

Significant is a strong word, imo. Short and/or Draft should be adequate for the job - Nothing like the impact Fields made, but more than Greg Favors.

This brings up another point I wanted to get to for the sake of discussion. You've said that losing Fields is a significant loss, but you've also said that SLB is a bastion for less talented players (Short or Draft would come to mind). So that does beg the question - How is the Fields loss significant? I loved what he brought to the table in 2002, and late in 2004. With that said, the unflattering description of his position would make anyone believe that Fields' role on the defense was much less important.

I figured that this point was relevant to the Davis discussion, being that the Fields loss may not so urgent. Is Fields an impact player regardless? Yes, no doubt. Not only ability wise, but leadership wise. I thought he was our best defensive player in '02. Better than Peppers. But I don't think that it means we had to draft a player to fill his spot immediately, which is why I don't read much into the fact that he's not practicing at the position right now.

I know this topic has been beat to hell, but I'm not ready to concede where Davis will play or how the team will use him. It seems much to early to pass judgement on that. I'm also considering that fact that Fields, who was once a weakside player, made a major impact at the SLB position.

At the very least, could we leave the possibility that Davis could eventually work his way to the strongside? It's just a thought, and you're welcome to discuss it in any fashion.

 

>> also, i can also remember a Panthers tackle, though his name isn't coming in, that made the switch from borderline TE to a starting tackle during his career by putting on strength and weight

matt campbell

 

he was a guard and my guess is he was on roids

 

I'm not ignoring it, I'm laughing at your feeble excuses. Do I really need to dig up all the bad things you said about Short? And it's not like you endorsed Draft as a solution to Fields' absence either. Don't pretend like you see either of those players being more than adequate at best, because your old quotes prove differently. Our biggest question mark on defense is SLB, and we're not even considering lining Davis up there. Why? Because no sane person would.

Hardly. I just don't like it when you crap on a guy or express undying love for a guy when it's completely unwarranted. Branch was better than Minter last season whether you want to admit that or not, and saying he's worse than Bashir or especially McCree is simply beyond belief. You hate certain players and coaches, and you love certain other players and coaches. No amount of facts, figures, or argument has ever changed your mind on anything.

See, you're not all bad. You do raise my blood pressure to unhealthy levels, but then you say things like this and make me laugh harder than I have in a week.

Believe it or not, but I've actually gotten to a point where I don't have unlimited time to spend on a message board any longer. I know that's how you get your kicks and convince yourself that you still have some football knowledge, but I actually have to write articles that are read by people across the nation. And hell, that's just my hobby. Between work and a Masters thesis, I just don't post on message boards that often anymore, and I generally only stop by here or other Panther boards when something meaningful happens and I want to discuss it with my remaining free time.

We disagree on lots of things. I only accuse you of being absolutely wrong on some things. I could certainly be incorrect about you being wrong, but it's unlikely given that I'm the only one who bothers to ever use facts, figures, and logic in making an argument. You hide behind "I just feel like ... X." But obviously if not agreeing with me automatically made you wrong, I'd say you were wrong about everything we disagree about. I don't. Hell, write to some coach or national columnist who actually knows what an SLB does, and ask whether or not playing Thomas Davis there would be absolutely stupid. I already know what they'd tell you, because no coach or knowledgable columnist has ever said that he could play SLB.



homer2k79:
LaVar Arrington plays weakside linebacker. Meanwhile Mark Fields is one of those absolute few SLBs anyone would know, and most non-Carolina people didn't know him until his cancer fight.



HeadCase:
Fine questions. As for gaining weight, in a previous thread I covered skeletal frame. It is indeed possible for someone versed in such things to say how much weight a player could safely add in the near future based on their skeletal structure. One thing you'll note from Thomas Davis is that he doesn't appear to have broad shoulders or a particulary large frame. Forcing him to go any higher than about 230 would put us in the same boat as when we tried to make Jason Peter gain weight out of Nebraska. If a player's frame isn't set up for it, they run into numerous injury issues and generally suffer a loss of effectiveness. Additionally, adding substantial weight generally takes away from speed, which is one of Davis' better attributes.

Regarding speed, Davis doesn't have 4.4 speed. That was a misstatement on Mags' part. He isn't as fast as Branch in the full 40 (Branch ran a 4.38 and is also stronger), but Davis is a much better hitter and derives much of that force through lower body explosion at the point of contact. In terms of how that affects where he's suited to play, you can certainly have a 4.6 safety. Even some corners can get by with that, but what you really want is a very fast short distance speed. Davis doesn't really excel there either, as his 1.64 over 10 and 2.71 over 20 speeds are very good for a linebacker but just about average or slightly worse for a highly drafted safety. Another factor is reaction time, and Davis is much better at reacting forward and attacking the ball than he is in dropping or moving laterally in reading a pass. For those and more reasons, I personally think he'd be most effective at WLB, but he has all the skills to be a very good SS too.

As for Fields, he played WLB before he came to Carolina. We moved him to SLB in part because he had gotten older, bigger, and slower. That said, it is true that in 2002 he did have more tackles and cause more turnovers than Witherspoon that season (WW soundly beat Fields across the board last season), but on average, WLBs have far more tackles and far more forced turnovers than SLBs. I already went over this in another thread, but only a few of the top 20 linebackers in tackles plays SLB, and none of them were in the top 10.

Regarding future position, Don Banks of SI said that the Panthers told him that they think Davis will eventually settle at linebacker. I agree. I think he could be an All-Pro weakside linebacker, although he would be a very good SS as well if we decided to keep him there, as long as we played to his strengths.


And sorry about the foaming. Mags brings out the worst in me (often intentionally), but it is in me, as you've already seen in how I reacted to you long ago. It's my fault and I take responsibility for it, but people who've seen me for a while know that it's just the bad that inevitably comes with my good.

 

and he sucked because he still didn't have the strength/was always hurt from being larger than he should've been. Same with Peter, who never should've played at 290.