Kiper just picked L. White for Panther

sigh...cut the crap.

I'd think this because ever since Fox was hired, he acquired two backs to get us through a season. Lamar Smith was still considered a starter, and Foster was a top 35 pick. Then, Foster and Davis. 04 they didn't get another back, but did return two guys who had been healthy. 05? Another 2nd round pick, because of other health concerns. I have absolutely no reason to believe that we will not have another back in here, and you have no reason to tell me that we wouldn't seek out a legitimate 2nd string back.

Being that we agree that Foster has issues, and Shelton has issues, it's just bizarre as hell that you keep "correcting me" on this.

Q

That'd be awesome, and he's one of a handful of backs that get that many carries and consistently survive them all. 10 guys got 300 carries this year. That's it. There aren't that many guys who just always stay healthy.

2003's close games show somewhat otherwise, where we'd consistently bust between the tackles for most of the 4th quarter, tacking on an extra 7 or so carries at the end of a game. We play more conservatively than most of the teams in the league in situations like that, and while it's not an unsound philosophy, it does add wear and tear to backs. Plus, until this year, there really hadn't been a good substitution pattern out there - if Davis was the starting back, he was going to get over 25 carries every game if he was healthy. Even Goings took a ton of carries when he started, a lot late in games. There wasn't much spreading the ball around before 2005. Luckily, we fixed that somewhat, and hopefully will continue to supplement Foster with a back who can be effective. It's not deathly vital that we get a back, though I feel it's close; it's also not franchise-harming if we don't get a starting-level LB or S.

I do not see us cutting Foster next year. You do have to remember that the people who signed him to this contract don't believe as you do.

 

:here we go again popcorn thingy:

 

Damn Collin it's simple to take the high road everytime. No Shit "SOME" teams get by with one RB that totes the ball 300 times. But sometimes injuries happen and one guy can't. If the Panthers had such a guy then they wouldn't have to address the position as often.

 

Lamar Smith was a one year stopgap until Foster could take over. Then once Foster proved he couldn't be counted on, then Fox brought in Davis. You yourself complained about how Fox & Henning didn't use Foster enough to spell Davis, right? So obviously they didn't see it as a two-back offense. They saw it as a one-back offense. Then we drafted Shelton because Foster was going to be an unrestricted free agent and Davis was nearing the end of his career. If Shelton had impressed last pre-season, I very strongly doubt that Foster would be here at all. Hurney's track record of signing guys the off-season before their free agency hints pretty strongly at that.

Stop being a retard and trying to argue that I'm saying things I'm not. I never said that we wouldn't seek out a 2nd back. I think the chances of us drafting someone on the first day are pretty high, but only because we have major question marks at the position right now. I took issue with your incorrect statement that this offense is fundamentally incapable of being a one-back offense. The usage patterns have always suggested that it was intended as such, brittle players have just prevented that from happening. And as noted, there is nothing distinguishing our running attack from other run-oriented teams that are able to focus on one ball carrier. We just have to find that one right guy.

Oh, and regarding Foster, the contract was structured so that it can easily be handled as a one-year deal. That alone makes me think that Foster will be gone at the end of the season if he isn't more healthy and more productive than he has been in the past. You suggested as much yourself in other threads.


tharan000:
I don't simply disagree with magnus about his suggestion that it's impossible for us to get by with just one RB. He's flat out wrong about it.

 

Link?

And does that change that we still acquired/rostered two starting-level players? Of course it doesn't.

Correct. Does that change that they rostered two starting-level players? Usage of Davis certainly didn't seem to impact whatsoever what they thought of Foster, since the team had a pretty big habit of using just the first guy to death, and yet still spending enough to have two guys.

Which is basically what I'm saying, and that you're bitching at me about. Nice.

I said this when? Don't you bitch at me whenever you decide I'm stating something in your words that you aren't? I did say that Fox has traditionally carried two starting level players, and that's true.

Which will not happen with Foster here. Which they're highly unlikely to do, just like they weren't going to cut Morgan after one year, and just like they weren't going to cut Delhomme after one year.

Link me. I don't ever remember having suggested we openly decide to get rid of Foster if he didn't have, for instance, a Pro Bowl year.

That's awesome. Good job being incapable of arguing this in terms of what is actually at stake on this team, and being incapable of arguing without the whole "my opinion is fact/your opinion is false" thing.

 

Collin seems to do this alot....telling someone that they are wrong, when what is "right" is loosely/not defined.

 

No, I'm bitching about the stupidity of this statement:
"We'll always need two backs. We'll always need at least two, really. pass-first or run-first, our backs take a beating, because we'll always be running at the end of games."

Other teams do just fine running just as much as we do because they have quality RBs. The problem is that we've been looking for that one guy, we just haven't found him. What you said was just flat out wrong.


And as for where you talked about getting rid of Foster, here is one example:

You were also more specific about hoping that we find someone in the draft that will allow us to get out from under Foster's contract and brittle body, but I'm having trouble finding the specific post. Moreover, do you know how annoying it is that you always ask for links (even though I always provide them) and yet you so rarely provide any of your own?


Proprietor:
There is a difference between someone saying something I disagree with and someone saying something is wrong. Magnus saying that this offense will always need two backs because we run a lot at the end of games or whatever, is quite obviously wrong. Certain other teams run just as much as we do and get by with just one main running back. So it isn't just a difference of opinion, magnus is flat out wrong.

 

I stand behind this. Under John Fox, we will need and always should have two good backs. Two starters? This isn't something I defined. But sure, I stand behind this. I believe this is part of Fox's MO. It literally makes sense. And as for other teams - take Curtis Martin for example. Up until last year, they had a 2nd rounder as depth. Obviously Martin didn't break, but the fact that remains is that they were more than simply prepared for a bad scenario. They didn't actively prepare for it this year, and - well - oops.
The ten players that had 300 carries, all had what I'd consider good depth, other than McGahee. They all have better depth than what we have right now, and I feel like most of those 9 backups are starter material.

"You can get out of this" is something I've stated with a lot of contracts, including Morgan's. Certainly does not mean I'm advocating the possibility of such, or hoping for such. The team is going forth with Foster as the starter. They will not cut him after the year unless something catastrophic happens, but you've often spoken of doing so with guys like Morgan, Foster, Delhomme, even though logic suggests that they wouldn't unless far worse happened.

I'd love another back - that's clear. It's obvious to anyone that having a guy who can carry a load is necessary. That I'm actively looking to release Foster at the soonest possible moment? No. Absolutely not.

You provided absolutely no proof that Smith was a stopgap at RB, or proof that the team believes that it requires only one good back. I did ask for a link there, since it seems to stem completely from your own opinion and nothing else, and didn't get it. Since it's your point to prove, asking for a link is acceptable.

 

It's easy. By doing so, he's defining it.

 

We are a one-back offense, and we've proven that we can be successful there. So what's the problem?