Panthers: Minter hopes to stay

Ok, first question: Name one play Mike Rucker made.

#2: Roy Williams was minced meat in coverage late in 2003, and even more so in 2004. Yes, he hits hard. But can he cover. No, he sucks in coverage.

#3:You called Branch out even when he didn't suck. And when he made plays against ZONA, you chalked it up to catching a few poorly thrown balls against a shitty team. No credit for any good moment.

#4: I'll give you a number of people who, at one time in the season, sucked as bad as you claim Branch does:

*Mike Rucker (all season)
*Will Witherspoon (up until Oakland)
*Mike Minter (all season)
*Chris Gamble (up until he formed testicles, around week 10.)

 

3.5 sacks and while I can't name the tackles for loss off the top of my head, he had more than Peppers.

Was he making plays from day one? yes. Would I take him over Branch? Of course. He's not the coverage guy that Ed Reed is, nor Sean Taylor.

I didn't feel they were remarkable plays - I was doing it in response to this misconception that he was suddenly great and the few people who cream their pants for Branch were having a field day.


>>#4: I'll give you a number of people who, at one time in the season, sucked as bad as you claim Branch does:
>>*Mike Rucker (all season)

Made more plays.

>>*Will Witherspoon (up until Oakland)

Only up until Oakland? Sure, he wasn't very good, and he was coming down toward center instead of handling his gap. Not as bad as Branch. And again, a guy who did it before, and after. We know WW can make plays, and after he had some mistakes, he also came out and made plays.

>>*Mike Minter (all season)
Sorry, I just can't stop laughing.


>>*Chris Gamble (up until he formed testicles, around week 10.)

Gamble made mistakes. He's also a rook, and still made actual plays. Despite his problems, Gamble's an asset, and Branch doesn't seem to have much impact on the game at all.

 

So, when you get right down to it, Branch has no future.

Well, I'm glad that's settled. What's for lunch?

 

He should be replaced, but if he's simply forced to fight for his starting job, that'd still be a first.

 

There's a problem with your complaint, Magnus. You point out Colin Branch, yet you provide no valid reason why he is so bad and you give no answers for who should replace him.

 

I didn't do that in the fifty threads you fucknuts have started about Colin Branch? We didn't talk about poor run support, poor pass coverage, poor instincts until my ears bled?

 

Aside form the Seattle game, I never came away from any other Panther game saying, "Ya know, Colin Branch really fucked this up, or Colin Branch really fucked that up." But maybe I watched a different Panther team than you did. I wouldn't defend any player if I thought he sucked, and if he did suck I would realize it before argueing my point against insiders like yourself.

 

so you're saying my argument is invalid because you don't agree with it?

 

Invalid is a strong word. I'm saying that I don't agree with you because I didn't see the obvious Colin Branch screw up's that I guess I should have, and because I haven't been told of a player that could resonably do a better job for us at that position.

I did say there is a problem with your agruement, and that was a stupid was for me to put it. You are entitled to your own opinion. I should have worded it "I have a different view than you do on this topic" and from now on I'll make it a point to do something like that.

 

missing my point. You're saying I'm wrong because you disagree.



Duh. So the problem with my argument is that you don't agree. Thanks for clearing that up.