Thomas Davis at SS

Yesterday or the day before. In the Foxhole, I think.

 

Okay, INT is a bad indicator of the quality of cornerback play.

I strongly disagree with your statement that he (Gamble) was nearly awful. Going one on one with Holt takes a good corner. The play in the corner of the endzone in the Tampa game was beautiful. That takes a good corner to do that. Plus he got better as the season wore on.

I think the rules really messed up RMJ. I hope he's learned how to play within the new rules this offseason.

 

Fine, you disagree with it, but pretty much every non-Panther fan (and even many who are), agrees with it. That's not to say that Gamble won't be a long-term solution. Rather the opposite, as I have high hopes for him, but being forced into the lineup as a rookie is tough, especially since Gamble has only played CB a couple of years. But yeah, he was pretty bad in 2004.

 

I'd like to see Alge get crumpled.

 

Please go to Panthers.com and read Foxhole. Check the comments about Davis.

Please, someone explain the comment about "a lot of offenses block numbers", I think I know but am not completely sure.

 

I'll ignore the sweeping statement statement that you know the opionion of "every" non-Panther fan. Most fans only notice a CB when he gets burned, and then assume the corner was responsible if he's the closest guy to the receiver, regardless of the assignment on a given play. Gamble really came on in the 2nd half of the year (as did the whole defense). Its hard to tell sometimes because the TV angles make it hard to see what everyone is doing on every play.

And as you have said

 

Gamble didn't receive a single vote for NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year, so take that for what you will. Vilma got 21, Dunta Robinson got 12, D.J. Williams got 7, Sean Taylor got 3, Jared Allen got 2, Karlos Dansby got 1, Tommie Harris got 1, Michael Boulware got 1, and Chris Gamble didn't get any. If you don't want to see that as evidence that the nation in general didn't see Gamble as a good cornerback in 2004, that's your perogative.

 

I'll take that as good evidence he wasn't a top rookie. Vilma has a monster year in the #1 TV market.

But actually our discussion was whether or not he was "nearly awful". I theorize you could be merely adequate and not receive national attention in ROY vote.

What's clear is that the team felt corner was an area that needed improvement (ergo sign Lucas).

I don't know of any good way to show Gamble was even average (and therefore not "nearly awful"). You've shown INTs are not a good indicator.

What's your encyclopedia say about him? (the one that shows Branch and Minter had tight coverage like 30% of time or something from that other thread?)

 

Gamble is a first round pick who started his whole rookie year. He is being counted on by the coaches to start this year. I think it is safe to say they think he will atleast hold his own this year.

How good or bad was he in 2004? It is hard to say cause we got run on so much.

 

They block in zones, 'to the numbers' meaning numbering the gap between each offensive player in formation, rather than saying "you've got this guy." In other words, in that context, they're saying that they can create positive mismatches by being able to move Davis around.