Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Luke Kuechly....
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Carolina Panthers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Cypher


Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Posts: 2272
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cpanthers178990 wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
cpanthers178990 wrote:
Been rockin the avy since the day after he was drafted, just saying.
That's true. You were out in front on this one. As soon as I started hearing that we might draft him, I really started to think it'd be a great pick. Love everything I've seen so far. Hope he keeps impressing like he has up to now.



Yeah I think years down the road we will be marveling at getting Cam Newton and Luke Keuchly in back to back years.


From the very few videos actually floating around of Keuchly, he reminds me so much of Morgan. I really do think he could end up being the gem of this draft. Maybe not the "best" player, but definitely a guy who is a household name.
_________________

NS922 wrote:
All on LOLton for page stretching to Green Idk what happened my phone graduated to ROFLtron
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boondock


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 21248
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cypher wrote:
cpanthers178990 wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
cpanthers178990 wrote:
Been rockin the avy since the day after he was drafted, just saying.
That's true. You were out in front on this one. As soon as I started hearing that we might draft him, I really started to think it'd be a great pick. Love everything I've seen so far. Hope he keeps impressing like he has up to now.



Yeah I think years down the road we will be marveling at getting Cam Newton and Luke Keuchly in back to back years.


From the very few videos actually floating around of Keuchly, he reminds me so much of Morgan. I really do think he could end up being the gem of this draft. Maybe not the "best" player, but definitely a guy who is a household name.


I think that Kuechly is better than Morgan in coverage though. Morgan was your prototypical MLB. Kuechly is a hybrid of MLB/WLB.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boondock


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 21248
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FriendlyEnemy wrote:
Time to right the ship...

Anyone else drooling over the idea of Kuechly and fully recovered Beason? If we could get some competent DT play then we could have a tremendously improved defense.


It could turn our D around completely, and probably make up for inadequate DB play.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moody


Joined: 21 Nov 2011
Posts: 668
Location: Roma
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boondock wrote:
Cypher wrote:
cpanthers178990 wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
cpanthers178990 wrote:
Been rockin the avy since the day after he was drafted, just saying.
That's true. You were out in front on this one. As soon as I started hearing that we might draft him, I really started to think it'd be a great pick. Love everything I've seen so far. Hope he keeps impressing like he has up to now.



Yeah I think years down the road we will be marveling at getting Cam Newton and Luke Keuchly in back to back years.


From the very few videos actually floating around of Keuchly, he reminds me so much of Morgan. I really do think he could end up being the gem of this draft. Maybe not the "best" player, but definitely a guy who is a household name.


I think that Kuechly is better than Morgan in coverage though. Morgan was your prototypical MLB. Kuechly is a hybrid of MLB/WLB.


Which makes him a good linebacker for the current NFL. Thumpers like Jeremiah Trotter aren't starting any more. It's a pass happy league and everyone wants a TE threat now.

One huge improvement this defense can make in training camp is learning how to communicate. Last year was full of breakdowns and we played simple schemes because they couldn't get it down. Kuechly and Beason will help both the secondary and line.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnydtarheel


Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 4206
Location: Charlotte NC
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another pick today covering Olsen in red zone
_________________

Thanks CK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
panther dude


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 6555
Location: East Lansing, MI
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just want to bump this to keep some Luke talk going.

I love this guy's nose for the football, he just has a 6th sense for it. I just wish we would get him on the field a little more. It's hard because Thomas is playing so well right now though.

I just thought Luke was a good match up for the Saints because I think he has a better chance of sticking with the Jimmy Grahms and Darren Sproles than Beason and Davis have.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peppers90


Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Posts: 11180
Location: North Carolina/Indiana
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

panther dude wrote:
I just want to bump this to keep some Luke talk going.

I love this guy's nose for the football, he just has a 6th sense for it. I just wish we would get him on the field a little more. It's hard because Thomas is playing so well right now though.

I just thought Luke was a good match up for the Saints because I think he has a better chance of sticking with the Jimmy Grahms and Darren Sproles than Beason and Davis have.


You're either over-rating Kuechly or under-rating Beason.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bzane


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 520
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fretgod99 wrote:
Cypher wrote:
This forum desperately needs an ignore function.
Ignore it all you want. The whole "no homo" thing just smacks of juvinility and insecurity. You express admiration for a player, but you're worried people will mistake it for sexual attraction? On what planet does that happen? Nobody on Earth thinks sexual preference is even remotely relevant until you make it an issue by saying "no homo". Except, then you sound like Lady Macbeth. Beyond that, what's the worse that could happen? Even if somebody else was delusional enough to think you were making a comment regarding sexual preference, some random person on the internet thinks you're gay. And that means ... what, exactly? Nothing.

It's an asinine trend and frankly I hate it. So, when I see it, I ask about it. Because seriously, why do you think making a comment like that is something which is necessary? Both you and double did it. Just trying to figure out why. It makes literally no sense to me.


Like "ad hominem", the expression "no homo" as used here is supposed to indicate (I'm guessing) that the posters greatly admire Luke Kuechly's football abilities, but stop short of swooning over his grace and manly beauty.

I trust that Kuechly is reassured by the distinction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnydtarheel


Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 4206
Location: Charlotte NC
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

panther dude wrote:
I just want to bump this to keep some Luke talk going.

I love this guy's nose for the football, he just has a 6th sense for it. I just wish we would get him on the field a little more. It's hard because Thomas is playing so well right now though.

I just thought Luke was a good match up for the Saints because I think he has a better chance of sticking with the Jimmy Grahms and Darren Sproles than Beason and Davis have.


he has struggled so far in the first 2 games getting caught up in the wash a lot. he will develop more and catch on to everything though.
_________________

Thanks CK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fretgod99


Global Moderator
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 19090
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bzane wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Cypher wrote:
This forum desperately needs an ignore function.
Ignore it all you want. The whole "no homo" thing just smacks of juvinility and insecurity. You express admiration for a player, but you're worried people will mistake it for sexual attraction? On what planet does that happen? Nobody on Earth thinks sexual preference is even remotely relevant until you make it an issue by saying "no homo". Except, then you sound like Lady Macbeth. Beyond that, what's the worse that could happen? Even if somebody else was delusional enough to think you were making a comment regarding sexual preference, some random person on the internet thinks you're gay. And that means ... what, exactly? Nothing.

It's an asinine trend and frankly I hate it. So, when I see it, I ask about it. Because seriously, why do you think making a comment like that is something which is necessary? Both you and double did it. Just trying to figure out why. It makes literally no sense to me.
Like "ad hominem", the expression "no homo" as used here is supposed to indicate (I'm guessing) that the posters greatly admire Luke Kuechly's football abilities, but stop short of swooning over his grace and manly beauty.

I trust that Kuechly is reassured by the distinction.
Uh ... what? Unless "ad hominem" has gained a new definition of which I'm not aware, that's not remotely close to what it means. But again, nobody in their right mind would interpret a statement by a person on a football message board like, "I love 'Player X,'" as having anything to do with sexual attraction, particularly when preceded by a tongue-in-cheek reference to a "man-crush" or followed by an explicit reference to his capabilities on the football field. Nobody is thinking about sexual attraction until the person desperately trying to avoid any hint of homosexual attraction brings it up.

And I doubt Kuechly cares in the slightest. I sure as hell wouldn't.
_________________

MrDrew wrote:
Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
panther dude


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 6555
Location: East Lansing, MI
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peppers90 wrote:
panther dude wrote:
I just want to bump this to keep some Luke talk going.

I love this guy's nose for the football, he just has a 6th sense for it. I just wish we would get him on the field a little more. It's hard because Thomas is playing so well right now though.

I just thought Luke was a good match up for the Saints because I think he has a better chance of sticking with the Jimmy Grahms and Darren Sproles than Beason and Davis have.


You're either over-rating Kuechly or under-rating Beason.


I dont think I am. Im not saying that Luke is better than him, Im just saying Jon looked like he was having a lot of trouble trying to stick with those guys.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fretgod99


Global Moderator
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 19090
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

panther dude wrote:
Peppers90 wrote:
panther dude wrote:
I just want to bump this to keep some Luke talk going.

I love this guy's nose for the football, he just has a 6th sense for it. I just wish we would get him on the field a little more. It's hard because Thomas is playing so well right now though.

I just thought Luke was a good match up for the Saints because I think he has a better chance of sticking with the Jimmy Grahms and Darren Sproles than Beason and Davis have.
You're either over-rating Kuechly or under-rating Beason.
I dont think I am. Im not saying that Luke is better than him, Im just saying Jon looked like he was having a lot of trouble trying to stick with those guys.
Well, to be fair, everybody has trouble trying to stick with those guys.
_________________

MrDrew wrote:
Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bzane


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 520
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fretgod99 wrote:
bzane wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Cypher wrote:
This forum desperately needs an ignore function.
Ignore it all you want. The whole "no homo" thing just smacks of juvinility and insecurity. You express admiration for a player, but you're worried people will mistake it for sexual attraction? On what planet does that happen? Nobody on Earth thinks sexual preference is even remotely relevant until you make it an issue by saying "no homo". Except, then you sound like Lady Macbeth. Beyond that, what's the worse that could happen? Even if somebody else was delusional enough to think you were making a comment regarding sexual preference, some random person on the internet thinks you're gay. And that means ... what, exactly? Nothing.

It's an asinine trend and frankly I hate it. So, when I see it, I ask about it. Because seriously, why do you think making a comment like that is something which is necessary? Both you and double did it. Just trying to figure out why. It makes literally no sense to me.
Like "ad hominem", the expression "no homo" as used here is supposed to indicate (I'm guessing) that the posters greatly admire Luke Kuechly's football abilities, but stop short of swooning over his grace and manly beauty.

I trust that Kuechly is reassured by the distinction.
Uh ... what? Unless "ad hominem" has gained a new definition of which I'm not aware, that's not remotely close to what it means. But again, nobody in their right mind would interpret a statement by a person on a football message board like, "I love 'Player X,'" as having anything to do with sexual attraction, particularly when preceded by a tongue-in-cheek reference to a "man-crush" or followed by an explicit reference to his capabilities on the football field. Nobody is thinking about sexual attraction until the person desperately trying to avoid any hint of homosexual attraction brings it up.

And I doubt Kuechly cares in the slightest. I sure as hell wouldn't.


"Ad hominem" is Latin, literally "to the man", used to describe a direct attack on a person or his character, rather than the larger issue at question.

"Ad hoc", also from the Latin, means "to this or that specific point"- again perhaps suggesting an evasion of the larger, more important problem.

"No homo" is trashy modern slang for a superfluous denial of what may appear to others as an excessive interest in another of the same gender.

However, such concerns are outside of the scope of an internet football forum. I suggest that you put your obsessions aside and focus on the topic at hand- Luke Kuechly. You have here a young player whose intangibles- his character, humility, and leadership- are so strong, and so unusual, as to have for a time obscured the fact that he is a great athlete,and a very fine football player. Were Luke Kuechly merely average in his personal traits, and had to rely on his physical abilities alone, he would still be regarded as a potential Pro Bowl linebacker. Add to his physical talents his intelligence, drive, and dedication, and you have, what- a defensive quarterback? A team leader? A guy who's going to lead Carolina to the Super Bowl? A future coach, or general manager? ALL OF THE ABOVE?

Should be pretty exciting, the next several years, watching the career of Luke Kuechly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cypher


Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Posts: 2272
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know what I love about this forum? How mods don't derail threads for their own agendas, and always strive to keep threads on topic.

On that note, I haven't been as impressed with Kuechly as i'd hoped I would be. It's not that he's playing badly by any means, but man...Thomas Davis is taking all of the shine for that LB group. Just phenomenal play so far. I really, really hope he can stay healthy. I doubted him, even last year after the second surgery, but man...he just looks good.
_________________

NS922 wrote:
All on LOLton for page stretching to Green Idk what happened my phone graduated to ROFLtron
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fretgod99


Global Moderator
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 19090
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bzane wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
bzane wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Cypher wrote:
This forum desperately needs an ignore function.
Ignore it all you want. The whole "no homo" thing just smacks of juvinility and insecurity. You express admiration for a player, but you're worried people will mistake it for sexual attraction? On what planet does that happen? Nobody on Earth thinks sexual preference is even remotely relevant until you make it an issue by saying "no homo". Except, then you sound like Lady Macbeth. Beyond that, what's the worse that could happen? Even if somebody else was delusional enough to think you were making a comment regarding sexual preference, some random person on the internet thinks you're gay. And that means ... what, exactly? Nothing.

It's an asinine trend and frankly I hate it. So, when I see it, I ask about it. Because seriously, why do you think making a comment like that is something which is necessary? Both you and double did it. Just trying to figure out why. It makes literally no sense to me.
Like "ad hominem", the expression "no homo" as used here is supposed to indicate (I'm guessing) that the posters greatly admire Luke Kuechly's football abilities, but stop short of swooning over his grace and manly beauty.

I trust that Kuechly is reassured by the distinction.
Uh ... what? Unless "ad hominem" has gained a new definition of which I'm not aware, that's not remotely close to what it means. But again, nobody in their right mind would interpret a statement by a person on a football message board like, "I love 'Player X,'" as having anything to do with sexual attraction, particularly when preceded by a tongue-in-cheek reference to a "man-crush" or followed by an explicit reference to his capabilities on the football field. Nobody is thinking about sexual attraction until the person desperately trying to avoid any hint of homosexual attraction brings it up.

And I doubt Kuechly cares in the slightest. I sure as hell wouldn't.
"Ad hominem" is Latin, literally "to the man", used to describe a direct attack on a person or his character, rather than the larger issue at question.

"Ad hoc", also from the Latin, means "to this or that specific point"- again perhaps suggesting an evasion of the larger, more important problem.

"No homo" is trashy modern slang for a superfluous denial of what may appear to others as an excessive interest in another of the same gender.

However, such concerns are outside of the scope of an internet football forum. I suggest that you put your obsessions aside and focus on the topic at hand- Luke Kuechly. You have here a young player whose intangibles- his character, humility, and leadership- are so strong, and so unusual, as to have for a time obscured the fact that he is a great athlete,and a very fine football player. Were Luke Kuechly merely average in his personal traits, and had to rely on his physical abilities alone, he would still be regarded as a potential Pro Bowl linebacker. Add to his physical talents his intelligence, drive, and dedication, and you have, what- a defensive quarterback? A team leader? A guy who's going to lead Carolina to the Super Bowl? A future coach, or general manager? ALL OF THE ABOVE?

Should be pretty exciting, the next several years, watching the career of Luke Kuechly.
I know what ad hominem and ad hoc mean. Point is, it's inclusion had nothing to do with anything. My statement wasn't an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack attempts to discredit a person's logical argument by attacking the source, rather than the substance. I wasn't attacking the source, simply explaining why inclusion of the phrase "no homo" is pointless and unnecessary because nobody would ever think sexuality was an issue in context. Plus, it's a denigrating remark to a class of people who are members here, which is why I feel it necessary to stamp it out. I don't approve of derogatory comments of any nature, really.

Beyond that, this thread was over a month old, and bumped to talk about Kuechly's development. The discussion you dragged up was over numerous posts and weeks ago. So, your desire to "get this thread back on track" and "focus on the real issue at hand" by questioning me pretty much had the exact opposite effect, no?

Regardless, I'm a fan of Kuechly. He looks like a rookie at times, not always sure where to go and getting pushed around a bit in the run game. But, it's been two games and he's a rookie. Very talented guy and I am very optimistic about his future.

And like Cypher, I'm really impressed with how Davis has played this year. He's been flying around like the TD of old. Guy looks great out there.
_________________

MrDrew wrote:
Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Carolina Panthers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group