What exactly is the point of running a conservative offense?!?
Posted 02 August 2013 - 11:28 AM
A defintion of conservative is traditional and less risky. Going with what is proven. How many times has everyone said we ran a more traditional offense in the second half. Plus as Zod defined it, the focus is on maximizing time of possession and reducing turnovers. Look at the stats, in the second half we did both. So yeah the numbers say we were more conservative.
The problem for you is that you think conservative is not going to let Cam be better and the truth is it already has. Going to more play action and dumping the ball off opens up the deep passing game which is what Newton does best. I haven't checked but I suspect we had fewer three and outs and better drives which allowed for more overall plays of which everyone benefited including Newton in the second half.
Cam wasnt asked to make less risky throws or run less.
You can argue we operated a higher percentage out of "traditional" packages....but that isn't less risky. I would easily argue asking Cam to line up under C, play action, turn his back to the D, behind our OL..... was every bit if not more risky than operating out of a shotgun with a read seeing everything coming.
We got better for a variety of reason. I wouldn't call it going less conservative. Also, Rivera got LESS conservative in the 2nd half in big moments. He started to learn from his conservative game management in big moments
Posted 02 August 2013 - 12:09 PM
The Panthers were balanced last year. The problem is the running game outside of Cam was not effective at all. That is what they are trying to focus on improving this year. Being able to get a 3rd and 2 without relying on a shotgun QB sneak every time is going to make the Panthers tougher to defend. It isn't about being "conservative". It is about being more versatile.