Sgt Schultz

2 hours ago, Captain Morgan said:

 

the following nin words will send a chill down your spine: This day last year, our coach was Matt Rhule.

44 minutes ago, TLGPanthersFan said:

Pretty much what I have thought. People always bring up his athleticism like it is an X factor to win a Super Bowl. 
But I can’t remember the last time and athletic QB won a Super Bowl.
Cam is the last one to play in one I think. 
Don’t hate AR but I never understood his hype. But both him and Stroud I will be keeping a close eye one. 
If AR even plays this year. 

The answer to your question goes all the way back to 1995 (94 season) when Steve Young won with the 49ers over San Diego.  Even that is debatable because Young was more of a passer, perhaps because of the OL he played behind and the offense he played in.  But he was still a threat to run when needed, when the opportunity arose, and sometimes by design.

Looking at a list of Owl-winning starting QBs, he is the only one I think qualifies.  Elway was well past his running days when he won, despite the helicopter-landing scramble against Green Bay.

Even among the QB's on the losing side, we have Hurts, Cam, and Kaepernick.  Guys like Russell Wilson and Mahomes are athletic enough, but generally use(d) their quickness to buy time to throw, not run by design, or, like Vick, drop back to throw and look for a reason to abandon it and run. 

In truth, Mahomes' running patterns look a lot like Young's did as the 49er starter.  He generally runs about 4 times a game, which was about where Young was.  The only reason I would differentiate the two is that type of pattern was a lot less common in 1994 than today.  Young was a bit of a unicorn back then.

1 hour ago, Move the Panthers to Raleigh said:

Rhule would never allow this 

Not only would he have not allowed it, he wouldn't have understood it.  He would not have understood the reason behind letting it happen nor what was being explained.

28 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I could be completely misremembering but wasn't there a play where he completely chickened out on putting his head down and getting to the sticks on a 3rd down? Like completely laughably so?

Yessir.  It was against the Bears a couple of years ago.  Had he delivered the contact rather than receiving it, he almost certainly would have had the first down.  It was the kind of play you expect a TE to make.

I hope he comes around, but I just don't have any reason to believe he will at this point, 

40 minutes ago, ladypanther said:

It is sadly funny.

I'm with you. 

When it comes to humor, sometimes you can't improve on what really happened. 

It kind of reminds me of a Friday when I am looking back on the week at work.

What makes it funny is that it is behind us, and somehow we survived.  I feel like Wile E. Coyote surviving the misguided plan involving TNT.

6 minutes ago, ladypanther said:

Broncos site hating on Hackett:

Well, on Thursday, during the Hall of Fame game, Nathaniel Hackett and his Jets' offense put up 16 points, which I think is hilarious. Yes, it's the Hall of Fame game. It's just a preseason game, and most starters aren't even suiting up. There is absolutely no indication that the Jets scoring 16 points in this game is going to spill into the regular season.

However, it is kind of funny to see. In Hackett's first game post-Broncos, his offense couldn't score 20 points. I do think it would be quite funny to see the Jets struggle on offense like that in the regular season. Maybe Aaron Rodgers is indeed over the hump a bit. Maybe Nathaniel Hackett isn't the best play-caller in the world.

Only time will tell.

https://predominantlyorange.com/posts/some-things-never-change-nathaniel-hackett-offense-still-scoring-16-points

Stupid comment for a preseason game. Hope the Jets' O scorches the Broncos' D in week 5.

Yep.  Equating much of any offensive output in the Hall of Fame game with what will happen in the regular season is a useless exercise.  I'm not sold on the Jets and Rodgers, either, but assessing Hackett's play calling based on that game or even using it to validate his futile effort in Denver is, well, stupid.

It is about like us piling on The Process based on a lousy scrimmage in Lincoln, NE.  While I would like to pile on him, that wouldn't be the ammo I would use.

29 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It blew my mind watching the Niners trade so much value to take a guy that was so inexperienced.

We've seen teams draft guys you knew would bust in the top 3-5.  We've seen teams draft guys that everybody thought were sure-fire hits that high, and have them miss.  We've seen teams reach for guys in the top 5. 

What set this apart was that they traded up at a king's ransom price to do so to then reach for him.  Everybody knew he was going to take time to develop because of his inexperience, and there was no body of work to indicate he would develop, let alone pay off to the tune of what they paid to draft him.

I get it, he was "their guy," they believed they could mold him, and they didn't think he would stay on the board much longer, but sometimes getting "your guy" is the worst thing that can happen. 

People may think that trading up for Young was just as big a risk, but Young has a body of work to judge his potential by.  Lance was basically a "good guess."

23 minutes ago, Khaki Lackey said:

Agreed. and you literally used "literally" in the literal sense.

The only thing I can add about the concerning discussion that worries me are these thoughts from Yogi Berra:

• When you come to a fork in the road, take it.
• You can observe a lot by just watching.
• It ain’t over till it’s over.
• It’s like déjà vu all over again.
• No one goes there nowadays, it’s too crowded.
• Baseball is 90% mental and the other half is physical.
• A nickel ain’t worth a dime anymore.
• Always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise they won’t come to yours.
• We made too many wrong mistakes.
• Congratulations. I knew the record would stand until it was broken.
• You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I’m not hungry enough to eat six.
• You wouldn’t have won if we’d beaten you.
• I usually take a two-hour nap from one to four.
• Never answer an anonymous letter.
• Slump? I ain’t in no slump… I just ain’t hitting.
• The future ain’t what it used to be.
• It gets late early out here.
• If the people don’t want to come out to the ballpark, nobody’s going to stop them.
• We have deep depth.
• Pair up in threes.
• Why buy good luggage, you only use it when you travel.
• You’ve got to be very careful if you don’t know where you are going, because you might not get there.
• Even Napoleon had his Watergate.
• He hits from both sides of the plate. He’s amphibious.
• It was impossible to get a conversation going, everybody was talking too much.
• I don’t know (if they were men or women fans running naked across the field). They had bags over their heads.
• I’m not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did.
• I never blame myself when I’m not hitting. I just blame the bat and if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn’t my fault that I’m not hitting, how can I get mad at myself?
• I never said most of the things I said.
• It ain’t the heat, it’s the humility.
• If you ask me anything I don’t know, I’m not going to answer.
• Little League baseball is a very good thing because it keeps the parents off the streets.
• If the world were perfect, it wouldn’t be.

I feel like I just listened to a post-game press conference from The Process or a speech by George W Bush or Joe Biden.

13 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

Thankfully, never had an achilles, but of all the injuries I suffered out there, concussions bothered me the most.

It really got to me when I was playing.

I've always been fortunate that I never had either.  I could see concussions also being something somebody is always thinking about once they've had a bad one or more than one.

Friend of mine was an NCAA basketball referee for a long time.  His career on the court ended with an Achilles.

7 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

 

If there was ever an injury that could get in somebody's head, that one is it.

1 hour ago, WhoKnows said:

I was the tank engineer and my wish was always Lawrence with a Fields at worst. It still boggles my mind that Lawrence and Fields went almost wire to wire 1 and 2 for 3 years and somehow in a couple dazzling practice throws that two guys, and almost Jones, jumped between them. Not sure what the future lies for both of them but it certainly was not surprising to see what happened.

Then factor in the fact that the Niners traded two additional first round picks and a third to swap #12 for #3 to draft him.  It's not like they didn't know he was going to take some time to develop, in the best case scenario.

We'll see.  Lance is working with a pretty good offensive staff and environment to develop.  They might like to see some progress from him. 

If we had drafted him and he was struggling after surviving Moe, Larry, and Curley trying to develop him, things would be a bit less ominous.  But, if it doesn't take here shortly, he doesn't have a lot of excuses.

2 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

What we hear is irrelevant.  So many years, we would hear great things about one player or another in camp, and then the season comes and nothing.  

I want to see how he performs on the field in real games when his numbers are called.  Everything else is irrelevant.

Now there's an idea!  Gauging actual results, what a concept. 

Just now, DennisM1 said:

Look if this was the Panthers of the last 3 years cool not an issue but we have a REAL QB now and we need real WRs to grow with him not average guys the fans hope can be something because he played at LSU lmao

So, using your own rationale, given the mess that has been the last three years, how would we know if he is just a guy, better, or worse?  Why don't we let this year play out before we pass that judgement?

1 hour ago, vorbis said:

damn

That royally sucks for him. 

I honestly think the national media's expectations are reasonable.  I've seen some that have us as an "up and coming" team getting a bit of a break in a pretty weak division.  I think it all depends on what the writer thinks of the Saints and Falcons progress since last season ended, as well as the merits of our coaching staff. 

Guarded optimism is a good place to be right now. 

As far as Young, at his age he is fully aware that good leaders set an example.  That is pretty impressive, and tells me that his work ethic and leadership are largely instinctual by now. 

2 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

It's nice to remember that he's gone.

It is like beating your head against the wall.....it feels so good when you stop!

The NFL is about results.  Ultimately, that has to be reflected in the record. 

Wilks was a great interim for us.  He showed that the team did not need to be torn down to the studs.  Basically, he demonstrated that the team was not as bad as it showed prior to his taking the reins and actually getting settled in the saddle.  Had the team not shown the results it did under him, things might look a lot different right now.  I have nothing but respect for what he did. 

The current coaching staff has generated some excitement.  It is beyond just the newness factor.  While it is too soon to tell, I think I will finally shake the feeling of "when will the wheels come off" when there are successes.  It's not just words, it is how they have approached the task at hand thus far.  Getting back to even the pre-2018 level of confidence that things can come together is refreshing.

34 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Where are you getting this from?  All of the recent power team rankings mostly have them in the late 20s.  The only one in the teens I could find is pff at 19.   That’s an odd take that the media is hyping the bears.  

I may be overlooking somebody, but the most hype I've seen is behind either the Jets or Lions.  Even Dan Campbell said the other day that the hype over the Lions is out of control.

I get it, the media would love for Aaron Rodgers to put a NY team over the top. 

And as for the Lions, they had a good second half of the season last year and the NFCN is up for grabs, but geez.  They may both be good, but given their histories, I'd like to see a sample before jumping on either of those trains.

Plus, we know how the "media darlings" crown generally turns out.

12 minutes ago, NAS said:

The last guy hid behind this word to excuse his failures. When asked to elaborate on the process he never could.

That's what a BS artist does.  You can't define it, you can't measure it, and when pressed about it not yielding results, the usual answer is either that it hasn't kicked in yet or more of it needs to be done.

The key is to be ever-elusive.  The old saying is that if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

The problem with assessing whether we overpaid is our offense is a pretty big unknown to us right now.  We need to see how he is used and how he performs in it.  We can extrapolate a little from his past seasons, but again, in what role(s)?

If Wilks and McAdoo were still running the show, then we would have a firmer answer.  But right now, he is like investing in a stock in a changing industry: we won't know until we know, which is after the beans are counted.

We can start wringing our hands about this maybe after October.  We won't know until later than that.

I had to look it up, but the problem in trademarking Washington Commanders was that the Patent and Trademark Office ruled it could be confused with the annual Commanders Classic game between Air Force and Army.

2 hours ago, 4Corners said:

If they are going to go the route of a movie gang, I would suggest the Washington Black Widows. 

6 hours ago, toldozer said:

Weren't they also having issues getting it trademarked? So anyone could just rip it off to sell merch with 0 repercussions 

I think you are correct.  At the time there was talk that they could change the name again.

58 minutes ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

They should have stuck with Washington Football Team.  That was a unique name in the NFL and is something they could have built on.

Problem was they were about to be sued for false and misleading advertising.

On a similar note, I took a job in and moved to northern Virginia when the NBA team renamed themselves to the Wizards.  The standing joke was that the name Washington Bullets was too violent, so they were going to change it to just the Bullets.

3 hours ago, KillerKat said:

It needs to be changed.

It does.  I didn't like it when they unveiled it, but that aside it will now be linked to Dan Snyder.

Time for them to flush the toilet.  The Commanders name is part of that, I think.

18 hours ago, onmyown said:

So four times in how many years? 30? 40? Longer?

All I am saying is playoffs, deep even, seem to be an expectation for some on this forum and the knee jerk threads are annoying. Some of the best QBs of all time, actually most, had garbage first years.

And even great HCs had crap first years as well…even if it was just being a HC for a new team.

Let's keep in mind that the NFL has lowered the bar for making the playoffs.  40 years ago 10 teams qualified out of 30, exactly 1 in 3.  In 1989 that expanded to 12 of 30 (40%) and then 12 of 32 (37.5%).  Now it is 14 of 32 (43.75%).  Personally, I thought 12 was plenty but they don't ask me.

Even a team that is shooting at breaking .500 is in that mix.  With 14 teams, almost every year a team that is 9-8 will get an invitation. 

Add that to being in a division that does not look like a stable of thoroughbreds (in a conference that does not look like a thoroughbred stable, either) and the door is open.

My expectation is that they are in the mix for the division in December.  How that unfolds will depend on how much progress Atlanta has made and whether New Orleans can keep the wheels on for another year.

As others have said, the Panthers could improve and not have it reflected in their record.  Although, given the schedule (based on what we think we know today), that is probably unlikely.  But, they don't need to roll 10 or 11 wins, let alone have a deep playoff run to be improved.

My take on who is great vs good vs. mediocre vs bad vs. gawd awful is that you can't tell much in September.  That became more true with the shortened preseason and training camps.  We've all seen teams look untouchable in September and then fail to reach .500 (the Bills used to be good at that) or teams that stunk in September but were on fire afterwards.  September is almost like "preseason that counts." 

This team could really prove that, especially if they start slow.  It is not likely a team is going to stink themselves out of contention in the NFCS in those first four games.  While I don't expect us to stink, I do think this season to age well for us.  Hopefully by December that means we move on to the postseason. 

Our roster is not stacked.  Few are.  Even our weak spots are not so bad that I am thinking "this will be a fiasco."  CB health and how the WR corps performs are two areas of concern.  But, if those things work themselves out this should be an interesting season.  I think a lot of teams can say that, but for the first time in years I feel pretty good about the direction we are pointing.