Sgt Schultz

1 hour ago, Sgt Schultz said:

It is a little like people blaming Sam Norwood for the loss when he missed the potential game-winning FG for the Bills against the Giants in Owl XXV in 1991.  Nevermind the fact that the league average in 1990 for FGs from 40-49 yards was about 62%, in many minds he missed a chip shot.

I meant Scott Norwood.  Sam Norwood was a former supervisor of mine.  Great guy, and I don't he ever missed wide right. 

17 minutes ago, Gerry Green said:

 

As a life-long Lions fan I can tell you that you basically nailed it. However, that Offense is potent. All they need is for that Defense to play as well or better than they did to finish last year. If that D can hold teams to low 20s they can win a lot of games with that Offense.

One of my best friends is a Lions fan.  It is very tempting to settle on "this year is different."  And this Lions team does look different than the ones in the past who entered the year to "this year is different."

Unfortunately, I have over 50 years of experience telling me I need to actually see it first.  But, if my Blues can win a Stanley Cup, and the Red Sox and Cubs win the World Series, the Lions can go on a run and make some noise in the NFC.

I do not expect to live long enough to think that about the Browns.

21 hours ago, UnluckyforSome said:

I'm not sold on the Lions. Isn't half their team now on gambling watch? Beyond that, SOL--Same Old Lions. They are a trendy/darkhorse pick to do something though. NFC will be much the same as last year. Niners, Eagles, Vikings. Bucs will not be in the mix.

I think the Lions love is just as much due to the NFCN being rather slim, unless Love is the next Packers franchise leading QB.  The Bears will probably be better, but otherwise the division is in a holding pattern.

I've been watching the NFL since 1969, and every time the Lions were supposed to break out, they found a way to eff it up.  It is a rare constant in a continually changing universe.

2 minutes ago, Pup McBarky said:

First half of first 2 games. Maybe one series in game 3.

I think that is about right, except in game 3 I would make it gauge it on how he has looked in the first two and camp.  If his timing and anticipation with his receivers and OL is good, then a series to a quarter in game 3.

4 minutes ago, UnluckyforSome said:

Everyone makes mistakes. The man snapped his kneecap in half and still came back. 

It is a little like people blaming Sam Norwood for the loss when he missed the potential game-winning FG for the Bills against the Giants in Owl XXV in 1991.  Nevermind the fact that the league average in 1990 for FGs from 40-49 yards was about 62%, in many minds he missed a chip shot.

20 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

If everything went downhill and it’s ran by the inmates as you stated, why continue posting here? It must bring you some sort of enjoyment or you are just wasting your time right? When the season is rolling or the Panthers are active it’s still a good forum IMO.

It is a tough time for a sports forum in anything other than MLB.  If there is a golf forum, maybe that.  I'm on an NHL forum, and the topics and discussion on the general board make the topics and discussion here look the final 10 minutes of this year's Super Bowl.

In terms of snarkiness and people making and taking every thing personal, that is a problem beyond this board.  People seem to have some insane desire to cubby-hole everything and everybody into a name or category they can understand, rather than trying to expand their understanding.  I guess it is a convenient way to go through life, although pretty limiting, IMO.  

16 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

20 years later you decide to make your stand and you can’t even spell the guys name right lol.

I'll cut him some slack on that, because I think I bollixed it in another thread earlier about several factors leading to the Pats championships (and how they could have easily gone the other way).  Hell, that may have been the post that set him off, but if so, he has a thin skin on the subject. 

Who knows what happens if that kickoff stays inbounds?  The only guess we have is that if they had gone to OT, it would have probably gone to two since nobody could score in odd-numbered periods and nobody could stop anybody in even-numbered ones.  I guess whoever got the ball first in OT#2 would have been the winner.

37 minutes ago, t96 said:

It's both. Yes Brady won another without Bill but frankly he went to an absolutely stacked team that went all in in the short term for him and also had a very good coach in Arians. Brady may have never even developed into a franchise QB without Belichick.

I agree with that. 

Plus, for both Hoodie and Brady, if Marshawn Lynch gets one more carry and/or Atlanta decides extending the lead back to two scores and draining the Pats of timeouts with 4:00 left and the ball on the Pat 22, the narrative gets a lot different.  The road from 6-3 in Owls to 4-5 is pretty short.  And we haven't even mentioned what happens if Kasey's kickoff does not go out of bounds (and we will never know how that might have ended).

What was arguably their most talented team was shut down by the Giants.

I'm not diminishing where they sit in NFL history, with nine Owl appearances in 18 years and six wins, but those wins are a combination of great game plans, clutch QB performances, some solid defensive performances, buffoonery on the opposing sidelines, a little luck, and some sidestepping the rules.  The tenure alone is impressive in the salary cap era, because there is a lot of retooling involved while maintaining that level of play. 

11 hours ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

I agree.

 

Im just saying not every player has that support system that Brady had.

 

Most of these players don't have endorsements and other income to fall back on. Some players just play football and that's all they have. At the end of the day they have to make the most money they can. Not everyone has a career after football. These guys use that money to live the rest of their lives. Some still go broke sadly.

It is rather shocking how many players wind up broke a few years after they hang up their cleats. 

We hear about the big names (and some of them manage to go broke later in life), but the average NFL player whose career statistically lasts about 3 years is a different story.  Some have other things they can fall back on, most don't and become guys who go from day to day like everybody else, just with a windfall up front that isn't going to put them on easy street. 

I guess it is about like the track record of lottery winners.  They suddenly have friends that they didn't know they had, and most don't realize almost any sum of money can be "managed" to $0. 

Sounds like you thought that through in your situation.  I'd venture to say most people would get that sum and go on a spending spree, not realizing that while it can last your lifetime, between economic ups and downs and a lot of other IFs, it is not a safe bet. 

My only concern about what players make is how it counts against the cap.  Like everybody else, there are some that I don't think are worth the money, but that is between them and their team.  I don't begrudge them of it at all. 

Hell, I'm not sure I am worth what they pay me, until something happens and I suddenly am.  But I am not giving any of the money back, either!

8 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Everyone is always on the Cowboys bandwagon.  What they always ignore is the wagon has no wheels and nothing to pull it with. 

No joke.  They are among the paper champions every year.

I saw some ranking of NFL GMs the other day that had Jerrah Jones ranked in the top 5 (maybe 2nd, I don't remember).  If the benchmark was assembling a group of players that look great on paper but can't function as a cohesive unit when the chips are down, he is great.  But 27 years of teams that look good on paper and then fizzle out well shy of the goal is not the trademark of a good GM.

We had a dog that was terrified of thunderstorms as he got older, and tried a thing called Rescue Remedy that seemed to work for him.  The original formula is a blend of flower remedies and alcohol.  They also have a non-alcohol version.

The drawback is that you really need to give it to them before the chaos starts for it to be effective.

The problem with all these things is every dog reacts differently, it seems.

Not that I take what CBS Sports says to be any better than anybody else, but they have us ranked in Tier 3 (Wild Card Wanderers) of the NFC with what seems to be a reasonable quick-take.  That tier includes the Saints, Falcons, Vikings, and Packers.  

I think they are being optimistic about the Packers, but if their quick-take proves correct who knows?

Beyond Tier 3, they like the Lions more than anybody else in the NFCN, which I get because of their run in the second half of last year.  If you read the Cowboys quick-take (Tier 1), they acknowledge the ranking is "on paper" and the problems in their way of moving that to reality, as well as their futility in doing so in the past.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/ranking-2023-nfl-contenders-by-tiers-nfc-headlined-by-eagles-cowboys-49ers-entering-new-season/

The Panthers figure to endure the hiccups of a reset, lacking elite weapons, but with a growing "D" and the poised pairing of Bryce Young and Frank Reich at QB and head coach, they may have the moxie to make noise in the NFC South.

Offered as something to help pass the time until we can start talking about actual game results.

51 minutes ago, 33inNC said:

What more evidence do you need that Gettleman was a complete asshole?  Steve Smith?  DWill?  KB?  Anyone else?  
This organization was a mess at that time and Gettleman was the worst of them all in killing the team. 

Nobody is denying Gettleman was the north end of a southbound horse.  That's not the question. 

The issue here is whether Edwards' version is the truth, or skewed.  Both Gettleman being an arse and Edwards' version being skewed can be true at the same time.

This is not an either/or situation.  Not many things are.

2 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Did you even read my post?

 

I said "when you complain daily" about weaknesses of a particular player yes you look like a hater.

 

If you don't "complain daily" then im not talking to you.

 

Calm down bud I was talking to the people who are actually haters...

You were quoting me, so I didn't have any idea who you were talking about other than my comment.  And I'm pretty chill right now, but thanks for the concern.

Now if you want to classify me as a "hater," try approaching the topic of the good things The Process did or would have done had he only had four more years.   Although, I don't even think his mother could find much ammunition there, at least as it pertains to the NFL.

1 minute ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

My question is you call yourself a "Panthers fan" why are you hating on any of our players?

 

There is no such thing as a perfect player. You can point out weaknesses, but the fact remains no player in the league is perfect. 

 

In other words stop thinking negatively about our players. Everyone on the roster can get better. But when all you do is complain about what they are not good at you can't get mad when someone calls you a "hater".

 

#CamWhoaaCamTipOfTheDay

But again, who is hating anybody? 

As I said earlier, if you bothered to read it, I was in favor of trading Burns to the Rams because we spent almost his entire time up until then trying to wedge a guy that looks like a 3-4 OLB into a 4-3 DE.  Now we are playing a base 3-4, so the equation is different.

It sounds like you are making another classic ad hominem argument here.  Essentially, if you have concerns or anything negative to say, you can't be a Panthers fan, so you are a hater?  Try again.

The #CamWhoaaCamTipOfTheDay should be to avoid that kind of fallacy.

1 hour ago, KSpan said:

You own post:

"A hater isn't a useless word, it's trendy, or another way of saying cynic or a doubter. Some who has a strong dislike towards someone or something. And I think you should admit that, at least, you don't believe in burns as a long term option."

At no point have I ever said I dislike Burns or "don't believe in him as a long term option", though I'm not sure what that second part ever really means. It is entirely possible to think that the trade would yield more value than Bruns does himself while still also recognizing that Burns is a pretty good player overall, which is exactly what I and others have said. There is no hate/cynicism/insert dramatic term here, just an assessment on what may have yielded even better long-term value to th team than he himself as a player does. Nothing derogatroy or disbelieving about it.

Terms like "hater" are just poor attempts to put a veil over the ad hominem fallacy.

The idea that somebody can like a player overall while acknowledging area(s) they can improve on is unthinkable to a lot of people these days.  The idea that somebody can like a player and still not be opposed to trading them is even more unthinkable.  Essentially, if you are not all-in, you are a hater. 

On the bright side, I guess it makes the world simple.

1 hour ago, KSpan said:

This is a key point that seems to get lost in the discussion. It wasn't just about "2 picks", ignoring that many forget about the very high 2nd rounder we would've had this year as well, it was that there is a strong likelihood those picks end up pretty high in the draft. Of course 2 picks at the bottom of the 1st round aren't as valuable as 2 at the top.

What's done is done though and hopefully Burns can round out his game and take a big step this year. 

People were going beyond ignoring where those Ram picks would have been, they were trying to sell the idea that they were going to be at bottom quarter of the respective first rounds.  That made me wonder what Rams team they were looking at. 

The Rams team that made that offer was desperately trying to cling to one more run despite the fact that they were sliding fast.  Burns would have made them a little better, but he alone was not going to stop the slide, let alone vault them to Chiefs-Bengals-Bills-Eagles-Niners level.  Like the Bucs, the Rams went all-in to win an Owl, they did it, but the piper needs to be paid for the effort.

I was all for taking that deal, too.  At the time we were trying to shoe-horn a guy that looks like a 3-4 OLB into a 4-3 DE position.  The less than stellar results at stopping the run make that an awkward fit.  Now we are a base 3-4 team, which alters that equation quite a bit.  I think he has a chance to showcase what he does well while the system minimizes his weaknesses.

1 minute ago, ladypanther said:

I agree @Sgt Schultz It is interesting that there is a bit of a repeating theme.  At best, sounds like Gettleman sucked at releasing players.  Not a people person.

Gettleman and Hoodie (Belichick) would be a great pair to invite to your holiday party this year. 

For me, it is certainly NOT alcohol on Sundays.

1 hour ago, Khyber53 said:

Yep, love the placement of the Panthers, gives us something to work from but gives us some credit for what we've established.

My only issue with the rankings are the Jets and Cowboys are too high. I don't believe that the Jets were really a QB away and I've just learned that you can't believe in the Cowboys. 

Still, so glad to see your work getting noticed in the big leagues! Keep up the good work!

On paper, the Cowboys are the NFC Superb Owl representative almost every year.....until they are not.....which happens when we move from paper to results.  They almost always perform like a collection of players rather than a team.

1 minute ago, ladypanther said:

Sounds like little was done to develop him.  Foxy had 1 foot out the door when Edwards was drafted (2010).  He (Foxy) acted like he didn't give a sh#t so not surprised about that.  Rivera not an offensive guy and was a little in over his head.  Edwards landed at the wrong place at the wrong time.

2010 was a complete waste.  Fox was a dead man walking, everybody and their brothers knew that, so nothing happened to develop anybody.  Whatever chance Matt Moore had to become a viable starter was pretty much torpedoed by Fox's malpractice that year......and the malpractice was just as much Richardson's fault as his.

Edwards was drafted in the middle of that fiasco.  That was aggravated by the fact he was over-drafted.  That was the most irritating part of it.  Teams draft a "home town" guy pretty often, but usually late in the draft. 

I say we over-drafted him because, regardless of what anybody thinks of Edwards potential as a WR, we drafted LaFell earlier in the third round.  And let's face it: over-drafting was a Hurney trademark.  Trading up to take a guy who is a QB with the idea they would turn him into a WR and gadget QB is not exactly a great value or risk.

So, Edwards walked into a perfect storm and still almost survived it, anyway.  Before I pass judgement on how his release was handled, I'd want to hear someone else around the team when it happened speak up.  The danger is jumping on the bandwagon based on the recollection of the guy who was released is about the same as jumping on the bandwagon based on The Process' account of his dismissal.  Even though I don't feel like I need a shower after reading what Edwards says, his view is biased.  He may be right, but I can't conclude that based solely on his account.

40 minutes ago, rayzor said:

I  like all of it... except the jets placement. I'm just not a believer.

Weird seeing teams like the phins and jags up so high, but the league is churning.

I'm not a Jets believer, either.  I would also have the Falcons ahead of the Bucs, but we are probably splitting hairs.

Not for nothing, but the Lions write up says they will carry their energy over to the 2024 season.  Given their history, that may be true as an outlook for 2023, who knows?

14 hours ago, UnluckyforSome said:

Yeah I thought ASU would've been a better fit in regards to managing and meeting expectations, especially with the upcoming departures in the PAC. Nebraska's heyday seems well past, and there aren't many compelling reasons for someone to go play in the middle of nowhere at what has become an afterthought and overshadowed by the competition.

That said, there's no reason to think he can't have them competitive with the rest of the Big 10, other than the 3 or 4 usual powers at the top in that conference. 

That is the battle Nebraska faces, and your last sentence is about the top of what I see them achieving.  The problem is, I don't think that will be good enough for Cornhusker faithful after two or three seasons of it.

12 hours ago, toldozer said:

Remember when Bridgewater was destroyed for saying the coaching staff was a clown show... sorry Teddy

That was when I started to turn on The Process.  The deflection and tap dancing only got worse from there.

The answer was that "WE" need to do better in order to move forward.  But that would mean The Process was owning the ultimate accountability, and he wasn't going to do that.

1 hour ago, Pup McBarky said:

He'll get them 8-9 wins in a year or two and maybe even eventually get to 10, depending on who they play, but they'll be slightly above average...not close to their former glory.

I thought Nebraska was one of the worst places for him, or maybe anybody.  They still have visions of success from over 20 years ago.  Regardless of what I think of The Process, anybody taking that job is set up for failure against that standard. 

His "rebound relationship" would have probably been better off at Colorado or Arizona State.  The expectations are lower, and if he is able to produce 8-10 wins a year at those schools, he would be a hero.

I'm not sure Saban could restore Nebraska to its past glory.

42 minutes ago, CRA said:

I was addressing the silly comp of 2015 to the 2023 team.   Which it is.  First, second and last. 

and a top 5 D paired with a MVP QB is why that team had success. 

I hate to tell you, it was not a comp. 

It was a statement about teams that develop a chemistry and turn it into a run.  The 2015 team was great on defense, okay on offense, had a playmaker for a QB, and then something happened.  It came together.  The OL gelled as a group, at least until Wade Phillips watched what Atlanta did and used Von Miller to create havoc.  Until then, the OL outperforming itself had a huge impact on that team's wild ride.

The 2015 team just had a moxie it about on top of the defensive talent and Cam.  That's how they almost ran the table.  Plenty of talented teams don't develop that cohesiveness.

I was in no way comparing that team to this one.  Just saying that if the team can somehow gel together into a cohesive group, it could lead to some unexpected wins.

Your imagination did the rest.