Mage

That has to be one of the worst 4th down play-calls I have ever seen as a Panthers fan and that is saying A LOT

Am I the only one somewhat excited to see how badly we get beaten?

If you eliminate the obvious anomaly that is the Packers game, Bryce in his last 11 games: 2 TDs, 9 INTs, 60 QB Rating, 5 Y/A, 44 sacks, 7 fumbles, Panthers are scoring 8.3 PPG in that stretch. A "successful" game for Bryce Young will still be really freakin' bad. It ain't even worth fantasizing about.

Bryce does not look like a guy who has even the tiniest bit of confidence and excitement left in him.

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just not sure the likelihood of it being worth it is all that high. It would likely take Fields at least 2-3 weeks to get comfortable with the playbook, which means we're not getting anything out of him until Week 12 at the earliest. You could point to Malik Willis and the Packers and how quickly he was able to get on the field and produce, but LaFleur is just that good of a coach and Packers are a much better team than us. Same with Dobbs and Kevin O'Connell last year. Even if Fields is good, what is the payoff for the Panthers? They would still have to negotiate a contract with him after the season, the same position they would be in if they didn't make a trade for Bryce. And it isn't like we're anywhere close to a playoff team, so having a one-year rental at QB doesn't provide any benefit to us. Don't get me wrong, I agree somewhat with the thought process. I'd love to swap Bryce out for Fields. But considering the circumstances, it just makes more sense to stick with Bryce as our back-up.

It would make more sense to wait until the offseason and negotiate a contract with him given he will be a free agent. And before anyone says, "why would he sign here?" Well, we are one of the few places he would start day one, assuming we don't draft a QB.

2008 Lions and 2017 Browns would wax us. Browns finished with a -176 point differential. Lions -249. Panthers are already at -133, on pace for -323.

EDIT nvm misread

This is the worst football team of all-time

Mariota or Steve Young?

Panthers gotta run the ball more

We're getting dogged by Marcus Mariota and a crappy Commanders defense LMFAO

PUT IN BRYCE lol

“Pass as much as possible” NFL teams average 32 pass attempts a game. Dalton threw it 38 times, slightly above average but certainly not out of the norm and definitely not “as much as possible,” especially for a team that again gives up a lot of points. But I am sorry for expecting the thread-starter to have facts to defend their points.

How would running the ball more make our defense better on a per-play basis? All it would do is shorten the game and give us fewer possessions. The opposition is still going to score at the same rate. Maybe we only allow 28 PPG as opposed to 33 PPG, but then we're only scoring 17 PPG. It is the same thing. Again, this is why teams who are dead last in points allowed tend to not run the ball. It is maddening having to explain this to people on a football forum. Did running the ball a lot help the 2022 Bears, who went 3-14? Did it help the 2016 49ers, who went 2-14? They both ran the ball a lot and still gave up a lot of points. Why? Because running the ball more doesn't make your defense better. It isn't like the Panthers lost the time of possession to the Falcons by a wide margin. It was like a one minute difference.

Again, you can't even respond to a single one of my points. You can try and act smart all you want, but you know you are wrong. And if you think my post is about QB mobility, then your reading skills are about as strong as your football knowledge. The point is that if you don't have a mobile QB and you are giving up a lot of points, you will likely be in the bottom of the league in rush attempts. Again, unless you care to try and prove me wrong on that. But you know you can't.

Last point I'll make - the average team runs the ball about 27 times a game. So the Panthers only ran the ball 3 times fewer than the average team does, and this was in a game they lost by 18 points. But yeah, we "abandoned" the run.

'23 Commanders were last in points allowed. 32nd in rush attempts '22 Bears were last in points allowed. 2nd in rush attempts, but this is because they had Justin Fields. They were 32nd in pass attempts '21 Jets were last in points allowed. 32nd in rush attempts '20 Lions were last in points allowed. 30th in rush attempts '19 Dolphins were last in points allowed. 32nd in rush attempts '18 Raiders were last in points allowed. 23nd in rush attempts '17 Texans were last in points allowed. 11th in rush attempts '16 49ers were last in points allowed. 5th in rush attempts, but guess who their QB was? A mobile guy. Colin Kaepernick. '15 Saints were last in points allowed. 20th in rush attempts. '14 Raiders were last in points allowed. 32nd in rush attempts. Again, this is common sense stuff. When you are bottom in the league in points allowed, you tend to not run the ball a lot unless you have a running QB. Don't talk to me about "simple concepts" when you can't understand why a team who gave up 38 points didn't run the ball more than 24 times. The fact of the matter, which I have been consistent about saying throughout this thread, is expecting Hubbard to get 20+ carries a game is a ridiculous expectation when the defense is allowing 33 PPG. The Panthers are running the ball about as much as any team and coach in their situation would. And I can continue to go back decades and decades if you need more evidence to support that. But again, show me what you have that disapproves what I'm saying. That teams should run the ball regardless of the score or how their defense is performing. What data do you have to support that?

Example? You are just saying stuff without any supporting evidence. Anyone can do that. Outside of me mistakenly saying the Falcons had the lead the entire game, what other "facts" have I changed? Don't bother responding if you are just going to say stuff without anything to back it up, as I have done. And again... Hubbard had 18 carries. Why are we acting like that is an miniscule amount? And don't talk to me about "simple concepts". When you can't comprehend that teams who are dead last in points allowed tend to be near the bottom in rush attempts. Because... of course they are. It is hard to run the ball a lot without a mobile QB when you are giving up a lot of points. This is football 101. But again, feel free to prove me wrong with some data.

Lol. You can't even respond to any of the points I've been making. Nobody is changing any story. I misspoke. It happens. At the end of the day, the Panthers had a good run/pass split when the game was still even. It was only after the Falcons kept scoring every drive that the Panthers got away from it, and even then, they ran the ball 5 out of their first 6 plays to open the 4th quarter. How about actually respond to some of the points made? And personal bias? What are you talking about? Everything I've said has been based on facts. Teams who give up a lot of points don't run the ball a lot. Is this something you don't think is true? If so, then prove it. Give me some data that shows that teams across the league run at the same rate regardless of the score or the amount of points they allow. I'll be waiting. I already gave you a list of the top 10 rushing teams and how 6 of the 10 rank in the top 12 in points allowed, and 3 of the teams not in the top 12 have QBs who run on called drop-back passes. Care to refute any of that?

We ran the ball 5 times vs 2 passes on that drive. It is actually blowing my mind that you all are trying to use that drive as evidence of Canales not running the ball enough. On top of that, we were down by 8 points. It was not a guarantee we would tie the game and with the way the Falcons offense was moving, we couldn't afford to only run and keep wasting clock. After that INT we didn't get the ball back until 5 minutes left. And that was after a drive we had got cut short. If we kept running, very real chance we never get the ball back. It is like we're ignoring basic football logic and clock management.

Bro, just read your own posts and ask yourself if what you are saying makes sense. You are suggesting a drive where they ran more than they passed is evidence they abandoned the run? Seriously?

And guess what the Panthers did in the first half until end-of-1st half drive when they had to throw? Ran the ball 13 times vs 17 passes. Gee, almost like the Panthers would have a more even run/pass split if the games were closer. Gee, almost like it is hard to keep running the ball when the other team scores 30 points. Who would have thought?

At this point I have to assume you are intentionally being ignorant. Falcons passed a lot against the Bucs because they had to. It was a high-scoring game, Bucs had 24 points by halftime. They ran the ball a lot against us because they had the lead for the whole game. Again, this is basic football common sense. You have lead = you run ball. You don't have lead or are in a high-scoring game = you pass ball. If the Panthers had a lead, they would run the ball more. You know, like when they ran the ball 31 times against the Raiders. But we can't do that because we generally don't have the lead. But again... I shouldn't even need to be explaining this.

And what happened to your argument that they abandoned the run in the 4th quarter? Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?