Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

the offensive line wasn't THAT bad...

nosuchthingasapanther

Recommended Posts

nosuchthingasapanther Explorer

nosuchthingasapanther

Posted
Posted

quoting myself because i'm lazy...

as ugly as it was, the oline didn't play as bad as it looked. on numerous occasions newton held onto the ball way too freaking long. his refusal to throw it away or use a check down is ridiculous. i'm going to assume they're forcing the issue of developing chemistry between him and the WRs and chalk this up to working out the kinks since it's preseason.

as far as run blocking, it is what it is...but there's no way in hell williams can be the bell cow back.

in a nutshell, don't anticipate the world beating offensive line the panthers had in 2008. the current line is serviceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest NEMasshole

Guest NEMasshole

Posted
Posted

I know you probably don't know it from a distance but the Patriots defense is much improved especially the secondary, our defense is stacked with first round picks now, it's not the bad old Patriots defense from the past few years.

 

Good coverage put more stress on Cam and the o-line and Chandler Jones is a beast he's going to have 15+ Sacks this year he had 11.5 as a 2nd year player last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Growl Grand Master

Growl

Posted
Posted

i understand that Cam is an easy target for people who want to portray themselves as intelligent and Byron Bell led a get rowdy hoorah chant in practice so we want to pretend he's good now but the offensive line was awful tonight. Yes we were down two guys but our starting LT was abused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nosuchthingasapanther Explorer

nosuchthingasapanther

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I know you probably don't know it from a distance but the Patriots defense is much improved especially the secondary, our defense is stacked with first round picks now, it's not the bad old Patriots defense from the past few years.

 

Good coverage put more stress on Cam and the o-line and Chandler Jones is a beast he's going to have 15+ Sacks this year he had 11.5 as a 2nd year player last year.

i read an article just before the game that the patriots were going to show off their new defense this game.

it looks much improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cgarsmoker Newbie

cgarsmoker

Posted
Posted

I know you probably don't know it from a distance but the Patriots defense is much improved especially the secondary, our defense is stacked with first round picks now, it's not the bad old Patriots defense from the past few years.

Good coverage put more stress on Cam and the o-line and Chandler Jones is a beast he's going to have 15+ Sacks this year he had 11.5 as a 2nd year player last year.

I know you probably don't know it from a distance but you're an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
La Pantera Mentor

La Pantera

Posted
Posted

The offensive line was awful dude. our leading rusher had like 14 yards. Yeah, um...

But, Turner and Chandler were both out.

It would help if we ran the ball more than 10 times the whole game. They were throwing the ball on almost every play in the first half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • MHS831
      Some homers' opinions of the OTs that we may realistically be able to get at 19

      By MHS831 · Posted

      You could say that-- but if we don't need a starting OT this year, why would you draft a flawed one that is not going to play? (We are coming from different underlying assumptions and perspectives--I see your argument and don't disagree with the premise) Your thinking is based on the assumption that an OT for the future is more important than immediate needs at other positions, or that we can meet other needs in later rounds even if we take the OT in round 1.  I do not think there is but 1 OT worthy of a first-round grade---they are mocked based on need and demand--if we do not have a need for a starter right now, a team at 18 may grab a T that is the 33rd best player--worth it if you have no starting T, but not if you have a starter.  So just because they are mocked around the middle of the first it does not mean that the players are good values--teams get desperate.  QBs are a great example.  Simpson may be worth it in round 1 for the Cardinals, but not the Jets, because they have Geno Smith.  Sure, they will need a QB by next year, but taking Simpson is a reach. I do not see our need, with 2 starters (Walker and Moton) and another possibly returning by the end of the season enough to justify ranking OT over positions like Safety, Will LB--I do not think we replaced A Shawn Robinson (We gonna put a NT out there?  Wharton (280lbs)?  So do we reach in round 1 for a player who may not play much or do we get a Will LB that can cover?  A deep free safety?  A quality center? A playmaking TE?  A DT to replace Robinson?  A wide receiver to balance the secondary?  Long term, if the right player was there, you would be right.  Short term, OT is a luxury at this point, in my view.  
    • strato
      Off-season topic: WWYD? Total Branding Redesign

      By strato · Posted

      Put Huey P Newton on the helmet. With his AK. 
    • csx
      Baldinger on the 2026 LB Class

      By csx · Posted

      We arent switching. Evero is 3-4 to the core. Given how 3-4 has been a noticeable characteristic of top defenses recently and we have drafted and signed players fir it  I dont know why anyone would think that's a good idea 
×
×
  • Create New...