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!

     

How many sacks will we get against the Giants?

stankowalski

By stankowalski,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

stankowalski Newbie

stankowalski

Posted
Posted

Coming into the game against Denver, the Broncos had allowed only 7 sacks. We sacked Cutler three times, almost half of what they've allowed all year long. The Giants allowed 8 sacks last night against the Cowboys and 23 sacks all year long. Out of the 14 games so far the Giants have allowed at least one sack in 10 games, and they have allowed 0 sacks in 4 of their games.

I think this largely depends on Jacobs, whether he comes back against us or not. I think this also depends greatly on what kind of gameplan Turdo comes up with.

I'm going to guess we get 4 sacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stankowalski Newbie

stankowalski

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hard to say. NY has a better run game than Denver and I think stopping it will be our first priority on defense, especially if Jacobs is healthy.

NY definitely has a better running game, but even when Jacobs was in teams found a way to get to Manning. I was really impressed with the Cowboys' defense last night. They stopped the run AND had Eli running for his life. I'm thinking Peppers is going to have a multiple sack game this Sunday night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gscottnc5 Newbie

Gscottnc5

Posted
Posted

Well then keep moving nancy and stop cluttering up my thread...oh you want to win? No sh*t, now let's figure out what will go into a win.

OKAY!! Well figuring out a win? How about not worrying about sacks and let's worry about stopping there offensive weapons. Dumbass!! You would think with that big brain of yours on your avatar you would know that:smilielol5:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davidson Deac II Grand Master

Davidson Deac II

Posted
Posted

NY definitely has a better running game, but even when Jacobs was in teams found a way to get to Manning. I was really impressed with the Cowboys' defense last night. They stopped the run AND had Eli running for his life. I'm thinking Peppers is going to have a multiple sack game this Sunday night.

But the Cowboys are the number one team in the NFL at getting to the QB this year, so that didn't surprise me. And Dallas really didn't stop the run as much as New York abandoned the run. New York only rushed the ball 17 times as opposed to 35 passes. The Giants YPC really wasn't that bad (4.2). I would like to see what their ypc on first down was though.

If we can get a two score lead against the Giants, then we might get some sacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stankowalski Newbie

stankowalski

Posted
  • Author
Posted
OKAY!! Well figuring out a win? How about not worrying about sacks and let's worry about stopping there offensive weapons. Dumbass!! You would think with that big brain of yours on your avatar you would know that:smilielol5:
Sacks=backing up the Giants offense, taking them out of good situations, which directly correlates to offensive efficiency, which affects their scoring, etc. etc. If we get sacks, their offensive weapons don't matter, fruitcake. If you want to discuss their offensive weapons then feel free to start your own thread, otherwise quit opening your yap when big folks are talking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
stankowalski Newbie

stankowalski

Posted
  • Author
Posted

But the Cowboys are the number one team in the NFL at getting to the QB this year, so that didn't surprise me. And Dallas really didn't stop the run as much as New York abandoned the run. New York only rushed the ball 17 times as opposed to 35 passes. The Giants YPC really wasn't that bad (4.2). I would like to see what their ypc on first down was though.

If we can get a two score lead against the Giants, then we might get some sacks.

The Cowboys are the best team at getting to the quarterback, so I'll agree that it wasn't surprising that the Cowboys got sacks, but 8 sacks?!? That's insane in the NFL. That happens about as often as an elite quarterback admits to not knowing that a game could end in a tie.

The Giants attempted to pass the ball 16 times out of 28 first down plays. On the times they tried to run the ball on first down they averaged 3 yards a carry. But most of the positive run plays happened in the fourth quarter. Before the fourth quarter, the Cowboys stuffed the Giants on 1st down run plays.

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

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...