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!

     

Sacks + QB Hits allowed, 2014


TonyN

Recommended Posts

Make of this what you will. A few teams really jump out at you as surprises though, IMHO.

 

Sacks + QB hits allowed, 2014: 

1.) Jax  189

2.) TB   176

3.) Was 171

4.) Min  147

5.) Mia  144

6.) Ten  144

7.) NYJ  143

8.) Stl     140

9.) Ind    136

10.) Det    136

11.) Sea   133

12.) KC    127

13.) Buf    124

14.) Chi    123

15.) Ari   123

16.) Atl   120

17.) SF   120

18.) SD   112

19.) NO   111

20.) Cle   109

21.) Car   109

22.) NE    108

23.) Hou  106

24.) NYG 103

25.) Phi      96

26.) Pit       95

27.) GB      94

28.) Oak    84

29.) Dal     83

30.) Bal     75

31.) Cin     71

32.) Den    59

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were probably #1 up until Remmers, Norwell, and Turner solidified the offensive line.

 

I don't give a fug what anyone says, we had easily the worst line in the league up until that point.  That poo was embarrassing.  It messed Cam up so bad he was feeling phantom pressure for a while there even when he finally started to have time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were probably #1 up until Remmers, Norwell, and Turner solidified the offensive line.

 

I don't give a fug what anyone says, we had easily the worst line in the league up until that point.  That poo was embarrassing.  It messed Cam up so bad he was feeling phantom pressure for a while there even when he finally started to have time.

 

Yeah I don't give a fug what the stats say, I am right!

 

Anyways, the only real excuse anyone can say is that Newton was injured or his WR corps were bad. Tannehill with a worse oline performed better than Newton. Hopefully he improves this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course no one wants to mention Luck lol. Stafford is also interesting, worse oline but better performance.

 

Bridgewater also quietly put up very solid numbers. Terrible O Line and his "weapons" were Mike Asiata, Greg Jennings and Jarius Wright. He is going to be a very, very solid QB. Maybe better than very solid...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't give a fug what the stats say, I am right!

 

Anyways, the only real excuse anyone can say is that Newton was injured or his WR corps were bad. Tannehill with a worse oline performed better than Newton. Hopefully he improves this season.

 

I think you need to go rewatch the games of our offensive line pre-Remmers, Norwell, and Turner.  I even admitted at the end that Cam was feeling phantom pressure once he finally started to get time.  Our offensive line was actually pretty solid towards the end of the year.

 

Stats need context.

 

But by all means, come in guns-a-blazing and try to stir poo up.  It is a TonyN thread after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That's my biggest concern with making him the 2C.  You split up the Aho Jarvis bromance that accounted for a lot of points.  If Jarvis excels as a C, it could help the team even more though.
    • The Saints being that high is the one that killed me. Chris Olave might not know his name at this point, Shaheed is coming off injury as well, so 31 year old Brandin Cooks might be your best WR...coming off a 260 yard season over 10 games. Kamara is Kamara, but didn't have 1,000 yards last year and is about to turn 30.  Toss in the fact that Taysom Hill may be the best QB on the team and I truly don't understand Barnwell's thoughts beside seeing the names "Olave" and "Kamara" and going yep, that sounds better than "Chuba" and "Thielen". 
    • Now now now, I wouldn't say there is no logic, but there's just not a lot of in-depth thought put into Barnwell's  "analysis." Now to be fair to him (and other national writers), pre-season team rankings are basically clickbait. And...Barnwell, himself, said that "there's a lot of projection here." He basically admits that he doesn't know how the hell things are going to turn out with our receiver group. He also said that "I find myself" more intrigued by Coker than Legette; that does not mean that he said that fans should be, or that Coker will even be better than Legette (regardless of ESPN's per-route-run stat). So, yeah, Barnwell said some things, but even he has to basically admit that he doesn't know how bad or good that our playmakers will be in 2025.  Overall, what Barnwell is basically thinking is that the Panthers have gotten worse at the offensive skill positions, and baked into that is that others have gotten better. That's the argument in July (meaning, please don't give this any more weight than it's due). I would personally be surprised (not shocked) if we end up worse than the Titans, Pats and Giants at least. Once you throw in the Bills, Giants, Jets, Steelers, and even the Chargers, I personally think there are several teams' skill groups that may end up ranked lower than ours by the end of 2025.  @kungfoodudeis one of my dudes, but like others he is over the tipping point. He's had enough. Seeing is believing. I will say this though: Barnwell's piece is less about logic than just good ol' opinion. And to be honest, he might as well be a Huddler throwing out sh¡t in the summer based upon nothing but good feels or bad feels.  Our offense as a whole (just like any other team's) is going to depend upon the play of the O-line and especially the QB. How you can even rank the skill positions without expressly baking those two things in the cake is beyond me. I would dare say that that's not even logical. 
×
×
  • Create New...