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!

     

Star inactive, Norwood active

AceBoogie

By AceBoogie,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

AceBoogie Veteran

AceBoogie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This with Star is getting ridiculous, I hope Ron doesn't feel too overly confident we beat the Texans that he is sitting Star. If Alfred Blue goes beast mode on us I know who to blame

Yea I didn't like the comment he made "it depends on who we're playing" there are no gimmes in the NFL 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ship Collaborator

Ship

Posted
Posted

it says norwood will receive at least 18 snaps. off the top of my head that doesn't seem like a lot, but i don't know the average amount of snaps our offense has per game. 

really disappointing that the middle of our D is weakened so much. i understand the caution, but i really don't wanna lose a game because of it. i think we have a lot of play makers still on D, but the key to this game is gonna be whether josh can shut down hopkins and he'll need a lot of help up front. otherwise, we might be playing from behind.

i really hope funchess gets some more snaps and looks this week. maybe norwood can make something out of his first game too. 

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

    • Joe Bear
      Okay, now face the facta guyd

      By Joe Bear · Posted

      No, it will be a raw 6'7" 17-year-old European who just played basketball for the first time in March and who the idiot GM "had first on our board." He'll play the whole G-League season, get in 42 games for the Hornets and average 1.1 ppg on 35% shooting. Been there, seen that.
    • ForJimmy
      JJ Jansen on tanking

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      We missed on Burns at his peak value. That’s the problem with trading for picks 2-3 years away (which people were convinced the Rams would suck by now and these would be higher picks btw). Each year away the pick is the further in value it drops. Fitt was clearly hired based on turning us around quickly. It’s one of the many reasons tanking isn’t really a thing as our player JJ is telling you in this original article. It would take the whole organization from the owners down admitting they aren’t winning soon with Burns and picks 2-3 years away having more value because that’s when we are still rebuilding. It would only make sense if Fitt had a longer leash and would more than likely be the ones making these picks anyway which you wouldn’t want. The question is would you rather have those Rams picks with the strong possibility of Fitt still being here or would you rather Fitt try to “win now” like he did and expedite his firing? Altering the timeline would affect more than just the Rams picks. 
    • HaricotVert
      Potential changes to playoff seeding

      By HaricotVert · Posted

      I dont buy the idea that it would create more competitive games Given this: Seed Current Format Record Proposed Open Seeding Record 1 Lions 15–2 Lions 15–2 2 Eagles 14–3 Eagles 14–3 3 Buccaneers 10–7 Vikings 14–3 4 Rams 10–7 Commanders 12–5 5 Vikings 14–3 Rams 10–7 6 Commanders 12–5 Buccaneers 10–7 7 Packers 11–6 Packers 11–6 That would mean Wild Card round would have been Eagles (14/3) v  Pack(11/6) Vikings(14/3) v Bucs(10/7) Commanders(12/5) v Rams(10/7) Instead of Eagles (14/3) v  Pack(11/6) Bucs(10/7) v Commanders(12/5) Rams(10/7) v Vikings(14/3) Then with the reseed it would mean that highest remaining seed would always draw the lowest remaining team.
×
×
  • Create New...