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!

     

Terrell Davis says we finish 14-2


mc52beast

Recommended Posts

Heard him talking on the NFL Network, was asked how the Panthers would finish the season and he said we will lose to the Giants because they are "giant killers" and will lose to the Bucs because our starters will be resting. 

Personally I don't see us losing to the Giants, their defense stinks and Norman will shut down Beckham. It's possible if Ron rests the guys against the Bucs that we lose... that's the only way we lose that game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

16-0 puts you in awfully rare air.

That's history books stuff.....if we slip by ATL X 2, and NYFG's, I say RR and Co. make a run at it.

I agree. Right now they say they're not looking at 16-0 cuz they look at the next game, but if we're 15-0 you best believe they're looking for 16-0 and I can't see Ron taking away that opportunity from the guys who will surely want to be a part of history. These guys are competitors and next to winning the superbowl most players dream about going undefeated.

Plus, we will have the bye and i think having three weeks in between a game would hurt more than it would help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ron is keeping them focused on the next game as part of his overall strategy to manage the team.  But he was a part of the 85 bears that went 15-1 with only one loss.   That team wanted to go undefeated in a big way.  If we get the opportunity to be undefeated by winning the next 3 games I hope he will not rest anyone and give the team every opportunity to finish out 16-0.  He couldnt do it as a player but would like to do it as a coach. Now next year he might relent and rest some folks when we are undefeated again, 

Then again he said on Black and Blue report yesterday that  he might rest them  because going undefeated doesnt matter if you lose in the playoffs because someone got hurt.  But he was also a member of the 2009 Chargers that lost 3 games but rested their starters in the last game and were rusty after an essentially 3 week break. So he appears to have conflicting thoughts at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Publix has played well against bad defenses, but his numbers are kind of crabby against solid D's.  Do people forget how he fared the first time he faced us?  Yes, he's played more games since then (more experience), but our defense is playing much better than that game as well.  We will beat Tampa Bay like they stole something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see resting starters week 17 with the bye coming up. If we do that, then come divisional round the panthers will have taken the field for the first time in three weeks. Not exactly the adjustment you want to make against a rabid team that just won a playoff game the week before. Limit snaps to guys like Stewart and others who carry a workload if you must but I want these guys to be as sharp as possible for the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrell has been a non-believer since the hooplah about the Panthers began. He thought we were the worst undefeated team each time one undefeated went down. Not that I get all butt-hurt over what he thinks because I'm sure many of us see the Giants game as a possible loss, mostly due to PTSD of Panthers games past. That said, I can't shake the feeling from previous seasons and am worried before every game, but if I weren't worried I wouldn't care to watch and so far i've only missed two or three games the past 5 years (since the Jimmy Clausen days and finally having my own apartment and TV). 

Before then even in 2003 when I went to the Lions game and heard some guy parading up the stands yelling, "We going to Houston!!" for three hours, I looked at my dad as an 11 year old and said, yeah right. 

So skeptical, yes. Therefor I can't fault others for being skeptical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It looks like the Bucks and Giannis are headed for a divorce. He says he's ready to play and the Bucks say that he has told them he isn't. It really doesn't matter except that it likely means the end for Giannis in Milwaukee. He's 31 years old, but still an elite producer.  So, as GM, would you go after him this offseason? Remember, the Hornets have two 1st round picks this year and potentially THREE first round picks next year. What would a trade look like?
    • I agree with you, if all things are equal--assuming we are on the same page as to what that means.  If a DT and OT are there at 19 and you have them equal, which do you take? The DT would be rotational and get 25 snaps a game or so, and the OT is probably a reserve for most of the season.  What if Walker plays out of his mind and Ickey comes back strong? To me, there are just too many variables at T and Morgan met the needs for 2 starters.  Nothing about that screams lets "go OT in round 1" to me. I could see an Edge or a DT at 19 before I see OT.  I could see a TE or S before an OT--and I (personally) would rather have an OT over DT, Edge, TE, or S--but I do not see the logic.  In fact, CB is a position that resembles OT--who do we have behind our starters and are we happy with Smith-Wade?  A CB would be on the field more than a reserve OT.  How is the Walker at LT situation different than the the Bryce situation? He is basically on a 1-year deal and if he is injured, Forsythe becomes Pickett.  Would you take Simpson in the draft?  Dont get me wrong--I usually agree with you  and I get your point.  I am an OL guru--but I just do not see this particular group of Tackles making us better than Walker.  In addition, I think we can address OT once the Ickey situation clears up.  Short arms, poor run blocking, issues with strength--I am simply not impressed with the OTs.  For clarity, "developmental" refers to players who are still a year or two away from starting.  We are all developmental, but there are prospects who need a season to transition to the pro game. I see 1--maybe 2 OTs who could step into a starting role right now. In college, for example, taking snaps under center requires a different approach than blocking for the shotgun.  There is less to learn if you play a position that does not require much adjustment to transition to the NFL.
    • The natural progression of ANY QB is to take more control of the offense.  Which is all Dave said. He doesn't have a narrative to push. He is says what is the natural thing to say in this situation whether it's Bryce, or any other QB.  THE THREAD TITLE ALONE TWISTS THE NARRATIVE.   so yes, many of you refuse to acknowledge anything other than your screwed perspective, for whatever reason, when it comes to Bryce.  Y'all have a great Easter. 
×
×
  • Create New...