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

    • 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.  
    • Put Huey P Newton on the helmet. With his AK. 
    • 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...