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!

     

In defense of conservative play calling..

CamMoon

By CamMoon,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

CamMoon Newbie

CamMoon

Posted
Posted

On average an NFL teams will see the ball about 10-14 times a game. Since it was already halftime at best the Seahawks could have hoped for 7 more chances to score, barring turnovers or anything of that nature. The problem with being aggressive is that if you do turn the ball over, especially in your own territory the game is lengthened. Quick scores are killers when trying to maintain a lead so playing it safe was the best option. So, giving 10 yard cushions isn't a bad idea since time will continue to run off of the clock. There was literally no way for Seattle to come back unless we turned the ball over or they got a quick score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Achilles Explorer

Achilles

Posted
Posted

It is nearly impossible to hold on to a big lead for an entire 30 minutes of football against a team like Seattle.  We did it once all season (home against  ATL).  That being said, basically Russell Wilson just made some sick throws under duress and they mounted a comeback.

The conservative play calling is definitely designed to not give up the big play and to run out the clock.  It worked.  We won.  It wasn't pretty, but the coaches did enough.  The players did enough.  One thing that may go overlooked:  We never trailed in that game.

The biggest problem was that our offense didn't really sustain much.  If we could have scored even 2 FGs in that entire half, the game would have been out of reach.  Not enough first downs.  That was a problem that put all the pressure on the defense to hold a huge lead with tons of time.  However, and this is huge:  We did not turn the ball over!

Everyone complains about the pattern of the Indy, GB, and NYG games.  It was the same today.  Point is: We won all of them.  4-0 in games that go like this one.

In the end we did enough things right to win the game.  That was Rivera's line.  I think he's exactly right.

Arizona is a team that can score fast and often and score 24 points in a half, so...

Would you rather have a close game that goes down to the wire?

Or

Have one team get out to a big lead only to have the game come down to an onside kick?

Either way it's the NFL.  You win the game, you go on to the next round.

We are on to the next round.  Doesn't matter how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chknwing Grand Master

chknwing

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Get over it already.

get over what? Ohhhh you mean the we won thing.  No poo.  And no one was even talking about that.  I made a comment on his post, not the game.  He was pointing out that Seattle wouldn't have had enough time/possessions to comeback. which isnt true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KSpan Grand Master

KSpan

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Get over it already.

But he's right. From a 31 point lead to a single-possession game hinging on an onside kick is silly when a team doesn't score a single point for an entire half in the playoffs. No one is saying Carolina should have gone for 60, but a minimum of a field goal changes everything. 

That said, a win is a win. If Seattle had recovered, however...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anybodyhome Grand Master

Anybodyhome

Posted
Posted

The only thing missing that kept me from believing I was suffering from a degenerative memory condition was a 3rd and 7 draw play. 

Other than that, it looked like John Fox and Dan Henning were making guest appearances as second half coaches. 

And say all you want along the lines of, "I knew we had it all along," or, "There was never any doubt." Yeah okay, but there were 70,000 plus in that stadium yesterday who were dead silent for the last 25 minutes of that game who weren't convinced.  

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

    • cranky
      2027: Sharing my thoughts on the cap without a lotta research

      By cranky · Posted

      Why do you say that. What leads you to think that we, as supporters, think his ceiling is 10-12. That's a ridiculous assumption on your part. The Seahawks won the SB with Darnold passing for 25 TD's, 14 Ints with a 99.1 rating for the season.  The Panthers with Young were at 23 TD's, 11 Ints and a 78.8 rating for the season. Not that far off. The problem with all the Young discourse around here is the assumption that the QB is the sole determining factor for a teams success. That just isn't true and it's certainly not how Morgan and Tilis are building the Panthers. 
    • SmokinwithWilly
      2027: Sharing my thoughts on the cap without a lotta research

      By SmokinwithWilly · Posted

      Do we pay based on how many wins or how many games Bryce led us to wins? We've spent quite a bit on defense this year and hopefully they're much improved. If the Panthers do get to 10 wins, but Bryce has another year like last year where he showed up big in a couple, was present in a few, and forgettable in most, do we still pay him 50m per year?  I keep bringing it up because I think it's relevant, but Bryce was outplayed by a 6m per year backup last year. I don't see how it's possible to pay a top tier QB contract to someone who's putting up backup QB production. 
    • XClown1986
      Post-Draft: Gantt sets A stage, not THE stage. Perhaps Reset Your Expectations

      By XClown1986 · Posted

      I understand tempering expectations, but there are some issues with his points. Walker was a 3 year starter, but Green Bay let him walk and no other team was quick to snatch him up. That says something. Freeling will compete to start. With Hunter, we rotate our linemen and even 5th round pick Cam Jackson played some meaningful snaps last year. Both Brown III and Wharton have underwhelmed since we picked them up. Hunter is a run plugger that we have needed. Hunter will play early, even if he isn't the "starter." Brazzell was described as one of Canales' favorite prospects in the draft and he has a speed element we have been missing. I think Canales is going to have plays drawn up with Brazzell on the field just out of pure excitement. It will be up to Brazzell to prove he can handle it, though. If he can, he will play. As far as our secondary picks, yeah they have to earn their stripes and Evero tends to lean on veterans. So they might take time, but if they can show they can play, they will see the field. Smith-Wade and Ransom did. Sam Hecht simply has to show he can handle the mental side of the NFL game. If he can, he is in a direct competition with Fortner, who's also relatively young, but also on his 3rd NFL team and doesn't have the power profile of Hecht.  I can appreciate that Gantt wants to pour cold water on what was perceived as an impactful draft, but facts are facts.
×
×
  • Create New...