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

    • trucpfan
      Time to Sign David Njoku

      By trucpfan · Posted

      You’re playing madden we’re talking real football stuff…. He does have you seen his special on internet he def thinks he’s getting paid 
    • Cpt slay a ho
      2027: Sharing my thoughts on the cap without a lotta research

      By Cpt slay a ho · Posted

      Without the team having an identity kinda hard to predict what they value.  They either are really trying to build a balanced team, or preparing for another swing at qb if Bryce doesn’t pan out. Seems like we value the o line but the $ spent there has been underwhelming besides Lewis, you could say it’s because of injuries but still hasn’t been worth the investment. as already stated, the whole handling of Bryce young as a whole has been ass backwards, we spent the years we’re supposed to take advantage of having a qb with a lower cap hit, building the team up to be adequate. now It appears, key word appears, the saints have done it correctly, which is painful to even think about. Regardless, I hope the front office has paid attention to qb contracts recently, such as Tua, Kyler, Daniel jones(pre colts) and don’t settle for subpar qb play at franchise qb rates    
    • Thorrez
      2027: Sharing my thoughts on the cap without a lotta research

      By Thorrez · Posted

      This is the flaw in your logic.  Cutting 3 of our best players will somehow move us from whatever we are to "compete". Even the most Young super fans are not predicting a ceiling above top 10-12, and that will not nearly cut it.  Someone will need to break the log jam of QBs getting nothing or North of 50. Our qb is at best a middle ground, lets hope it will be us that also manage to pay the worth at about 100 over 3 years.  And before you jump me, yes that is only of he improves.
×
×
  • Create New...