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!

     

The DT situation...

firstdayfan

By firstdayfan,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Brandon Newbie

Brandon

Posted
Posted

Sunny wasn't activated? We've needed help there all during the off season, got what we could, then deactivate him? Fox is a stupid mother f**ker.

You seem to be trying to find fault where it does not exist, our interior linemen were fine against the Eagles. He was also a recent acquisition and probably not really ready to play, which is the smart move letting him get acclimated before thrusting him out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KillerKat Grand Master

KillerKat

Posted
Posted

You seem to be trying to find fault where it does not exist, our interior linemen were fine against the Eagles. He was also a recent acquisition and probably not really ready to play, which is the smart move letting him get acclimated before thrusting him out there.

They did play well, but he needed to be in there getting experience in the rotation. We only had 1 backup in Leonard. What if another one of our DTs got hurt and couldn't come back in? Why make the weak point on D as far as depth goes even weaker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jramsey4 Newbie

jramsey4

Posted
Posted

You seem to be trying to find fault where it does not exist, our interior linemen were fine against the Eagles. He was also a recent acquisition and probably not really ready to play, which is the smart move letting him get acclimated before thrusting him out there.

I hope it was just they need help more in other position for there game plan. But I'm really starting to wonder about the coaching staffs talent evaluation. They still have Jake as there starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brandon Newbie

Brandon

Posted
Posted

They did play well, but he needed to be in there getting experience in the rotation. We only had 1 backup in Leonard. What if another one of our DTs got hurt and couldn't come back in? Why make the weak point on D as far as depth goes even weaker?

We had options to play at DT if someone got hurt, but you don't put players in who aren't ready, or you can stunt their progress learning a system. Some people (Leonard) took to it very quickly and we were able to slot him in, but Harris is a rookie and it'll take him a couple weeks before they're ready to have him out there. This isn't just what Fox does, every team does it.

I hope it was just they need help more in other position for there game plan. But I'm really starting to wonder about the coaching staffs talent evaluation. They still have Jake as there starter.

Jake is the best option at the moment, even if he may not be very desirable. If our hopes for the season were over we'd see Matt Moore out there but Jake really is our best chance to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brandon Newbie

Brandon

Posted
Posted

"Jake is the best option at the moment....Jake really is our best chance to win. "

Never gets old :icon_bs::sleep:

What do you suggest we do? I know Matt Moore seems like the interesting alternative but the backup QB is always the favorite player on the team. Unless Jake has another meltdown I see no reason why he shouldn't be given another chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nu Guns Newbie

Nu Guns

Posted
Posted

What do you suggest we do? I know Matt Moore seems like the interesting alternative but the backup QB is always the favorite player on the team. Unless Jake has another meltdown I see no reason why he shouldn't be given another chance.

Brandon,

It just seems that we have been hearing that answer for infinity now...doesnt it??

I dont know if Matt Moore is the answer, but why not find out?

Even if they put Moore in and he did well, I still want the FO to draft a QB!!!

The crap Hurney said today was :mad5:

Jake can not be our answer for the next 3 years !!!

The QB and WR areas need to be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
firstdayfan Enthusiast

firstdayfan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Our DTs were okay because the eagles suck at running. The Falcons have a much better attack and will test our DTs much more. If we hold Turner under 100 yards then we can discuss our DTs. Until then we won't know anything.

I agree with you but I think its more of different styles of running games. The Eagles are more of a stretch team while the Falcons are more about Power running and cut backs. It will be a good test and I feel that even if we allow right at 100 yards we will be ok. I think it will give the defensive line a good look because the Cowboys offense is pretty similar to the Falcons. Good QB, hard running backs, great tight end, and a dominant WR followed by a few good ones.

I'd like to see the defense do some run blitz type plays and try to force the Falcons to change their strategies, Hurney and Meeks said this defense will be an aggressive defense but we haven't seen much of that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brandon Newbie

Brandon

Posted
Posted

Brandon,

It just seems that we have been hearing that answer for infinity now...doesnt it??

I dont know if Matt Moore is the answer, but why not find out?

Even if they put Moore in and he did well, I still want the FO to draft a QB!!!

The crap Hurney said today was :mad5:

Jake can not be our answer for the next 3 years !!!

The QB and WR areas need to be addressed.

If Hurney was going to go after a QB and he openly said "we are thinking about drafting a QB" he should be fired on the spot. NEVER show your hand as a GM, ever. Much like in war it's all about strategy and everything is a game.

As for why we've been hearing it for so long, well it's true. The fact of the matter is that in the NFL there are very few truly good QB's and finding one is a mixture of being in the right place at the right time and blind luck. Sure it would be easy to say "oh well we should have drafted Brady" but nobody could have known exactly what he'd become or the Pats wouldn't have waited till the 6th round to get him. It's just luck, and developing a QB isn't easy either, because if someone's not cut out for it they won't ever work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nu Guns Newbie

Nu Guns

Posted
Posted

If Hurney was going to go after a QB and he openly said "we are thinking about drafting a QB" he should be fired on the spot. NEVER show your hand as a GM, ever. Much like in war it's all about strategy and everything is a game.

As for why we've been hearing it for so long, well it's true. The fact of the matter is that in the NFL there are very few truly good QB's and finding one is a mixture of being in the right place at the right time and blind luck. Sure it would be easy to say "oh well we should have drafted Brady" but nobody could have known exactly what he'd become or the Pats wouldn't have waited till the 6th round to get him. It's just luck, and developing a QB isn't easy either, because if someone's not cut out for it they won't ever work.

true..but in last five years lots of players have developed.

Ryan,Rivers,Manning,Cutler,Flacco, Sanchez I think will pan out, but dont know about Stafford.

Sure we could draft the next J.P. Losman or Matt Leinert....but thats the gamble. Just need to scout real well and hope for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted

I agree with you but I think its more of different styles of running games. The Eagles are more of a stretch team while the Falcons are more about Power running and cut backs. It will be a good test and I feel that even if we allow right at 100 yards we will be ok. I think it will give the defensive line a good look because the Cowboys offense is pretty similar to the Falcons. Good QB, hard running backs, great tight end, and a dominant WR followed by a few good ones.

I'd like to see the defense do some run blitz type plays and try to force the Falcons to change their strategies, Hurney and Meeks said this defense will be an aggressive defense but we haven't seen much of that yet.

The Falcon can pound it between the tackles with Turner or can stretch the field as well with Norwood. And Westbrook is a cutback runner as well as quick to the edge.

Aggressive defensive don't always mean we blitz all the time. What he means by a vertically aggressive team is that we will be aggressive at all levels of the field. The running to the ball, swarming the receiver or runner, stripping the ball and laying a hit on a player down the field are all examples of being aggressive as well. Run blitzing is fine as long as you contain the run. But if the runner gets through the first level he is off to the races. We need to have our DEs do a better job this week. They constantly get sucked inside and are suceptible to sweeps and reverses. They are not doing a good job of run fits and holding the edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
firstdayfan Enthusiast

firstdayfan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

We need to have our DEs do a better job this week. They constantly get sucked inside and are suceptible to sweeps and reverses. They are not doing a good job of run fits and holding the edge.

I agree 100% with on this, I was very disappointed out how the ends played the run. I would like to see Peppers stand his guy up and string out the play rather than get pushed back and creating a corner for them to run.

I also agree with what you said about the defense being aggressive but I do think they have some different blitz packages in place. I think they were aggressive to an extent to what you talked about. Thomas Davis was absolutely laying the wood to people. I think Beason was playing a little timid but that will get better as the season goes on.

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

    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Yep, like I said, I don't mind guaranteeing them money, but make the contracts smaller amounts in order to minimize cap implications. I don't know about "half," the actual amounts, whether more or less than half, would have to be determined by the NFL and NFLPA (which will probably be highly contentious, if not "impossible").  I'm just for whatever leads to the best product on the field while also unaffecting my wallet. As an aside, the NFL owners are greedy bastards in my estimation. They're trying to keep a larger portion of the pie, but players' agents are greedy as well, and they've sewn seeds of greed among the players. It's not all their fault; we all know what our society has evolved into, but the NFL wants a bigger piece of our smaller pocketbooks and refuses to "negotiate" with us (that's why we don't have cheaper and more reasonable à la carte options to view games that they're gradually trying to migrate to paid TV), so fu<k 'em. And then on top of that we have guys trying to water down the product even more by feeding greed. Change the way things are done so that we can at least see players prove themselves on the field without throwing wrenches into the engine that pays guys that have proven they can play on a pro level.
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Teddy Checkdown in trouble

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      So if one of the parents wants to buy the theatre group or the band lunch they should get banned?
    • TD alt
      Teddy Checkdown in trouble

      By TD alt · Posted

      OK, I didn't realize this was about high school, but...if I'm spending my personal money trying to help some kids out, then no one is going to tell me how to spend my money. I get enough of the government spending my money--allocating my tax dollars--to children who don't really need anything, and now they're trying to tell me how to spend my personal money? Sure, there are many other issues to consider and rabbit holes that we could go down due to ethical concerns because it concerns kids, and the need for transparency is extremely important, but maybe as opposed to trying to stop kids from benefitting in darkness, we need to open up the blinds (and blinders) a little bit so that they can benefit in the light. I get where you're coming from, but this is a loaded and layered issue, and I'm just trying to give you some food for thought. 
×
×
  • Create New...