Why the Panthers scoring struggles aren't as bad as they appear on the surface

[ReekRhymesWithFleek]

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

This is why I wish that people who didn't understand statistics wouldn't try to discuss statistics. 

No one is disputing that we're below average in redzone efficiency. We're one of the worst offenses in the league. We're probably below average in damn near every offensive statistical category you can come up with. 

The bottom line is that we're below average in the redzone as well as outside the redzone. That's why we're close to last both in yardage and scoring. I really don't see how this is difficult to comprehend. 

You're trying to cherry pick the stats and come up with an easy fix. Hey, if we can just force a ton of turnovers and be super efficient in the rezone then we can be a decent offense! Hate to break it to you, but redzone efficiency will generally echo overall offensive efficiency. Offense gets tougher in the redzone as the defense has less field to have to cover. It's rare to find an offense that struggles to move the ball overall that suddenly becomes efficient in the redzone. 

You're right, I *did* cherry pick the stats. I cherry picked the stats that directly correlate to scoring points. (Would you have preferred I made my point by picking stats out of a bag?). If you noticed, the title of the post was "Why the Panthers' scoring struggles aren't as bad as they appear," not "Why the Panthers' offensive struggles aren't as bad as they appear." I'm strictly talking about points here. 

I never implied the Panthers need to "force a ton of turnovers" or "be super efficient in the red zone." I said the Panthers probably wouldn't finish last in forcing turnovers this year and they probably won't have the worst red zone efficiency of all-time. Hell, even converting 50% of red zone trips into touchdowns would've ranked in the bottom 1/3 of the league last year. 

If only I understood statistics.

[LinvilleGorge]

Except that the redzone struggles haven't really exaggerated those struggles, have they? 26th in yards, 29th in points, tied for last in redzone efficiency. All signs point to us simply being terrible at offense, period. It isn't like we're moving the ball significantly better outside of the redzone and then just stalling out in the redzone which is what this thread is implying. 

It's simply a misleading thread that isn't looking at the overall offensive picture. When you view those stats in a vacuum it looks like you're onto something, but then... uh oh... we pretty much suck just as bad outside of the redzone. To highlight this point, we're tied for 27th in redzone opportunities. We're not good in the redzone and we're not good at getting to the redzone. Why? Because we haven't been good at offense, period. 

[iamhubby1]

6 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

This is why I wish that people who didn't understand statistics wouldn't try to discuss statistics. 

No one is disputing that we're below average in redzone efficiency. We're one of the worst offenses in the league. We're probably below average in damn near every offensive statistical category you can come up with. 

The bottom line is that we're below average in the redzone as well as outside the redzone. That's why we're close to last both in yardage and scoring. I really don't see how this is difficult to comprehend. 

You're trying to cherry pick the stats and come up with an easy fix. Hey, if we can just force a ton of turnovers and be super efficient in the rezone then we can be a decent offense! Hate to break it to you, but redzone efficiency will generally echo overall offensive efficiency. Offense gets tougher in the redzone as the defense has less field to have to cover. It's rare to find an offense that struggles to move the ball overall that suddenly becomes efficient in the redzone. 

 

    I am truly sorry for this. But dude. You are making this way too difficult. Is it really that difficult to agree with someone who brought up a valid point? You have to throw in qualifiers? 

 

    When we improve our Red Zone Efficiency, we should score more points. And if we increase our Turn Overs, we should score more points. That is not statistics. That is common sense.

 

    We are not talking earth shattering numbers here, just 5-7 points a game. But it should be enough to make our Offense competitive. Not top of the line, but competitive.

 

    Why is that such a difficult concept to embrace. Because it would mean we are improving. We can't have that now can we?

[ReekRhymesWithFleek]

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

Except that the redzone struggles haven't really exaggerated those struggles, have they? 26th in yards, 29th in points, tied for last in redzone efficiency. All signs point to us simply being terrible at offense, period. It isn't like we're moving the ball significantly better outside of the redzone and then just stalling out in the redzone which is what this thread is implying. 

It's simply a misleading thread that isn't looking at the overall offensive picture. When you view those stats in a vacuum it looks like you're onto something, but then... uh oh... we pretty much suck just as bad outside of the redzone. To highlight this point, we're tied for 27th in redzone opportunities. We're not good in the redzone and we're not good at getting to the redzone. Why? Because we haven't been good at offense, period. 

It's a misleading thread if you choose to not read the points the original post made. Or if you didn't even read the title and realize the post wasn't about the OFFENSE, it's about SCORING POINTS. 

Btw, you know what's a great way to get to the red zone? The defense forcing turnovers and creating a short field for the offense.  

[LinvilleGorge]

3 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

    I am truly sorry for this. But dude. You are making this way too difficult. Is it really that difficult to agree with someone who brought up a valid point? You have to throw in qualifiers? 

 

    When we improve our Red Zone Efficiency, we should score more points. And if we increase our Turn Overs, we should score more points. That is not statistics. That is common sense.

 

    We are not talking earth shattering numbers here, just 5-7 points a game. But it should be enough to make our Offense competitive. Not top of the line, but competitive.

 

    Why is that such a difficult concept to embrace. Because it would mean we are improving. We can't have that now can we?

Because our redzone offensive performance roughly mirrors our non-redzone offensive performance. We aren't going to improve redzone performance unless we improve overall offensive performance. We have to get better at offense, period. 

If we are reliant on the defense forcing turnovers to score points, then we're fuged. It's worth pointing out that two of the three TDs we've scored this season have come off of turnovers. Yes, forcing more turnovers will inevitably help your offense, but at the end of the day you are not going to consistently win football games in the NFL with an offense that's near the bottom of the league in virtually every significant offensive category. We're #1 in the NFL in yards allowed and #2 in the NFL in points allowed. It's ridiculous to blame our scoring woes on the defense not forcing enough turnovers. They may not be forcing a ton of turnovers right now, but they're getting plenty of stops and getting the ball back for our offense. Our offense just can't do anything with the ball. 

[iamhubby1]

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Except that the redzone struggles haven't really exaggerated those struggles, have they? 26th in yards, 29th in points, tied for last in redzone efficiency. All signs point to us simply being terrible at offense, period. It isn't like we're moving the ball significantly better outside of the redzone and then just stalling out in the redzone which is what this thread is implying. 

It's simply a misleading thread that isn't looking at the overall offensive picture. When you view those stats in a vacuum it looks like you're onto something, but then... uh oh... we pretty much suck just as bad outside of the redzone. To highlight this point, we're tied for 27th in redzone opportunities. We're not good in the redzone and we're not good at getting to the redzone. Why? Because we haven't been good at offense, period. 

 

   Ok then. Your whole argument is based on us being bad on Offense. That is correct at this time. Now how about this thought? We improve. Oh the horror. If our RZ Efficiency improves, we may score more points. No, no, no, we can't have that.

 

    (Obviously, you expect us to remain at the bottom in RZ Efficiency. Otherwise you would concede there is a chance we do actually improve.)

 

    Or Turn Overs. There is no way on God's green earth that if we pick up the pace, and start causing multiple TOs a game. That maybe, just maybe, we score more points.

 

    (Or are you also convinced we will remain at the bottom of the league in TOs as well?)

 

    So, in summary. If we improve to middle of the pack in RZ Efficiency, and we pick up the pace in TOs. Our point total should improve as well.

 

   Nothing to do with Total Yards. Where is that coming from? Oh yeah, you brought it up. 

 

    Admit it. You are taking this to the extreme, for what reason, only you know. Keep it simple sir.

 

    

[iamhubby1]

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Because our redzone offensive performance roughly mirrors our non-redzone offensive performance. We aren't going to improve redzone performance unless we improve overall offensive performance. We have to get better at offense, period. 

If we are reliant on the defense forcing turnovers to score points, then we're fuged. It's worth pointing out that two of the three TDs we've scored this season have come off of turnovers. Yes, forcing more turnovers will inevitably help your offense, but at the end of the day you are not going to consistently win football games in the NFL with an offense that's near the bottom of the league in virtually every significant offensive category. We're #1 in the NFL in yards allowed and #2 in the NFL in points allowed. It's ridiculous to blame our scoring woes on the defense not forcing enough turnovers. They may not be forcing a ton of turnovers right now, but they're getting plenty of stops and getting the ball back for our offense. Our offense just can't do anything with the ball. 

 

   I'm done. That bolded portion proves you have no clue what we are talking about. So...I am done. You have beaten me down, and I no longer find this fun.

 

    

[LinvilleGorge]

I expect our redzone efficiency to roughly mirror our overall offensive production. So far, our ability to get to the redzone roughly mirrors our ability to put the ball in the endzone from the redzone vs. other teams in the NFL. Tied for 27th in redzone opportunities. Tied for 32nd in redzone efficiency. Yes, being more efficient in the redzone will help us score more points, but getting to the redzone more often will as well. I honestly doubt we'll see a big increase in redzone efficiency until we start playing better offensive football, period. The two usually go hand in hand. Not always, but it's unusual for an offense to all of a sudden become much more efficient inside the redzone than they are outside of the redzone due to the shrunken field playing to the hand of the defense. 

So yes, when you're trying to say our scoring struggles aren't as bad as they appear, it's certainly very fair to compare our redzone performance to our overall performance. And yes, to lay a good chunk of the blame of our scoring woes at the feet of a defense that's #1 in yards allowed seems ridiculous to me. Sure, they could be forcing more turnovers but they're doing plenty to get the ball back to the offense and they're definitely helping with the field position battle by limiting the yardage of the opponent. This is highlighted by the fact that we're 10th in the league in average starting field position.

I know you guys want to keep it simple and act like it's an easy fix and I can appreciate that if it can be back up, but I'm just not seeing any merits to these arguments when you look at the big picture.

[LinvilleGorge]

For the record, I really wish it was as simple as you guys are trying to make it. All I'm saying is that:

1. No one is disputing that increased redzone efficiency equals more points. What I'm saying is that we're probably not going to magically get better in the redzone while continuing to struggle overall offensively.

2. No one is disputing that more turnovers will help the offense. What I'm saying is that our defense is giving us plenty of opportunities to win games even without an abundance of turnovers being #1 in yards allowed, #2 in points allowed, and combining with special teams to allow us to be 10th in average starting field position. How many returns have we had called back so far? Honestly, we should be even better in average starting field position than 10th if it wasn't for special teams penalties.

What you guys are doing is the equivalent of an ER doctor worrying about a mild rash and stubbed toe on a patient rushed to the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head. The primary issue at hand is blatantly obvious. 

[iamhubby1]

14 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

For the record, I really wish it was as simple as you guys are trying to make it. All I'm saying is that:

1. No one is disputing that increased redzone efficiency equals more points. What I'm saying is that we're probably not going to magically get better in the redzone while continuing to struggle overall offensively.

2. No one is disputing that more turnovers will help the offense. What I'm saying is that our defense is giving us plenty of opportunities to win games even without an abundance of turnovers being #1 in yards allowed, #2 in points allowed, and combining with special teams to allow us to be 10th in average starting field position. How many returns have we had called back so far? Honestly, we should be even better in average starting field position than 10th if it wasn't for special teams penalties.

What you guys are doing is the equivalent of an ER doctor worrying about a mild rash and stubbed toe on a patient rushed to the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head. The primary issue at hand is blatantly obvious. 

 

    1. So you agree, just with qualifiers? Just because you don't think we will improve. Does not make the point invalid. When we get back to our average RZE, we should score more points.

 

    2. So, again you agree, but with qualifiers? Who cares how many yards we give up, or how many punts we force. If we get more TOs, we should score more points.

 

    And I find that last paragraph a tad condescending. The OP showed 2 valid points on how we can improve our points output. Just because you believe 1 is unattainable, and that 2 is...well, I ain't really sure why you think 2 is not viable. You claim that both points are not valid. 

 

    You are free to continue this, I, however, am done. It's game day, and I don't want to play with you anymore. 

 

    

 

    

[Rags]

Okay. Sure. Let's play this game. 

Let's say we get more turnovers and we get better field position (even though it's been said field position is not really our big problem) and our red zone offense gets better, what about when our defense doesn't get TOs?

Remember in 2015 against the Hawks in the regular season? All of our tds were 80 yard drives against an amazing defense. Now we can barely score against the Saints.  This isn't a good offense. Red Zone woes isn't our only problem. 

No playoff team should rely on Turnovers entirely to score. 

[Jeremy Igo]

The offense stinks

The defense is really good

 

 

Pretty much what I expected in training camp. 

 

I will be drinking today. 

 

 

Let's go. 

[Snake]

8 hours ago, Saca312 said:

good luck trying to inject any positivity in this joint.

most these people love seeing the team fail for some odd reason. even when you back up points with evidence they shun you for not going with the negative groupthink.

no wonder lots of good posters don't come around here anymore. too many trolls and doomsday kids over a 2-1 season who'd love nothing more than the panthers to be blown out every single game from henceforth.

 

8 hours ago, Saca312 said:

oh, yeah, by the way we moved the ball against the bills a crapton and would've left with 20+ points had we nailed it in the endzone on each of the times we were there. our offense wasn't complete crap.

i'd dare say the saints surprise is an abnormality rather than the norm.

Years of disappointment will do that to you. You come to realize that even though you want things to change they want. 

[ReekRhymesWithFleek]

7 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Because our redzone offensive performance roughly mirrors our non-redzone offensive performance. We aren't going to improve redzone performance unless we improve overall offensive performance. We have to get better at offense, period. 

If we are reliant on the defense forcing turnovers to score points, then we're fuged. It's worth pointing out that two of the three TDs we've scored this season have come off of turnovers. Yes, forcing more turnovers will inevitably help your offense, but at the end of the day you are not going to consistently win football games in the NFL with an offense that's near the bottom of the league in virtually every significant offensive category. We're #1 in the NFL in yards allowed and #2 in the NFL in points allowed. It's ridiculous to blame our scoring woes on the defense not forcing enough turnovers. They may not be forcing a ton of turnovers right now, but they're getting plenty of stops and getting the ball back for our offense. Our offense just can't do anything with the ball. 

Even if they remain the second least efficient red zone offense in the NFL, there's no way they only convert 25% of red zone trips into touchdowns. The second least efficient red zone offense in the NFL in 2016 was Houston, which turned 44% of red zone trips into touchdowns, almost twice as good as Carolina's current rate. 

"It's ridiculous to blame our scoring woes on the defense not forcing enough turnovers." Turnovers are a part of the game. To act like they aren't is to be willfully ignorant.