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!

     

Some similarities to the 2003 team?


usmcpanthers

Recommended Posts

So from my memory, the 2003 team had a better defense and better receivers but only put up on avg 20 pts a game, different era.

 

They never dominated all season long, even on their 5-0 start. Then they had a bad stretch of the season where they lost 4 out 6, including 3 in a row. When the playoffs came they had to play against teams that beat them earlier in the year.

 

dallas in WC (beat Panthers earlier in the year)

rams in div (this is the team that is similar to NO)

eagles in nfc champ (beat Panthers  earlier  in the year)

I know social media wasn't really a thing back then but I remember sports media never giving a chance to win at all.

 

2017 Panthers

sort of hot start 4-1 but didnt dominate either but we have been cardiac cats again.

 

Then had a bad stretch vs philly and Chicago. Got sort of hot again, but sputtered against division foes.

 

So nfc wc (play division team that beat us twice)

div philly ( team that beat us earlier in the year)

nfc champ unknown

 

 

So not exactly like the 03 team but this team does remind me of them, If some of our stat people are board maybe they can provide more evidence and parallels.

 

Im just trying to give myself some hope after my freak out this last Sunday.

2003.JPG

2017.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lack of heart, for one thing.

Also 2003 defense was on another level compared to this one.    Also the run game was on point.

Things were different for sure, 20 points could win you most games.     Rivera would have been a great coach back then, now, he's just out of place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't see the comparison at all, without looking at any stats. Just watching the games...just a better team all around. More heart, more aggressive and urgent Dline, pieces that fit the ball control (outdated) mindset were in place whereas now it seems forced on players who are geared towards a more progressive philosophy. They're really not close, 2003 team is a much better team when you consider what teams are trying to do in the era they exist in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

We had a far superior offensive coordinator in 2003.

That is definitely true. I believe nostalgia has us holding the 03 team to higher degrees. I remember them infuriating me all season long and I didn't think they would get past the greatest show on turf at all. That offense was truly amazing. That was the best playoff game I ever watched.

 

I believe the 03 team overachieved.

 

So far the 2017 team I feel has underachieved 

 

But this 2017 team has a chance to change their fortunes just like the 03 team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2003 we had Smith moose and proehl. Now we have scrubs

steven Davis and a young desean foster.

Our defense I believe was better. Jake made a really good Brett farve impersonation too.

that team seemed to have like the eye of the tiger to sound cliche.

this one,.. I just don’t see it except in spurts. 2015 and 2013 yeh it was there. It’s still on Ron why we lost the 2013 Frisco game. We could have gone farther for sure.

i hope we they read all of this and find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2003 Defense was much better. We also had a great running game in 2003 that didn't require us rushing our QB. 2003 team in general was also was more physical. This year's team for me is more like the 2014 team. You don't really know what you are  about to get. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2003 we had 2 solid WRs, 2017 we have a group of WRs that would be lucky to be a #3 on any other team in the league. 2003 we had solid safety play... 2017 we have probably the worst safety combo in the league. We have a offense with no fire and players that can't win 1 on 1 match ups all across the board this year, so no, there is no similarities between the 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, brandon_87 said:

2003 we had 2 solid WRs, 2017 we have a group of WRs that would be lucky to be a #3 on any other team in the league. 2003 we had solid safety play... 2017 we have probably the worst safety combo in the league. We have a offense with no fire and players that can't win 1 on 1 match ups all across the board this year, so no, there is no similarities between the 2

This is pretty much where I'm at with this team right now. Combine undertalented playerw with bad coaching and an inconsistent qb, and you get teh 2017 panthers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People harp on the 2003 Defense, but you have to realize you could also get away with a lot more contact in the secondary back then.  I think the overall talent level on defense is about the same.  The 2017 front 4 is not quite as talented, but not far off.  The 2017 linebacking corp is slightly better, so the front 7 is a wash.  The 2017 secondary is definitely statistically worse, but defenses can't generally shut down good offenses the way they could 15 years ago b/c of the rule changes.  I honestly believe this secondary would do the same if the rules were the same.  The 2003 secondary wasn't full of Pro-Bowlers- they simply benefitted from a dominant Front 7 in a way the 2017 group simply can't

Anyway, 2 glaring things about the 2003 offense vs. this one.  1) By the playoffs, we had an unquestioned offensive identity.  Teams knew we were going to run the ball, and they still couldn't stop us.  2) The WR corp was light years better at this point in the season.  Smitty & Moose were far superior to anyone we've got now (and were both home-run threats), and Proehl was still probably as good as Funchess.  Olsen is the only advantage the 2017 offense has at the skill positions.  Stewart & CMC aren't scrubs, but I would take the 2003 Davis & Foster with that offensive line.

In the end, the 1 wild card this team has, and has had since 2011, is Cam Newton.  It always begins and ends with him.  If he's playing at a MVP level, we can beat NE, ATL, GB, MIN, etc.  If he's playing bad, we can lose to anyone.

The simple truth is if the defense plays the way they have for most of the year, they will keep us within striking distance of what a good offense should be able to produce to win.  But it still falls on Cam to overcome the glaring deficiencies we have at LT & WR to be able to have success in the playoffs.

Bottom line, in my opinion, we will have to run for 150+ yards, win the TOP,. and be positive in the turnover column to have a chance to win in the playoffs.  It certainly will be hard to do that for 4 games.

Cam has an incredible challenge ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...