The next game will tell us...

[Mr. Scot]

... something.

But in reality, not as much as many people seem to think.

I've seen a lot of two statements recently, both based in false assumptions. The first is that the next game will tell us everything we need to know about Kyle Allen. The second, likewise, suggest that if Cam Newton is the starter against the 49ers, we'll know with absolute certainty whether he's "back" or not.

Neither of those things is actually true.

Let's take a look at them individually...

________________________

Number One: "If Kyle Allen stinks against the 49ers, we'll know he's bad."

No, we won't.

If you took a look back at the first dozen  or so games of every great quarterback in the league right now, you'll find at least one (and probably more) where they played like crap. Had their franchises pronounced a judgement of "well that's it, I guess they stink" based on those performances, they'd have been idiots.

This is why I think the whole "play Allen until he sucks" idea is dumb. Every young player has games where they suck, just ask Ryan Kalil. If you make the call that they'll never be anything just because they struggle early, you're being extremely premature. In order to truly know how good a guy is going to be, you have to have patience with him.

Note: Also, just to be clear, if Kyle Allen has a great game, that doesn't necessarily mean he's a god of football either. Patience works both ways.

________________________

Number Two: "If we put Newton back out there and he looks bad, we'll know he's done."

Again...No.

Even perfectly healthy veteran players have lousy games. Yes, we're looking to see how much Newton has recovered from his injuries, but one single game isn't going to tell the whole story. And even if he is healthy, it's natural to expect he might be a little rusty.

It may sound like a broken record to repeat it, but again if you're going to put him out there, you have to have patience. Recovery takes time. Rebuilding chemistry takes time. Getting back into the swing of things takes time.

Basically, he needs time.

Give it to him. Not necessarily because he deserves it (even if he does) but because it's the smart thing to do.

________________________

Bottom Line: I've said it before and I'll say it again because it absolutely bears repeating. Whatever decision the Panthers make about who starts going forward, they need to stick with it! You can't go swapping guys in and out like we're in training camp again and expect to have any kind of consistency.

Make a choice, and stand by that choice.

I have no idea how the next game is going to go. I am pretty sure that whatever happens for good or bad, a whole lot of people are going to be ready to pounce with "I told you so" statements as if they've been proven absolutely 100% correct.

Except you probably shouldn't, because future games might tell a different story.

Be more concerned with saying "I got it right" than "I said it first".

You'll look a whole lot wiser that way.

[1of10Charnatives]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

... something.

But in reality, not as much as many people seem to think.

I've seen a lot of two statements recently, both based in false assumptions. The first is that the next game will tell us everything we need to know about Kyle Allen. The second, likewise, suggest that if Cam Newton is the starter against the 49ers, we'll know with absolute certainty whether he's "back" or not.

Neither of those things is actually true.

Let's take a look at them individually...

________________________

Number One: "If Kyle Allen stinks against the 49ers, we'll know he's bad."

No, we won't.

If you took a look back at the first dozen  or so games of every great quarterback in the league right now, you'll find at least one (and probably more) where they played like crap. Had their franchises pronounced a judgement of "well that's it, I guess they stink" based on those performances, they'd have been idiots.

This is why I think the whole "play Allen until he sucks" idea is dumb. Every young player has games where they suck, just ask Ryan Kalil. If you make the call that they'll never be anything just because they struggle early, you're being extremely premature. In order to truly know how good a guy is going to be, you have to have patience with him.

Note: Also, just to be clear, if Kyle Allen has a great game, that doesn't necessarily mean he's a god of football either. Patience works both ways.

________________________

Number Two: "If we put Newton back out there and he looks bad, we'll know he's done."

Again...No.

Even perfectly healthy veteran players have lousy games. Yes, we're looking to see how much Newton has recovered from his injuries, but one single game isn't going to tell the whole story. And even if he is healthy, it's natural to expect he might be a little rusty.

It may sound like a broken record to repeat it, but again if you're going to put him out there, you have to have patience. Recovery takes time. Rebuilding chemistry takes time. Getting back into the swing of things takes time.

Basically, he needs time.

Give it to him. Not necessarily because he deserves it (even if he does) but because it's the smart thing to do.

________________________

Bottom Line: I've said it before and I'll say it again because it absolutely bears repeating. Whatever decision the Panthers make about who starts going forward, they need to stick with it! You can't go swapping guys in and out like we're in training camp again and expect to have any kind of consistency.

Make a choice, and stand by that choice.

I have no idea how the next game is going to go. I am pretty sure that whatever happens for good or bad, a whole lot of people are going to be ready to pounce with "I told you so" statements as if they've been proven absolutely 100% correct.

Except you probably shouldn't, because future games might tell a different story.

Be more concerned with saying "I got it right" than "I said it first".

You'll look a whole lot wiser that way.

Agree with all of this. Personally I tend to take the view of "Don't pretend you know what's going to happen in the future, and then you won't look like an idiot when you're invariably wrong at some point." I think it's far more prudent to speak in terms of possibilities rather than certainties. Absolute certainty is often the path of the foolish. Confidence is one thing, I have confidence in the team going forward based on their play to date. I am certain of nothing except my own present hunger. Excuse me while I forage for sustenance.

[ellis]

One week at a time. It’s a formula that works. 

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Agree with all of this. Personally I tend to take the view of "Don't pretend you know what's going to happen in the future, and then you won't look like an idiot when you're invariably wrong at some point." I think it's far more prudent to speak in terms of possibilities rather than certainties. Absolute certainty is often the path of the foolish. Confidence is one thing, I have confidence in the team going forward based on their play to date. I am certain of nothing except my own present hunger. Excuse me while I forage for sustenance.

Over the last several years, sports talk media has made it popular to boast an attitude of "THIS IS MY TAKE AND IT'S ABSOLUTE FACT YOU'RE A MORON IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME NOW DEAL WITH IT!"

Likewise, you get people that'll make fifteen "bold predictions". Fourteen of them will be wrong, but they'll brag about the one they got right as if it makes them Nostradumbass.

It's silly.

[1of10Charnatives]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Over the last several years, sports talk media has made it popular to boast an attitude of "THIS IS MY TAKE AND IT'S ABSOLUTE FACT YOU'RE A MORON IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME NOW DEAL WITH IT!"

Likewise, you get people that'll make fifteen "bold predictions". Fourteen of them will be wrong, but they'll brag about the one they got right as if it makes them Nostradumbass.

It's silly.

Better yet, some of them have even learned the trick of making conflicting predictions at slightly different times and then simply crediting themselves with whichever one proves correct. I just about guarantee there's at least one chucklehead out there with a mic who's said some version of "If Cam comes back healthy, the rest of the league is in trouble." and "I'm not convinced Cam can overcome these injuries to lead his team going forward."  Both could technically be true, but said pundit makes both statements in different broadcasts and then waits to be proven right on one of them, ignoring the other.

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Better yet, some of them have even learned the trick of making conflicting predictions at slightly different times and then simply crediting themselves with whichever one proves correct. I just about guarantee there's at least one chucklehead out there with a mic who's said some version of "If Cam comes back healthy, the rest of the league is in trouble." and "I'm not convinced Cam can overcome these injuries to lead his team going forward."  Both could technically be true, but said pundit makes both statements in different broadcasts and then waits to be proven right on one of them, ignoring the other.

I've seen Cowherd pull that stunt before.

Funny one I remember from a few years back, Pete Prisco made a list of the ten best quarterbacks in the league. The last guy on the list was Chad Pennington (which tells you how long ago this was).

I think it was less than a week later that he got into a debate with somebody where the premise of his argument was that Chad Pennington was not a top ten quarterback.

Someone on Twitter pointed out, "Ummm, Pete?" 

[Mr. Scot]

15 minutes ago, ellis said:

One week at a time. It’s a formula that works. 

You've done a whole lot of good, solid work on this topic, dude. Kudos. Even if I don't always agree with you, it's great to see somebody put some real thought into their analysis.

I'd raise a glass to ya but I don't drink. I do wear glasses though, so I guess I'll raise them 

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, stbugs said:

It appears SF has a good D so we won’t learn any truths. Just like going against Tampa doesn’t mean CMC isn’t good, it just means that Tampa has the best run D in the league and it overrides even top running teams.

I don’t expect either QB to be stellar against a solid pass D. In fact they are the #1 pass D. They are the #2 D overall. They don’t have our sacks (still top 10) but the coverage appears to be their specialty.

I will say that a good game by either will IMHO say a lot about them. A bad game is probably to be expected regardless of who starts.

Good point on McCaffrey. I know some of his resident critics were ready to act like that game proved them right. Obviously it didn't.

[hepcat]

This San Fran game reminds me a lot of the one in 2013. Riding a nice win streak across the country with a young unproven team with a badass pass rush. I actually think this defense might be better than that year since they haven't been giving up the deep ball as much. 

Whoever plays QB, a win will go a long way towards a playoff appearance. 

[ecu88]

46 minutes ago, ellis said:

One week at a time. It’s a formula that works. 

Ron Rivera - "The play does not care who makes it."

Me - "The W does not care about stats."

[ncsfinest21]

Against SF we should stick with Allen. Id take a hot Allen right now instead of a rusty Cam. Have Cam dressed and ready if he is healthy in case Allen isnt playing well first half. This is a winnable game. Our offense is better than their offense and our defense is even. But the last thing we need is Cam to get sacked alot. We know Cam tends to hold the ball a little longer and with their dline we need someone who can get the ball out quick.

[imminent rogaine]

With the assumption that SF has a good defense, I think a good performance from either QB would be informative.

A good performance from Cam would be the first in a while and would help affirm that the injuries were the culprit and that he is healed or healing. A good performance from Kyle would help dispell the notion that his early-career success resulted majoraly from favorable matchups.

[Wolfpack352]

49ers are riding high.  Like someone said, this will "test" our whole roster,  whether it is Kyle or Cam......At the moment I prefer Kyle.  Only way a QB can stink this up is if he played like Winston, otherwise this calls for every player to be on point!  

[Mr. Scot]

The "team" point is a legitimate one.

Worth remembering that it is very possible for whoever plays quarterback to have a good game but the team still lose.