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!

     

Save the panic until after Tenn, that game will tell us everything.


PanthersNC1984

Recommended Posts

I know I know, it seems every Sunday we hear the same thing, “OMG this is the most important and pivotal game ever! A must win.” But heat me out on this one..

I really do think if we lose to a very beatable Titans team at home, drop 4-4, our season is done and it could really have a huge domino effect on this team’s trajectory for the foreseeable future. 

First it will spell the end of the Hurney/Rivera era,  you even have to wonder if they will even bother playing Cam at all at that point this season if we can’t win this game. 
 

However IF we win (spoiler alert, I actually think we win handily) it will mean this team has pulled it together and bounced back after a brutal loss to San Fran and they haven’t folded and we might be able to put another winning streak together. 
 

TLDR- it would be wise to put the panic on hold until after the Titans game. If we win then it might show you can chalk up the San Fran game to a usual post bye hangover after A LOT of traveling. However if we lose then  the season is done along with this current regime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own humble opinion is that because of the magnitude of this past loss, the importance of the Tennessee game gets magnified enormously. 

If they come out strong and post a solid win, that makes the San Francisco debacle look like an aberration.  Another loss congers up thoughts of last year, when after the wipeout in Pittsburgh we couldn't buy a win, even against teams where a mildly bad performance should have been enough.  A stinker and it looks like the wheels have come off, again.  These questions would not exist if we had dropped a 20-17 game.

Let's face it: Getting annihilated after having an extra week to prepare, even against a 6-0 team (now 7-0) creates a lot of questions, and doubt.  Especially going into Green Bay next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how many people remember Game Five of the 2003 season, but it was against the same team we face this weekend.

We got our asses handed to us in that game. Lost by 20 points, and looked like sh-t doing it.

Our defense was exposed, our new quarterback (Delhomme) was terrible, we were a pretender, blah blah blah blah blah.

Went to the Super Bowl that season. Titans got eliminated in the divisional round.

You just never know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I don't know how many people remember Game Five of the 2003 season.

We got our asses handed to us by the Tennessee Titans in that game. Lost by 20 points, and looked like sh-t doing it.

Our defense was exposed, our new quarterback (Delhomme) was terrible, we were a pretender, blah blah blah blah blah.

Went to the Super Bowl that season. Titans got eliminated in the divisional round.

You just never know...

Yes, but it was a completely different scenario with the top teams they had to overcome.   Also they didn't have Ron Rivera at the helm to right the ship.  This team doesn't have the grit that team had either to rebound from this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

I wish people would stop rolling with the whole "this weekend's game will tell us everything" bit.

It's hardly ever true.

I dunno man I learned all I needed to know watching the team get raped against the 49ers. Same old same old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hepcat said:

I dunno man I learned all I needed to know watching the team get raped against the 49ers. Same old same old.

I wouldn't deny that we looked like sh-t in that game.

I would point out that I have seen plenty of teams bounce back from a game where they looked like sh-t and go on to great seasons.

Can we do that? Ask me again in about eight weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I wouldn't deny that we looked like sh-t in that game.

I would point out that I have seen plenty of teams bounce back from a game where they looked like sh-t and go on to great seasons.

Can we do that? Ask me again in about eight weeks.

There's a big difference between a simple bad game, like what you referenced with the Panthers in 2003, and getting completely and utterly shredded from top to bottom, with nothing positive. (except for Christian McCaffrey, the only legitimate player on the roster anymore)

Ron thought the Steelers game last season was just a bad game. Sh*t happens he said. It's a pattern. There's deep rooted problems with this squad that haven't gone away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...