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!

     

A New Offensive Philosophy?

Mr. Scot

By Mr. Scot,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

So here's what I perceive is happening to the team balance in Pantherland.

In prior years, Fox was a coach who was content with an offense that scored field goals and the occasional touchdown. The overall philosophy relied on the defense. As long as the offense scored 14-17 points or so, the defense would keep the other team under that number. End result? We win.

These days, it seems that balance has shifted.

The Fox of today is okay with allowing opposing offenses to score, as long as it's only field goals. The onus then is on the offense to score touchdowns. Thus, since touchdowns score more than field goals, we outscore the other team. End result? We win.

Anyone else see the shift? And more to the point, are you okay with this philosophy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beastson Newbie

beastson

Posted
Posted

I think Fox should see the difference and just go all out of offense. I think his worst nightmare is the offense being better than the defense. Obvious he hasn't adjusted cause if so we would have relied on mainly our offense to just keep going out there scoring yesterday

He doesn't want this to be known as an offensive team. Cause lately, thats what the look is starting to become

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AKPantherFan Apprentice

AKPantherFan

Posted
Posted

No- Its called our defense cant get off the damn field and does a decent job of buckling down in the Red zone.

Too many times it seems turgo calls the wrong play at the wrong times, I.E. blitz like hell on 3rd and long when you know they are going to throw the ball and you leave the middle of the field wide open :rant:

I think our offensive scheme is called DeAngelo Williams, no matter what people say we have a threat to score with any pass or run, defenses have to respect that and when they stack the box we get the advantage. That allows our offense to open up.

Fox has 1/2 of his idea working. He will need to find a defense to get it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No- Its called our defense cant get off the damn field and does a decent job of buckling down in the Red zone.

Too many times it seems turgo calls the wrong play at the wrong times, I.E. blitz like hell on 3rd and long when you know they are going to throw the ball and you leave the middle of the field wide open :rant:

That's the "bend, don't break" notion. It's what we've philosophically become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
outlaw4 Veteran

outlaw4

Posted
Posted

So here's what I perceive is happening to the team balance in Pantherland.

In prior years, Fox was a coach who was content with an offense that scored field goals and the occasional touchdown. The overall philosophy relied on the defense. As long as the offense scored 14-17 points or so, the defense would keep the other team under that number. End result? We win.

These days, it seems that balance has shifted.

The Fox of today is okay with allowing opposing offenses to score, as long as it's only field goals. The onus then is on the offense to score touchdowns. Thus, since touchdowns score more than field goals, we outscore the other team. End result? We win.

Anyone else see the shift? And more to the point, are you okay with this philosophy?

I believe it's more out of necessity than anything else. At this point, the defense of 2008 is not the same defense we carried into the 2003 and 2005 playoffs. Our defensive line is thin on depth and it showed last night. At this point, there is very little that can be done there and honestly, there wasn't much we could had done in the offseason other than either using draft picks (which would mean no Stewart or Otah) keeping Jenkins. (which OBVIOUSLY wasn't going to happen)

The best way to compensate for the deficiencies on defense is turnovers. They had chances last night and couldn't capitalize. Time for a cram session on stripping the ball, tipping drills and learning how to CATCH the ball for some INTs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
megadeth078 Newbie

megadeth078

Posted
Posted

I don't see it as a bad philosophy. It's basically bend, but don't break too much style, but during the game that's all I wanted. I knew we couldn't stop them, so I just wanted to limit them to field goals. The way our offense performed in the 2nd half just shows that you can't rely on them for this philosophy to work though. If you're letting your defense give them that much hoping to imit them to three points, your offense has to work too, and both sides didn't do their part in the 2nd half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I believe it's more out of necessity than anything else. At this point, the defense of 2008 is not the same defense we carried into the 2003 and 2005 playoffs. Our defensive line is thin on depth and it showed last night. At this point, there is very little that can be done there and honestly, there wasn't much we could had done in the offseason other than either using draft picks (which would mean no Stewart or Otah) keeping Jenkins. (which OBVIOUSLY wasn't going to happen)

The best way to compensate for the deficiencies on defense is turnovers. They had chances last night and couldn't capitalize. Time for a cram session on stripping the ball, tipping drills and learning how to CATCH the ball for some INTs.

I'd agree with it being ut of necessity if I only saw this at work in yesterday's game. Truth is we've been playing "bend don't break" pretty much all season.

Personally, I believe we do have the personnel to play a much more aggressive attack, but we aren't doing it.

Why? You tell me :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I don't see it as a bad philosophy. It's basically bend, but don't break too much style, but during the game that's all I wanted. I knew we couldn't stop them, so I just wanted to limit them to field goals. The way our offense performed in the 2nd half just shows that you can't rely on them for this philosophy to work though. If you're letting your defense give them that much hoping to imit them to three points, your offense has to work too, and both sides didn't do their part in the 2nd half.

Offensive playcalling became extremely vanilla in the second half for reasons I can't fathom, other than the "sit on a lead and don't take risks" philosophy. That philosophy, coupled with a 'bend, don't break' defense is an extremely bad mix.

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

    • Aussie Tank
      I wake up this morning full of rage towards Ronald McDonald Rivera / Gettleman / Hurney

      By Aussie Tank · Posted

      I woke up this morning with a sore back and shoulder's 
    • tukafan21
      Tetairoa McMillan - Your 2025 NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year - (Welp... Guess I Was Right)

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      The bottom line is we saw long stretches this season where T-Mac wasn't even targeted.  He had games where he went an entire half without seeing a pass thrown his way, and it lead to a bunch of games with 5 or less targets.  If he's healthy and we're not up a stupid amount and only running the ball, I can't see him having more than a game or two next year with 5 or less targets. We were also only 22nd this year in pass attempts, and that was with a rookie #1 and no legitimate 2nd option for half the season.  And even then, we were only 46 pass attempts above 31st place. If we go into next season with T-Mac improved in his 2nd season and a healthy Coker for 17 games, there is absolutely no reason for us to not throw it more.  That right away increases both of their target totals without sacrificing any targets from each other or other players, add in them taking targets from the TEs and RBs on top of that, and your argument just doesn't hold water anymore. You can't look at targets/yards in a vacuum and think next year Coker just takes some from T-Mac.  You have to look at the team as a whole and our situations this year and then project what will happen next year. If he's healthy for 17 games, I'd bet my life savings that T-Mac sees increases across the board, targets/catches/yards/TDs.   Just as Coker will also see career highs in all categories, it's not one vs the other, it's shifting offensive strategy given our personnel, which next year will be much better for our passing game (QB issues aside).
    • tukafan21
      Tetairoa McMillan - Your 2025 NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year - (Welp... Guess I Was Right)

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      C'mon now.... First, you can't switch up your argument once someone points out a major flaw in your point. You're saying we shouldn't expect a big increase in targets/yards for T-Mac, but then shift to talking about averages with Chase when I point out the significant leap he took there once you factor in his missing games.  He saw an increase in targets in 5 less games, averages aside, he saw a significant increase in targets in his 2nd season, what he then did with those targets is actually irrelevant in this discussion. Puka seeing no increase is pointless, as he saw such an absurd amount of targets for a rookie, it's near impossible to see an increase. But the real issue in this post is that you think I'm proving your point by showing how Waddle had to share targets with Hill. Tyreek Hill was a 1st team All Pro who was 2nd in the NFL in yards that season. If you think Jaylen Waddle sharing targets with a 1st team All Pro and a future HOFer is even remotely in the same category as T-Mac needing to share targets with Coker... then you are certifiably insane, lol. If anything, you could make the argument that Coker is to Waddle as T-Mac is to Hill in that discussion (which would then lead to a serious increase in targets/yards for T-Mac).  But even that is insane, as neither T-Mac or Coker will be as good as Hill and Waddle respectively that season.  I love both of their potential, but c'mon now, T-Mac isn't getting 119 catches for 1,700 yards and Coker isn't getting 117 for 1,350 next season.
×
×
  • Create New...