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!

     

Positionless Players and the Problem with Being Anti Meta.


TheMaulClaw
 Share

Recommended Posts

    Meta is a gaming term.  It means the traditional way a character is supposed to be played. The way the game developers intended. There's a somewhat derogatory term in the gaming community called being a meta slave.  That means when someone isn't willing to think outside of the normal role of a character to perhaps gain a strategic edge in a non traditional style aka asymmetrical warfare. 

    The 2021 Carolina Panthers gained an edge throughout the first three games of the season being anti meta.  They've hoped to revolutionize the defense by using positionless players.  A safety that can play LB.  A DE that can play LB.  A LB that can assume the role of a safety.  DT's that can switch to the end.  All of this in the hopes of confusing matchup equations for opposing offenses.  In the first three games of this year, it worked brilliantly.  So what's the problem?

    Being so anti meta with positionless players means that your defensive line is light.  You can scheme run blitzes, but in the end of the game you will be closed out. When offenses decide to play smash mouth football it's over.  The Panthers have rotating DT's with no true run stopping ends, because the end positions are designed to be so flexible that a traditional DE can't play it.  Same goes for the LB's.  Denzel Perryman would be nice to have when we have to stop the run to get the ball back in the 4th quarter.  

    Cam Irving had an interesting press conference interview.  He stated that he was happy to be here because he could focus on playing one position....LT.  In his previous stops he was asked to play all over the line, instead of trying to master the craft at one position.  While Cam is no brilliant LT, it does give us some insight into the problem of expecting players to master multiple positions simultaneously.  

   Now for the most part, our defense has greatly improved.  In the first 3 games it benefited from having leads and being able to rush the passer.  However, what we have seen is when the game is even or we're behind the defense breaks down late game because it lacks the META BEEF to shut down the power run game.

    Hopefully this is just a result of having a young defense and trying to cover up holes along our front seven, but there is a small part of all this that has to make you wonder if we're outsmarting ourselves here.

While it's fruitful to on occasion go outside of the meta to gain an edge, it should not be a full time philosophy

Just thoughts.

Edited by TheMaulClaw
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pantherxtreme said:

Any defense will get worn down meta or not if the offense is being a 3 and out machine. 

The offense puts up atleast a average performance we win this game going away. But when you have the same amount of turnovers as you have points scored for an entire half, it's not much else the defense can do. 

We dominated TOP. We gave them short fields. This defense being worn down thing is not a legit excuse. 

  • Pie 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheBigKat said:

Meta beta

 

 we’re trotting out trash o line with an OC who thinks he’s boy genius and have a QB who’s basically Andy Dalton +

I don't disagree with your assessment, but when the brass spends an entire draft on D, and two consecutive games we get closed out on the ground there is an issue.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

We dominated TOP. We gave them short fields. This defense being worn down thing is not a legit excuse. 

TOP says nothing of morale. If your offense is milking time and not scoring, especially after generating turnovers, it hurts your morale and that can have similar effects to being on the field too much psychologically.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

We dominated TOP. We gave them short fields. This defense being worn down thing is not a legit excuse. 

Some of these doofs really are trying for that lol. Not only that but if they just fall on a fumble we win too. Defense fuged up down the stretch...its like its hurting their pussy to admit this.

  • Pie 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fox007 said:

Some of these doofs really are trying for that lol. Not only that but if they just fall on a fumble we win too. Defense fuged up down the stretch...its like its hurting their pussy to admit this.

 

OMG dude. Take a chill pill. The world is not coming to an end. You sound like a petulant child who won't eat his broccolli.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • My general take on the state of the team not going too in depth is this: Either Morgan or Canales (hard to say whether it’s the players or the system/coaching, and that goes for any team) has been responsible for considerable strides forward on D and a bit more productive offense, but it’s been a small sample size and we collapsed at the end of the year. I lean towards it being more Canales growing as a coach and building a culture of buy-in and getting the most out of players in the locker room. My reasoning for leaning there is that Morgan was part of the Fitterer stink and it’ll take him a while of sustained success in roster management to overcome that in my mind. Next year is a big year to see if that was a fluke or not. These big signings this offseason are exciting and sometimes teams can have amazing FA classes but more often than not those who spend big and “win the offseason” don’t show the results in the regular season.    As far as QB goes, in a vacuum I’m completely fine with the Pickett signing, he’s ok value for a backup and a huge improvement over Dalton. If Bryce went down there isn’t a huge drop off there and if the rest of the team builds on last year they could win games with him under center. I’m not sure the ‘85 Bears could win games with current Dalton under center. But the O is just so damn limited with Bryce and Pickett does not push him at all, he’s purely a backup. So I agree we I’d love to see a QB with some upside drafted, a guy who could actually push Bryce if/when he struggles or doesn’t improve any further. He’s improved steadily the last 2 years but it has been from arguably worst in league history to still below average. I’m not convinced he can get any better than purely average at absolute best. I hope he can man but I just don’t see it happening. And the longer we keep penciling him as starter the less confidence I have in this staff. Even with our unexpected relative success as a team last year sometimes you do have to take another step back to take a step forward, and that could mean moving on from Bryce, and temporarily going with a slightly worse player like Pickett while aggressively trying to upgrade the position and taking dart throws in the draft/free agency on upside players. I know, there wasn’t much available this offseason outside of Willis, and this draft class seems to be poor at QB. But I’d have preferred we try something and if it didn’t work and we took a step back then just keep trying until something hits. Rolling with Bryce is just delaying the inevitable and living in purgatory.    just my 2 cents, hope I’m proved wrong
    • His market value is 15.7 million. Not worth it to bring him at his age, at that price. If we were to bring in a veteran, DeAndre Hopkins is available for 2 million market value. I've said this in other threads, get Keenan Allen to play the slot. He's as good as a pass catching tight end and is market is under 7 million.
×
×
  • Create New...