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!

     

Matt Rhule says the Panthers offense is about to have a "vastly different look," redefined with more of an emphasis on the run game.


SgtJoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

  

5 hours ago, SgtJoo said:

I'll believe it when I see it... 

 

Translation :

We no longer trust Sam to throw the football every Down so we figure we might as well run the ball more and give Sam manageable passing downs for either short yardage or Playaction or even a QB draw.

 

Edited by glenwo2
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CPF4LIFE said:

In other words "we dont have much confidence in our QB or passing game in general to rely on it, so we gotta run to take the ball out his hands."

We will be getting another QB soon people.

 

yeah...I didn't read past the first post but you echoed what I stated almost exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was listening to Kyle Bailey this afternoon and he had Smitty on. Smitty said that he was in the owner’s suite with Tepper yesterday around the same time that they took that picture with him. Today during the interview he was saying nearly the exact same thing that Matt Rhule was saying today. He said that the span there should not be passing the ball as much and should run more than they are. This would help the defense and Sam Darnold at the same time. Me thinks that Matt Rhules awakening may have been influenced somewhat by Tepper and some of the conversations that were had during the game in that owners suite.

https://omny.fm/shows/the-kyle-bailey-show-podcast/playlists/podcast/embed?style=cover

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CPF4LIFE said:

In other words "we dont have much confidence in our QB or passing game in general to rely on it, so we gotta run to take the ball out his hands."

We will be getting another QB soon people.

 

Or we dont have much confidence in the offensive line to block for the qb, or we dont have much confidence in the OC calling plays to get our WRs open, or we dont have much confidence in our WRs to catch the ball, or maybe they just think they need to focus on the run game a little more which it seems like they barely use sometimes.  There are lots of ways that blame game could go. 

  • Pie 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Reminds me of another time when we revamped the offense to feature the run game. Led the league in points and had the best offense in the league. Of course our QB was a big part of that. Don't know that Darnold can do much of that.

I don't know, he ran pretty well yesterday when he had to.  I wouldn't sell him short on running the ball occasionally. 

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Reminds me of another time when we revamped the offense to feature the run game. Led the league in points and had the best offense in the league. Of course our QB was a big part of that. Don't know that Darnold can do much of that.

Bahahaha. Yeah I’ll have what he’s having if you think that’s even in the realm of possibilities

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

    • Top 25 performance based pay in #NFL #Panthers DB Nick Scott made an extra $1.26 million from last year’s campaign, because of the NFL’s Performance-Based Pay program, the league announced today. It was the fourth-highest payout from the program. https://x.com/mike_e_kaye/status/2033598538848862446?s=46
    • BPA!!! Wouldn't life be great if it were that simple?  Need??? To some degree.  I realize that we like life simple:  Instant oatmeal.  self-stick envelopes.  I get it.  BPA people:  Go back and look at teams' needs in prior drafts--even when they scream BPA!, they end up drafting for need.  I guess you should say, "BPA4U" (Best Player Available for Us).  There are many variables. You should know the skill sets for your system.  You should understand your locker room and gauge character.  In my view, another consideration should play into your decision of how you rate a player to be the "best" and the cost of meeting your overall needs.  All needs are not equal.  The talent pool drops off and dries up at different points for different positions.  Each draft is unique.  We have inflation for some positions in free agency, yet the rookie pay scale is based on a formula that is not determined by position or player evaluations:  The 1st overall pick receives the highest salary, with each subsequent pick earning less, regardless of position.  Therefore, if you have seven needs, and three are at positions that pay veterans a ton of money--you should draft those players over those who play positions that would not save you much money.  You have to consider the savings and what that means to the cap as a whole--not just focus on BPA or need. These numbers are based on the average salary of all players and then only the starters by position: Now take a look at what the players make based on the position they are drafted: Sorry they did this in pink.  So let's say the Jets think Sadiq is the BPA on their board with the second pick.  He meets their biggest need, aside from QB, but there are no QBs close to checking the BPA box.  Are you going to pay a rookie TE $13m per year for 4 years ($52m guaranteed)?  According to the chart above, a STARTING TE costs half that.  So Need and BPA are not the only factors (this was an example only). It makes more sense to draft, especially in the first round, a QB, edge, WR, OT, or DT if they are one of your needs and one of the BPAs.  At worst you are getting close to market value if they start.   Looking at the Panthers needs, expected BPAs at #19, and cost vs. what a starting-level free agent makes, we are spending about $5m per year.  Many of us want to draft a S there--if the rookie starts, we'd save about $1.7m per year.  The difference would add a bottom-of-the-roster depth player.  If we drafted a LB, for example, the difference is $1.4m.   I see our needs (right now) as follows:  S, ILB Will, OT, C, TE, and DT.  Of those needs, a veteran starter at OT or DT would save us the most.  For example, an OT veteran who starts averages $13m.  We'd get the player for 4 years (not including the 5th year option for this) and we'd save $8m per year.  To be honest, Walker is an average OT and we got him for a bargain at $10m.  So if we draft an OT, we not only have a starter for next year (regardless of Ickey), we have 2 starting-level LTs on the roster NOW for $15m.  If the OT we draft works out and we do not re-sign Walker, we save $8m x 3 years--$24m.  So the BPA model might be the code you live or die by, but I ask it this way:  Would you rather have a Safety and $1.4m in cap room savings or an OT and $8m per year cap savings?  Both are needs.  Both would be rated in the middle of the draft's first round. The OT and the $8m in savings would get you a starting OT AND the $8m would get you a starting free agency safety, if you think about it. If you step back and see the big picture, use the rookie scale to your advantage, you can improve your roster beyond merely taking the BPA, whatever that means. Looking at the Panther's draft, if they draft OT in round 1, DT in round 2, and both start, they could save about $16m of cap space per year when compared to what average veteran free agents would cost.  LB, C, TE, and S can come later, if you follow this blueprint.   I am not saying that I would draft based solely on this concept, but I am saying that it would be a variable--a big one.   
    • nick just got a bonus-    extra 1,262,216, dang that's a nice bag...
×
×
  • Create New...