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!

     

2010 strength of schedule.

CatMan72

By CatMan72,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted

strength of schedule will mean even less this year than usual. Last year's teams will be very different than this year. Look at our team. Do we look at all like last year? There are a bunch of teams that have made significant changes to the point that the current teams will hardly represent their previous ones. For example if Favre retires and they can't adequate replace him, Minnesota will be night and day different from last year. How about Philly without McNabb or Washington with him. The list goes on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CharlotteBeer.com Newbie

CharlotteBeer.com

Posted
Posted

Good read, but these things are insanely inaccurate. There are always a handful of teams that go from the slums to playoff contenders every year.

Well, sure. But at the same time, many teams are perennially horrible (I'm thinking virtually the entire NFC West here).

Before the season started, we were slated to have one of the toughest schedules in 2009. I think that schedule played out accurately, for the most part. The teams we thought would be contenders were through much of the season (even if we ended up embarassing them -- see the Minnesota Vikings).

Likewise, there will be some teams that go from being contenders one season to the slums the next. Of the teams we face, I could see Pittsburgh, Arizona and Cincinnatti in this bunch.

We had a relatively easy schedule in 2008, and it definitely remained that way through the season thanks to playing always awful teams like Kansas City, Detroit and Oakland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

Good read, but these things are insanely inaccurate. There are always a handful of teams that go from the slums to playoff contenders every year.

Well, sure. But at the same time, many teams are perennially horrible (I'm thinking virtually the entire NFC West here).

Before the season started, we were slated to have one of the toughest schedules in 2009. I think that schedule played out accurately, for the most part. The teams we thought would be contenders were through much of the season (even if we ended up embarassing them -- see the Minnesota Vikings).

Likewise, there will be some teams that go from being contenders one season to the slums the next. Of the teams we face, I could see Pittsburgh, Arizona and Cincinnatti in this bunch.

We had a relatively easy schedule in 2008, and it definitely remained that way through the season thanks to playing always awful teams like Kansas City, Detroit and Oakland.

this is my thinking. there is always a balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Swarly Newbie

Swarly

Posted
Posted

Well, sure. But at the same time, many teams are perennially horrible (I'm thinking virtually the entire NFC West here).

Definitely true. We can potentially sweep NFC west. Seahawks have gotten worst(and made one of the dumbest trades for a quarterback since Jay Cutler lol.). 49ers are going to be average, and may be tough to beat because of their good defense. Cardinals offense depends entirely on Leinert, which is a good thing for us. and the Rams are, well, the Rams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ncbobcat Newbie

ncbobcat

Posted
Posted

Our 2010 strength of schedule is ranked 26th out of all 32 teams. Our opponents for 2010 have a combined .477 winning percentage.

Good year to get a youth movement off the ground if you ask me.

Link: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/21479/2010-strength-of-schedule

Yup, this is the ONLY reason that I'm not totally bummed about the youth movement (A.K.A. rebuilding). As I have stated in other threads, the quality of our schedule should net us 5-6 wins even if we are playing, at best, mediocre ball. Above average play yields another 2 or 3 wins and excellent play might actually see the team get 10 wins.

HOWEVER, given last year's schedule I would see no improvement over wins and loses. In other words, last year's team would have been playoff contenders with this year's schedule.

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

    • WhoKnows
      JJ Jansen on tanking

      By WhoKnows · Posted

      Yes. Fitt said he liked Young for two years. He hitched his wagon to him. Reich and Young were going 2-15, nothing I said we should get would have saved him. A new coach plus Tepper (and Morgan) would have wanted the draft assets we kept or got to be used by a better GM/Coach. SMH, you need to read my post and your own again. You said: “So we should have sold off all of our talent and what?” I was being sarcastic that they still were in the roster because the guys you are saying we shouldn’t have sold off got sold off anyway but instead of getting full value, we got scraps. We had an opportunity to sell at the highs and instead we let the stocks lose 50-75% and then sold them. Because we didn’t tank in 2022 when the Rams basically handed the idea to us, we either set the team back several years to where we won’t do anything and will be back at the drawing board or kept enough talent off the team that we may make the playoffs but we still won’t be a top team like an extra handful of 1st rounders could have gotten us.
    • Stumpy
      Canes vs Caps Rd 2 Gm 5 7pm

      By Stumpy · Posted

      Holy poo... we have allowed the fewest goals in the playoffs, total. Including the teams that lost in the first round... lmao
    • WhoKnows
      JJ Jansen on tanking

      By WhoKnows · Posted

      It was nothing. It was a nice run in an easy schedule that did nothing but lose us DJ Moore and a lot more. We were 2-15 in 2023. Based on your logic, that winning finish should have been a launching point. For as much as you want to say we shouldn’t have taken a risk, you still can’t admit that the plans we tankers laid out were proven correct. There’s no revisionist history. We said we should have traded Burns to the Rams. We said we should have sold off anything not bolted down like Brown and Horn and even Icky because they were in the 5 year plan. There is no disconnect, we tried to keep winning and draft a rookie QB and we lost about 4 1st round picks of value that could have been given to the guys you think might be the right crew.
×
×
  • Create New...