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!

     

Going to be a long 2 weeks


Hairless Cat

Recommended Posts

Well at least we have stuff like this to read until then.

Grades from the Bears-Panthers game on Oct. 10.

QUARTERBACKS: F-

It’s hard to imagine a quarterback looking worse than Todd Collins, but Jimmy Clausen did his best. Matt Moore was no better, with a higher pick-attempt ratio (2-10). This team as presently constructed is incapable of passing.

RUNNING BACKS: C

It looked so good early, with a strong first drive. But they’re now 4-40 under Fox when they get 25 or fewer rush attempts in a game. They have to have a chance.

RECEIVERS: F

You’ve reached a special depth when it’s hard to imagine Steve Smith helping much. From Brandon LaFell’s dropped balls and ill-timed penalties (newcomer David Clowney got in that act, too) to the weird interception off Armanti Edwards, it was just bizarre.

OFFENSIVE LINE: D

Clausen was sacked five times, but it wasn’t as bad as that sounds. There were creases for the run game early, there just weren’t enough opportunities.

DEFENSIVE LINE: C

Everette Brown and Ed Johnson came up with picks, and if you take out getting gashed in the first quarter, they didn’t play that badly against the run (34 Chicago rushes for 96 yards, 2.8 per attempt).

LINEBACKERS: C

There was nothing truly offensive, and they did some good things at times. But these guys are getting run ragged by an offense that can’t get them a decent chance to drink Gatorade.

DEFENSIVE BACKS: C

Charles Godfrey and rookie Jordan Pugh came up with picks, but at this point, you have to dock these guys points for not taking them to the house. That might be the only way this team scores.

SPECIAL TEAMS: D

There were some good things (notably stalwart punter Jason Baker). But big returns allowed early helped trigger the avalanche.

COACHING: F

John Fox is coming perilously close to running out of buttons to push. He’s tried yelling, he’s tried babying. He’s tried mixing up the game plan, he’s tried going with the old reliables. The wretched offense isn’t all about play calls, but the ones they’re dialing up aren’t helping, either.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/10/10/1753598/report-card.html#ixzz1209naI5Q

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/10/10/1753598/report-card.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the drive home I was trying to think of bright spots.

1) Baker looked great

2) D-Will had some good runs

that is all

The interceptions by our two linemen (Ed Johnson and Brown) were lulzy. They were highlights of the game for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It's not impossible to go from worst to first.  We kept Evero because anyone in there right mind knew our defense was destroyed by injuries, not the scheme.  Evero has been given a plethora of talent between free agency and the draft, not to mention getting DB back. I fully expect our defense to be very good.  I have no reason to think Jones would say something like that unless he truly felt like that.   
    • We would’ve played Florida and lost in the 1st instead of the 3rd round.  Montreal would have been the 8 seed.
    • I can't get behind a purely subjective re-draft as a method of defining "top-10 QB" status. That invites bias based on vibes/hypotheticals and can ignore actual on-field performance. You and others have said that Bryce has to be a top-10 QB to justify the pick. That's a high bar, which I'm not against, but we need a clear, consistent way to measure it. When I bring up metrics that Bryce has registered in the top-10 in like BTT%, P2S ratio, catchable deep ball rate, etc... they're waved off as either irrelevant or the expected baseline performance. Meanwhile, volume stats like passing yards or win-loss records, both of which depend heavily on roster talent, health, and coaching, are treated as definitive. That's where the inconsistency kicks in. If no performance metric ever counts in his favor and the answer is always going to be "he should be doing that," then we're not evaluating him... we're just holding him to a curve he can't win against. If this is really about performance standards, then let's define them. But if it's just about confirming prior takes based on height and weight, then let's call it what is it and stop pretending that this is a football analysis discussion.
×
×
  • Create New...