Veterans of 2001

[brandon_87]

this year is far worse, at least in 01' we could score and kept games close, this year is just embarassing

[Cyberjag]

I'll take this season over 2001. Mainly because while noone wanted to say it we all already knew this was a rebuilding year and that the odds were this team was going to surprise everyone and go on a role like the Falcons did after Vick or they were going to be dogs. No 8-8 season this year, it was great or horrible.

The 2001 team was suppose to be competative, and they were. They just couldn't get wins...

Right now I would be surprised if most people on the board didn't say this season was worse. But for the reasons above, it has been far better than in 2001. In 2001 we had a team designed to be competitive, we were supposed to be some sort of contender in the NFC. Instead, that team was absolutely awful. They lost in every way possible, there was no leadership, and there was fairly little hope that things would get better. There was NO hope that they would get better quickly.

Ask a fan in 2001 if they thought the team would have a shot at 8-8 in 2002 and you would get laughed at. The team was that bad--don't let the scores fool you. You never had the sense that they could buckle down and hold on to a victory, and they never did. They lost 15 straight for a reason.

In 2010, we blew up the entire roster and got rid of all our veterans. We also have a coaching staff that's in it's final year, and everyone knows it. This team has been hamstrung from the start, yet they play hard every week. We have talent that's young and on which we can build a solid foundation for the future. I'm not thinking 8-8 next year, I believe that if we get good QB play and a decent HC, we should be in contention for the South. That's a huge difference between the two seasons right there.

Right now 2010 sucks bad. But in a few years, those of us who were around for both seasons will recall the flashes this team has shown, and will realize that it's been a much, much better year.

[Davidson Deac II]

I think most people would pick this year, simply because its fresher in our memory.

I went to one game in 2001, the Arizona game. It was my first game at Bank of America (or maybe it was Ericcson) stadium, and it was a miserable performance. I think our first play from scrimage was a fumble, that was recovered by Az in the endzone for a score (about 20 feet from where I was sitting). And it didn't get any better. Most pathetic performance I have ever seen. That team gave up. I don't think this one has, although it is certainly outmanned.

[davos]

2001 was more painful for me because after that Minny game I was pretty pumped. Then close game after close game it became so frustrating. And of course Todd Steussie was there...urghhh!!!

[Duncan81]

01 team could've been 9-7......a college team could handle this years team

[err456]

I was much more upset in 2001. At the time I still had faith in GS and expected a great year especially after that 1st game at Min.

My faith in Fox has been long gone. I didn't expect this year to be this bad but I was enough of a realist to expect no more than a 7-9 season. Lets face it 7-9 just isn't that much to get excited about anymore.

[panthers55]

Losing sucks in either case so it hard to say one type of sucking is better or worse than another. But with that being said, the 01 team was in a lot of games and we scored points. Plus we had several years leading up to 2001 where we didn't have a winning team so no one was too distraught about sucking. After going from 12-4 in 2008 to what will likely be 2-14 this year, the steep fall is worse. Particularly when we know that the front office could have easily avoided it.

[BIGH2001]

This may be really really bad to say, but the 2001 season we were in every game. Why fire Seifert? <cringes from backlash> With '01 we had hope each week that we might pull it out. This year its easily seen we all are wondering by how much we'll get blown out.

Side note: Anybody know if the game tomorrow will be carried locally?

We weren't in every game in 2001. We also got blown out several times. Most notably I remember getting crushed in St. Louis and then the final two home games against Az and New England. I think I remember that team getting emabarrased in Miami too and by Green Bay at home. There were plenty of close games to be sure but not every game.

Also we fired Seifert because no one liked him and the players thought he was a smug, arrogant ass which he was. He didn't exactly have guys lining up to run through a brick wall for him.

Back to the topic at hand, 2001 was worse for me. I was far more emotionally invested in that team for whatever reason. Maybe I lacked perspective but those losses seemed crushing in a way that this season's losses don't even compare.

[PhillyB]

i personally was more miserable through 2007 than any other season. the entire team was mediocre through and through. at least in 2001 we had the number one pick to look forward to, just like this year.

2007 was just a break-even season, and we knew we'd still have fox and delhomme at the helm the next year. highly depressing.

[Tarheels23]

There was no fantasy football in 2001 (or at least it wasn't as popular as it is now) so 2001 was by far worse to watch, because there was no point after a while.

Great Point!

[Anybodyhome]

Towards the end of the 2001 season I was still willing to make the drive to Charlotte and sit through the games because the team was competitive with less talent. They were in games and always seemed as though they had an opportunity to win.

This year I went into the season with zero expectations and those expectations have been met and exceeded...in the wrong direction... with far more talent. I stopped wanting to make the drive after the 3rd home game.

The 2001 team would try something, anything to get back into a game if they found themselves down by more than a TD.

The 2010 version is typical Foxball. Once they're down by a score or 2 it's all over. While Steve Smith may be yelling at the fans to "Stand the f%$! up!" the reality is we've been watching the same crap for a few years now and we seem to know better than some that it's going nowhere.

[thefuzz]

This season is far, far worse.

In 2001 we were still working through the growing pains of being an expansion franchise. We should have our poo together by now, and we don't.

Sad.

[bababoey]

I know most people are saying the 2010 team is so much worse than the 2001 team. But that is because it is harder to remember the 2001 team. The 2001 defense may have had more talent with guys like Jenkins, Morgan, Rucker, Minter and Grant but you have got to remember how young that denfense was.

Jenkins and Morgan were both rookies and Morgan broke his leg in the game against the Packers where the field was just so God awful and missed about half the season(whatelse is new). Rucker and Grant were both in their first full year starting. The coners were old(Evans) or sucked(Anderson). And the rest of the LB and DL were guys who were past their prime or were not any good to being with.

The Offensive Line was just awful. Moose missed about half the year with different injuries and the rest of the WR were really nothing. Smith caught like 10 passes that year, he was just a returner. The RB were not good and it did not really matter because we did not run the ball at all.

I know that year we lost like 7 or 8 games by 7 points or less but that may have been pure luck as much as anything. The 2001 special teams were better and we threw the ball more, not better but more.

But beside that I could not tell you another part of the 2001 team that is/was better than this 2010 team.

The 2010 DL, LB, RB, OL, Secondary and possibly WR(hard to say) are all better than the 2001 team.

Just my 2 cents.

[Lief43]

This season. By far.