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!

     

Did the Fox intervention really hurt the defense?


Zod

Recommended Posts

Fox got involved with the defense after the Tampa Bay game.

Till that point, they had played the teams with these offensive rankings

11

26

17

6

24

14

1 of the 6 teams were top 10 offenses.

Here are the rankings of the offenses they played post Fox involvement...

1

4

29

30

6

8

14

2

7

1

7 of the 10 teams were top 10 offenses.

So you tell me, was it Fox getting involved in the Defense making the defense look worse, or was it playing against better offenses that did it?

Would the defense have been even worse without Fox's involvement?

Very possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest question mark will be what in the hell happened to the D in the final quarter of the NO game and the 1st half of the playoff game?

I dunno about the final quarter, but I honestly attribute some of the playoff game to the fuging bye week. Nothing like one of those to kill momentum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with any problem, there are usually contributing factors. Have to consider that the health of the defense also started to decline at the same time that the team played the most difficult part of the schedule.

But, the fact of the matter is, the Panthers were able to shutdown some pretty impressive running backs early in the year only to get stomped on by lessers during the second half of the schedule.

And, you still can't get past the fact that Larry Fitzgerald was more open than a 7/11 during the one-and-done playoffs. You can argue that things could have been worse without Fox's involvement, but you certainly can't argue that things got better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

youre an idiot, the defense couldnt get any worse, its not possible.

Things can always get worse -- the Panthers weren't the lowest ranked defense anyway. I mean, sure they gave up 28 or 30 points a game, but it could have been 40 or more points. So look on the bright side . . . :coolgleamA:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and the secondary forgetting what planet they were on at times.

Blame who you want but horrible coaches was a big part of our problems. I cant count how many times the LBs and CBs looked lost in games last year. Poor coaching leads to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opponents offense should never really matter how well our defense plays.

If you have a good defense, that good offense won't look so good.

Teams are going to score and move the ball, that is going to happen, but if you have a defense worth a damn they won't get pushed around up and down the field all game long.(like what happened to us)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...