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

By Zod,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Zod Grand Master

Zod

Posted
Posted

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
Delhomeboy Newbie

Delhomeboy

Posted
Posted

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
VA Panther Fan Newbie

VA Panther Fan

Posted
Posted

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
MyDrunkardNC Newbie

MyDrunkardNC

Posted
Posted

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
Snake Grand Master

Snake

Posted
Posted

...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
Fox007 Grand Master

Fox007

Posted
Posted

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.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Yep, like I said, I don't mind guaranteeing them money, but make the contracts smaller amounts in order to minimize cap implications. I don't know about "half," the actual amounts, whether more or less than half, would have to be determined by the NFL and NFLPA (which will probably be highly contentious, if not "impossible").  I'm just for whatever leads to the best product on the field while also unaffecting my wallet. As an aside, the NFL owners are greedy bastards in my estimation. They're trying to keep a larger portion of the pie, but players' agents are greedy as well, and they've sewn seeds of greed among the players. It's not all their fault; we all know what our society has evolved into, but the NFL wants a bigger piece of our smaller pocketbooks and refuses to "negotiate" with us (that's why we don't have cheaper and more reasonable à la carte options to view games that they're gradually trying to migrate to paid TV), so fu<k 'em. And then on top of that we have guys trying to water down the product even more by feeding greed. Change the way things are done so that we can at least see players prove themselves on the field without throwing wrenches into the engine that pays guys that have proven they can play on a pro level.
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Teddy Checkdown in trouble

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      So if one of the parents wants to buy the theatre group or the band lunch they should get banned?
    • TD alt
      Teddy Checkdown in trouble

      By TD alt · Posted

      OK, I didn't realize this was about high school, but...if I'm spending my personal money trying to help some kids out, then no one is going to tell me how to spend my money. I get enough of the government spending my money--allocating my tax dollars--to children who don't really need anything, and now they're trying to tell me how to spend my personal money? Sure, there are many other issues to consider and rabbit holes that we could go down due to ethical concerns because it concerns kids, and the need for transparency is extremely important, but maybe as opposed to trying to stop kids from benefitting in darkness, we need to open up the blinds (and blinders) a little bit so that they can benefit in the light. I get where you're coming from, but this is a loaded and layered issue, and I'm just trying to give you some food for thought. 
×
×
  • Create New...