Would you be ok with a Trent Dilfer, if you got the defense that came with him?

[CRA]

with today's rules....the 00 Ravens D would have given up more points.

[teeray]

You must have become a fan after Moore stopped playing QB and when you realized we'd have the #1 pick. It makes since considering all your posts!

:sifone:

Maybe. I just thought when you threw completions in the end zone it had to be to the same team to count as TDs.

I remember Moore having a lot of completions in the end zone though. That is for sure. Just wish we had the points to show for them.

[TheRealDeal]

Maybe. I just thought when you threw completions in the end zone it had to be to the same team to count as TDs.

I remember Moore having a lot of completions in the end zone though. That is for sure. Just wish we had the points to show for them.

You must not know the difference between Endzone and Redzone then. He had 1 in the endzone, a few in the redzone.

Common misconception from people who didn't watch the games. Considering you weren't a fan in week 1, I don't expect you to know what happened and I expect you to base your posts off other posts, which exaggerated the point due to their Moore hate, which you have now picked up on and claimed it as fact.

Please leave. :D

[teeray]

It was the first game where he had the most completions in the endzone to the other team. 3 times I believe. Again, not sure we got points for any of those.

http://blogs.charlotte.com/panthers/2010/09/fourth-quarter-giants-pulling-away.html

http://espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=300912019

[Cyberjag]

Matt Moore is 5-0 when the Panthers hold their opponents to 10 points or less. When they don't, he's 1-2. And a lot of people think he's all that at QB, right?

So maybe all we do need is an incredible defense, and that will fix our QB problem.

Right Jangler? :)

[Cyberjag]

Matt Moore is 5-0 as a starter when the Panthers allow 10 points or less. When they allow more than 10, he's 2-5. So maybe all we do need to do is get a great defense, because when Moore is winning everyone thinks he's a great QB, right?

And if we do get a great defense, then Moore should be the guy I think. He's the only QB we have who has experience with a defense that allows 10 or fewer points.

Right Jangler? :)

[panthers55]

Matt Moore is 5-0 as a starter when the Panthers allow 10 points or less. When they allow more than 10, he's 2-5. So maybe all we do need to do is get a great defense, because when Moore is winning everyone thinks he's a great QB, right?

And if we do get a great defense, then Moore should be the guy I think. He's the only QB we have who has experience with a defense that allows 10 or fewer points.

Right Jangler? :)

Seriously, that is your logic????

In 4 of 5 games we lost with Moore at quarterback this year the offense scored 10 or fewer points. In the one game we won our defense gave up 20 points but we scored 23.

Our defense didn't win any games for Moore, scoring over 20 points did.

Look at 2009, he went 4-1 and in the 1 game we lost our offense scored 10 points. In the wins our lowest offensive output was 16 points but the average was over 25 points.

For the most part what helped him win was a potent offense not great defense. If you really thought he was your guy you would go Green in the draft and build up the offense. If you went defense it would be Peterson as much for his special teams which is an offensive weapon as for his defense which would still be somewhat wasted on the Panthers' zone defense.

[Cyberjag]

Seriously, that is your logic????

In 4 of 5 games we lost with Moore at quarterback this year the offense scored 10 or fewer points. In the one game we won our defense gave up 20 points but we scored 23.

Our defense didn't win any games for Moore, scoring over 20 points did.

Look at 2009, he went 4-1 and in the 1 game we lost our offense scored 10 points. In the wins our lowest offensive output was 16 points but the average was over 25 points.

For the most part what helped him win was a potent offense not great defense. If you really thought he was your guy you would go Green in the draft and build up the offense. If you went defense it would be Peterson as much for his special teams which is an offensive weapon as for his defense which would still be somewhat wasted on the Panthers' zone defense.

Nah, it's not my logic. But it is the same exact stuff I said about him when we were depending on him to be "the man" in Carolina. He never really won games for us, he was more often the beneficiary of great play around him, and on the other side of the ball. Not that it's a bad thing, of course--a lot of teams win with game-manager types.

Here's what I actually think about the point I started the thread over. First, I'm being realistic--we're not winning the Super Bowl next year. So I prefer we take a bit of a longer view.

Second, I feel like even with no changes on offense, we should go from bad to mediocre just with the return of Otah and Williams, coupled with experience at receiver and an OC who cares about scoring.

Third, it's my personal opinion that it's a lot easier to go from mediocre to good than it is to go from good to great.

Fourth, a team that's great on one side of the ball will win a lot of games, so long as they're at least good on the other.

So, if we have the opportunity to become great on defense, then I think we go for it. We got great in 2002, and when our offense took a step forward in 2003 the combination took us to the Super Bowl.

The part about Moore is just chain yanking. Although if our defense is great, he's just as good as anyone to run the offense. :)

[panthers55]

Nah, it's not my logic. But it is the same exact stuff I said about him when we were depending on him to be "the man" in Carolina. He never really won games for us, he was more often the beneficiary of great play around him, and on the other side of the ball. Not that it's a bad thing, of course--a lot of teams win with game-manager types.

Here's what I actually think about the point I started the thread over. First, I'm being realistic--we're not winning the Super Bowl next year. So I prefer we take a bit of a longer view.

Second, I feel like even with no changes on offense, we should go from bad to mediocre just with the return of Otah and Williams, coupled with experience at receiver and an OC who cares about scoring.

Third, it's my personal opinion that it's a lot easier to go from mediocre to good than it is to go from good to great.

Fourth, a team that's great on one side of the ball will win a lot of games, so long as they're at least good on the other.

So, if we have the opportunity to become great on defense, then I think we go for it. We got great in 2002, and when our offense took a step forward in 2003 the combination took us to the Super Bowl.

The part about Moore is just chain yanking. Although if our defense is great, he's just as good as anyone to run the offense. :)

I can agree with you in pointing out that you can make the playoffs with one side of the ball being outstanding and the other being average to good. Winning in the playoffs requires the outstanding side of the ball to stay the same and the other side to improve while you are on a run. I have made the same argument.

I hope you are right about the offense although that side of the ball is clearly the weak link. You could make the argument you postulated about the defense as well. Lets assume everything stays the same with the exception of finding a few DTs in free agency. I would suggest that the defense will definitely be better with Davis getting healthy, the secondary and line gaining experience by the rotational guys, and a more aggressive scheme.

I have always been of the mindset that it is easier to improve the defense than the offense given that the defense is mostly read and react and built on being active and aggressive. The offense is based on precision, timing, and execution which is more easily disrupted when a few pieces of the puzzle go missing.

I don't know what to think about Moore at this point. I have gone from a big advocate of his to being concerned about his ability to handle pressure. It would be great to think either Moore or Clausen would be able to do the job for us. I just don't want a repeat of 2010 so I would not want to put all my eggs in that basket.

[TheRealDeal]

I don't know what to think about Moore at this point. I have gone from a big advocate of his to being concerned about his ability to handle pressure. It would be great to think either Moore or Clausen would be able to do the job for us. I just don't want a repeat of 2010 so I would not want to put all my eggs in that basket.

There was a small article on Saturday in the Observer about Moore and pressure and when his back up against the wall.

Moral of the story was the dude comes out swinging and wins via TKO.

Don't count him out

[thefuzz]

I am all for going D in the draft and the D getting to a top tier unit, but we still need to put up points, and lots of them.

Scoring 10 points and winning is still winning, but it's an awfully boring way to do it.