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!

     

Playing to Win v. Playing not to Lose


jtm

Recommended Posts

I think Rivera will balance being conservative in situations where it is warranted with going all out. I have an odd amount of faith in him and the rest of the coaching staff.

dont get it. It's the same thing lol if you "play to win" that's "playing not to lose" :out:

Exactly. You're playing not to lose to win so that you don't lose while winning at playing to not lose as winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont get it. It's the same thing lol if you "play to win" that's "playing not to lose" :out:

In theory sure - but in practice it's very different. Playing not to lose involves a lot of boring play and trying not to make mistakes at the expense of doing anything to actively try to win the game. You rely on the other team to make mistakes and let you win rather than taking the risks needed to win without them fuging up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times did Fox get a touchdown lead and start running dive plays trying to play ball control. It is real tough to do that now with all the high powered offenses. Also, once we got leads, we didn't blitz often and would never take any chances. Huge difference in philosophy. I can't see how people didn't see this huge difference.

If you look at the top teams like the Pats and Packers; once they get a lead they step on the gas. Seems we will have a similar philosophy this year v. having Fox that started burning the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And JTM, you are right on the money... The whole presence of this team is different with Rivera. It's just hard nosed, all-out, punch you in the mouth, "whatever tough cliche you want to use", football.

Seriously, it's a huge difference and it shows in the way the players play and carry themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put it in:

The point is about aggression vs conservativism. I play a lot of games, and whenever you're faced with the question 'should I play it safe or go for it?' the answer is always 'it depends on your risk and reward'. What happens if you get it right? What happens if you get it wrong? Do the risks outweigh the rewards? Are you throwing to Revis Island when you're up by 2 scores and can just run it in, or are you down by 3 and think you can pull a double move on a rookie corner? The problem with Fox is that he'll just about always go for the conservative move, regardless of the risk/rewards. When he finally decides to take a risk, it's because it's late in the 4th quater and we're down mulitple scores. It's too late. I'm glad that kind of bad decision making has left Charlotte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It all sounds great. The only unknowns are injuries and how they will need to be addressed. Horn has a history as does the newly added Jaelen Phillips and Cooker has yet to play an entire season as well. And then there are the Ikey's - totally unexpecteded injuries that put a major wrench in your plans. I do think its a great plan though.
    • If we pay Bryce like a franchise QB we're completely and utterly buttfuged.
    • In my view, the realistic expectation for this team to compete will start 2027.  At that time, I think we could be looking at the following (this is HIGHLY speculative):   QB:  You know, Bryce.  I am not a fan, but they don't ask me.  But there is reason for hope--and here it is.  Bryce will be entering his prime.  Since we are likely to pay him, there will be changes that I include throughout this exercise--I realistically speculate on what they are going to do with Bryce and then I realistically speculate on what means in terms of the cap and other positions. Bryce HAS IMPROVED.  The idea is that if you give him more weapons and protection, that will continue.  His career:   At this rate, if his growth continues, by 2027 we should expect nearly 30 TDs and about 12 Interceptions and a Rating of about 98.  His completion percentage should settle at 65-66% or so.  If that happens, you can win with it. The following stats demonstrate how the Panthers will be able to afford it (and re-sign Ickey) My guess is they will require about $60m per year. This is why rookies who can play are important.  It also helps us see the blueprint.  You may disagree, but this is the cruel realities of the salary cap. Robert Hunt:  Cut post June 1 and save $19m.  Who do you replace him with?  Ickey. Tershawn Wharton:  Cutting him saves nearly $15m.  We should all hope to see Aaron Hall (UDFA) make the roster and play well.  Regardless, this is a position we would likely have to address in the next draft. Trevin Moehrig:  Cutting Moehrig as the starting SS saves this team $16.5m.   Ransom will be on year 3 of a cheap rookie deal and should be more than ready to take the reins.  their styles are similar.  Furthermore, FS Wheatley (R, 4th round) will be starting. Taylor Moton:  So much depends on his knee, but I have an idea that he can play another 3 years.  extending him could save the team about $5m per year.  Cutting him outright would save the team about $21m. In the most drastic situation, we have to cut Moton and the other three players mentioned.   We would need (in all likelihood) a starting DT and RT.  It is possible that the DE would be addressed, but Wharton's production (so far) could be equaled by a rookie.  Look for a cut free agent and a 2027 draft pick here.  If you cut Moton, you save $21m, and that would be the only big hole to fill.  Having Ickey at RG gives you some depth at T, and Ickey could be the guy.  T could be pick in the 2027 draft (first round), fwiw.  It saves you $21m while costing you $5m, for example. We get younger, creating a core of Freeling, Hecht, and the RT first rounder in 2027) along with Ekownu (second contract in the $15m range, and Lewis, whose contract would be in the $16m range if not extended.)  The OL cuts (Hunt, Moton) would save $40m.  The OL would get younger and still solid with veterans at G.   By cutting Wharton (no brainer if his play stays the same) and Moehrig (good player--but we have Ransom on a rookie contract who would not be that much of a drop off--if any) in addition to Hunt and Moton, we would save over $70m in cap room. We would be able to give Bryce bag  and we would have enough to re-sign Ickey (if the knee is not too risky) to a Guard contract (probably at a discount, coming off that injury).  Furthermore, we could add a RT in the draft (or a RG if Ickey moves to RT) and that would be the only large hole to fill. Correct my logic if you see issues-- On defense, in addition to the aforementioned, Scott ($2m contract) is out, replaced by a 4th round rookie contract. CB Jackson's contract ($7.8m) expires and he is (possibly) replaced by a rookie contract.  At Edge, patrick Jones II's $10m contract expires and he is likely a reserve, and his role is absorbed by Phillips, Scourton, Princely, and possible an UDFA like Isaiah Smith or a 2027 draft pick.   These productive developmental players over the past 2 drafts will pay huge dividends.  On paper, I see the team getting much younger and possibly better while cutting nearly $100m and reallocating that money to get more production.          
×
×
  • Create New...