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!

     

Game Grades - Seahawks at Panthers

Zod

By Zod,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Zod Grand Master

Zod

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Russell Wilson...25 of 33 for 320 yds.  You tell me.

 

Just saying...you can spin this how you want.  Front 7 was very good.  The rest of the D was noodle like.  Would that have been enough if Olsen did not end drives with drops and DWill not fumble?  Yes.  But, did not change the fact the pass coverage sucked.

 

I'll spin it as allowing 12 points and I'll take that every week and be more than happy, as you should be too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted

Allowed 12 points to a team that normally scores 30+.

 

Don't sweat the small stuff.

That was last year, I don't know how good Seattle will be this year.  What I do know is that we did not attack the receiver when they entered each zone in our zone coverage and we surely didn't play enough man coverage which was likely caused by our emphasis on stopping the run. Hopefully this won't be a consistent issue because guys like  Brady and Brees will eat us up, which surely isn't the small stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zod Grand Master

Zod

Posted
  • Author
Posted

That was last year, I don't know how good Seattle will be this year.  What I do know is that we did not attack the receiver when they entered each zone in our zone coverage and we surely didn't play enough man coverage which was likely caused by our emphasis on stopping the run. Hopefully this won't be a consistent issue because guys like  Brady and Brees will eat us up, which surely isn't the small stuff.

 

I don't assume we will have the same strategy against passing teams. I would expect more blitzes and pressure, fewer 3 down linemen play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RelaxImaPro Enthusiast

RelaxImaPro

Posted
Posted

Special Teams - F

 

We had like 1 punt return the whole game, a very unimpressive one at that, and way too many fug ups.  We might have limited their returns, but we never even had any of our own.

 

Special Teams was fuging atrocious today.

 

I don't know how in the hell we only managed 7 points.  The offense looked crisp for the most part, but it just seemed bad stuff happened at key moments that limited our chances.  I think we had like 3 drives in the 2nd half... one of which ended in Deangelo's fumble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted

I don't assume we will have the same strategy against passing teams. I would expect more blitzes and pressure, fewer 3 down linemen play.

Yeah you have to figure we game planned for Seattle like we will for Buffalo. I just hope it results in better coverage or Buffalo isn't as good. Either one is fine with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cyberjag Newbie

Cyberjag

Posted
Posted

Interesting how people want to argue that the defense, which played very well overall, has all these problems, and they don't seem to want to discuss an offense that only put 7 points on the board.  If you're looking for a place where we really need to improve, I don't think it's on the defensive side...

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ladypanther Grand Master

ladypanther

Posted
Posted

You mean aside from only allowing 12 points?

 

 

Front 7 gets credit for that IMO.  Not the secondary.  Geez Zod, they did not break up 1 pass, whiffed on a couple of tackles.  Not fair to the front 7 to say the secondary was as good as they were.  Give the front 7 an A+ but the other guys have lots of work to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • CRA
      How many Qbs can you name better than Bryce Young?

      By CRA · Posted

      I don't need that many words to say Bryce Young has not yet surpassed the caliber of QB play that current Joe Flacco represents.   I have watched every game Bryce has played.  He doesn't give you average QB play.   He can't make a ton of throws.  Bryce is consistent overall in what he is.  You can take outlier games on both ends of the spectrum out of play and judge him or any QB.....for Bryce it is unquestioned bottom of the league play.  All you have to do is watch the two play.  Flacco is good enough that if you can keep up right and give him time.....he presents a level of play Bryce can't do as a passer  
    • ForJimmy
      How many Qbs can you name better than Bryce Young?

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      Not sure.  Which ones have more GWDs in the same time frame?
    • MasterAwesome
      How many Qbs can you name better than Bryce Young?

      By MasterAwesome · Posted

      You kinda gloss over this, but this is really at the crux of this whole argument....which Flacco are we talking here?  You bring up that he played with 3 different teams but ignore the fact that his performance varied quite a bit from team to team. 2024 Colts: 65.3% completion, 12 TDs, 7 INTs, 220.1 YPG, 7.1 Y/A, 90.5 rating 2025 Browns: 58.1% completion, 2 TDs, 6 INTs, 203.8 YPG, 5.1 Y/A, 60.3 rating 2025 Bengals: 63.4% completion, 12 TDs, 3 INTs, 290.6 YPG, 6.8 Y/A, 96.2 rating 2025 Flacco (Browns + Bengals): 61.1% completion, 14 TDs, 9 INTs, 252.0 YPG, 6.1 Y/A, 80.8 rating vs. 2025 Bryce: 62.7% completion, 14 TDs, 7 INTs, 196.2 YPG, 6.2 Y/A, 86.0 rating I bolded the comparison that I think objectively makes the most sense...just simply comparing the two QBs for the entire season.  Otherwise you'd be cherry-picking Flacco's time with the Bengals and ignoring his earlier stint with the Browns, which sounds an awful lot like people cherry-picking Bryce's stats in the second half of last season. So again, which Flacco?  Basically the only thing consistent with Flacco across each of these teams was his W/L records: 2-4, 1-3, and 1-4 respectively.  I'd say if we're comparing each version of him to Bryce this year: Colts Flacco > 2025 Bryce, Browns Flacco <<< 2025 Bryce, Bengals Flacco >> 2025 Bryce, and 2025 Flacco < 2025 Bryce - Flacco this year only beats out Bryce on YPG but in part because he throws significantly more passes (almost 60 YPG more than Bryce, despite a lower Y/A which is pretty telling) .  Flacco is maybe the most apt case study about how important a QB's circumstances are to his success.  He was easily a bottom 3 QB in Cleveland and arguably top 10-15 in Cincinnati...and we're talking about the same player from the same season.  All that happened was taking him from one team and plopping him onto another team; nothing inherently changed about him as a QB.  Funny enough I think that's all that one dude on here was trying to say when he made that long poorly-received post after having an epiphany working for PFF behind the scenes or w/e.  That it's largely short-sighted to just try to evaluate QBs in a vacuum when there are so many variables at play that ultimately decide whether a QB is successful or not.   I think Bryce has been mediocre at best this season and I'm ready to move on regardless of how he ends this season - I'm highly skeptical a strong end to the season will carry over into next year considering how last year ended and this year began.  I would certainly agree that he's a bottom-third QB this year.  I just don't understand you scoffing indignantly at anyone holding the opinion that Bryce has had a better season than Flacco...I can only assume it's recency bias.  Or maybe you know the stats don't support you, which is why you're conjuring up the god-forsaken arbitrary "eyeball test" which is the kinda thing people in here were saying about Fields for years, pinky promising that he really truly was a franchise QB despite his awful stats.  Perhaps it's called the eyeball test because I roll my eyes anytime I hear someone bring it up seriously as an argument.
×
×
  • Create New...