After 14 Games Injury Bug Bites the Panthers Defense

by Jaxon on Dec 25, 2008 6:09 PM EST Comment 6 comments

Amazingly not a single starter on the Carolina Panthers defense has missed a start this season until last Sunday's game against the Giants. I'm sure you are very aware of DT Maake Kemoeatu's injury at this point so here's his prognosis for the Panthers finale against the Saints:

"I'm pretty close," Kemoeatu said. "As far as right now, I think I can go Sunday. I was probably 60 or 70 percent last week, but I'm in the 90s now and should be 100 percent by Sunday."

As you also know the Panthers then suffered two more injuries at DT (Gibson & Lewis) that leave the Panthers very thin at DT. I can't remember the Panthers ever having so many injuries to one specific position in such a short period of time. His return shouldn't be as big of a deal as it was for the Giants game given the Saints are a ‘pass first' offense but I can't imagine they would not try to take advantage.

Keep reading...

In a comment to this post I've linked above, a guy named Jeff asks a very pertinent question:

I wonder if the bend-but don't break mentality is not coming home to roost with these injuries. Both DT's injured, coincidence? maybe. But when you are being double teamed to death it has got to take its toll.

I can't imagine that the Panther DT's get double-teamed any more than other teams that run a base 4-3 defense. What may actually be at the root of it is only having a 4 tackle rotation all season. The Panthers may need to consider making 5 active on Sunday's against run oriented offenses. I'm curious what other people may think of this point. Should the Panthers carry more than 4 DT's?

Kemo Celebrates a 4th Down Stuff vs the Bears

===========

The Name Game Continues

In describing the Panthers running game Saints LB Scott Fugita used a familiar nickname for the Panthers RB tandem:

"They've really started to pick up a lot of steam. This DeAngelo Williams is playing the best I've ever seen him play," Saints linebacker Scott Fujita said. "It's kind of a two-headed monster and both are a lot to prepare for with a great offensive line playing in front of them."

I would love to see another big rushing performance from the Two-Headed Monster! That would keep Brees off the field and end any hope of him breaking the passing record against the Panthers.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Do we have 5 DT now?

Before it may have been an option but do we even have that option now? All jokes aside, you do pose a good question. Against a run heavy team sure, but I then who sits? an O-line, Safety, CB, LB?

Tough choices.

by LittleKing on Dec 25, 2008 9:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My gut says to sit Ken Lucas. He's made many mistakes that irritate me to death.

I’d go with the linebackers. We have a crew of nice tough linebackers, and one capable backup. Sit one.

"Once again the trowsers of evil are yanked down by the mocking hands of justice!"-Revshawn

by Revshawn on Dec 25, 2008 9:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

toughen up

I think we don’t sit anyone, and we keep things the way they are. With that said, use some different schemes like a 3-4 or rotate Peppers, Johnson or Brayton into the DT spot a little more in certain situations. One reason why DL get hurt is becuase they spend too much time on the field. Maybe if we got a little more offense going in the Giants game, we wouldn’t be in this situation. Our offense needs to convert more 3rd downs and play better. D-Will won’t score 4 TDs every week. If we could get about 35-40 minutes time of possession Sunday, and then we have the bye, we’ll be good for the playoff run through NY to the Superbowl.

by usana_gaines on Dec 26, 2008 7:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

3-4 D

A good 3-4 defense needs a good nose tackle however. Someone that demands a double team. Don’t think we have that right now either. It’s definitely not an easy solution.

by LittleKing on Dec 26, 2008 7:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

53 man roster

This isn’t just for us, but I think the 53 man roster needs to be re-evaluated. Actually, what I mean the 53 man roster is fine, but i don’t think a team should have to deactivate any of their players. You here all the time about shortening preseason and injury concerns. Well I think one answer to that is to have all 53 players active for every game.

by LittleKing on Dec 26, 2008 7:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I've never understood that

why only 45 active. It must be part of the player’s union contract but I’m not sure who benefits from that. Owners still pay the same amount to the players on the roster. It doesn’t make sense to me.

I blog the Carolina Panthers at www.catscratchreader.com

by Jaxon on Dec 26, 2008 9:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs