Cat Scratch Reader: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Anonymous Eagle covering Marquette!

Carolina Panthers’ Monday Morning Optimist- 12/7/2009

Good morning Panther faithful! I have to start by saying one thing- Redzone Defense WOW! If case you didn't get a chance to see Sunday's game vs. Tampa Bay here's the single reason we won right here: The Carolina Panthers stopped the Buccaneers 5 times in the red zone, and another 3 times between 20 and 30 yards out. While these 20-30 yard stops are not technically red zone defensive stands, for all intents are purposes we had 8 occasions where the Bucs were knocking on the door and the Panthers defense said ‘No'. It was a good thing that the defense stepped up, because the Panthers offense was anemic on Sunday.

As good as the Panthers' defense was on Sunday there are still a lot of other areas to be optimistic about, and some others we need to be wary of. So please join me and I break it all down

After the jump...

Star-divide

In the end the big story for Panther fans wasn't getting a win, amazing red zone defense or stout running by Jonathan Stewart- the storyline for this game was Matt Moore. I'm mentioning Moore now because I'm not including him in my optimistic/pessimistic breakdown. Simply put, he didn't play either well enough, nor did he play poor enough to garner either distinction. However, I will be talking about his play in depth now.

Matt Moore was stepping into the perfect situation on Sunday. Despite not starting since late 2007 he was playing at home, against a 1-10 team, who didn't have their starting and no.1 CB Aqib Talib. If there was a more perfect scenario to step into for a young QB I don't know what is. Moore started well enough; he took care of the football, didn't take many risks and relied on his outlet routes to provide safe yards.

What Moore didn't do, however, was quarterback an offense that were able to effectively move the chains. 70% completion is worth nothing if you aren't moving the ball effectively. Delhomme barks out alignments and points out blitzing LBs to the OL and RB, he calls audibles to get out of clearly bad situations. The Matt Moore run offense did none of this, and it showed in the lack of productivity on the ground. Make no mistake, Jonathan Stewart's numbers look good in the box score, but for those of us who watched the game we know how many horrible situations he willed into big gains. His stats do not give his individual performance credit, as Stewart continually fought against numerous missed blitzes and backfield pressure every down. This was against a team who we've run all over in our previous two outings. Not all of this can be attributed to Matt Moore, but some of the blame has to be leveled on the QB for failing to identify blitzing players are alignments to the offense.

Another area it is clear Moore needs to improve in is leading his receivers. Out of his 14 completed passes only one was a clearly nice lead- the bomb to Steve Smith. The rest of the time he was throwing such that the receiver was getting the ball, but completely unable to get any YAC. When we have limited offensive weapons already you need to make the most of what you have, and Moore didn't make the most of what we had on offense.

Those points aside, he played decently. Finding Steve Smith as many times as Jeff King isn't going to get it done. In Jaxon's postgame wrap-up the poll had 20 people (at the time of this story) vote for Matt Moore to get the game ball. We have become so jaded by abysmal QB play in 2009 that Moore's mediocre performance is stunning to some people, and that's the reason we're 5-7 right now. What worries me if the areas he was lacking in aren't areas a 2 year player should be having issues, they're areas you typically see a rookie struggle in. From where I stand the game ball needs to go to the player who won the game for you, not the player who didn't lose it. If the Panthers' defense goes a very respectable 3-2 on Red Zone stops we lose Sunday's game.

I wanted nothing more than to be writing about Moore's 247 yard, 2 TD, 0 INT game this morning, or the 222 yard, 1 TD, 1 INT the game that numerous people predicted in the ‘Matt Moore prediction thread' but what we got was just average. Not good enough to win a game, not bad enough to lose one- just dead average. I hope Moore gets the start vs. New England this week. Then we'll really get to see the kid's mettle, because as it stands now I don't think I learnt anything new about Matt Moore from a ho-hum performance against a (now) 1-11 team, and this is a time we need to learn about him as a player so we know if he can lead this team in the future or if we need to roll the dice on a rookie QB.

 

OPTIMISTIC

Jon Beason- Extremely Optimistic: Beast, beast, beast! What an amazing game by Beason. Not only was he the team's second leading tackler, but he added two key interceptions. That is how you lead by example. Beason seems to be getting more comfortable in Ron Meeks' system too, at first he looked a little out of place, being using to the more plodding style of Trgovac's 4-3, but now in the cover two he's using his speed and power more effectively, great game.

Jonathan Stewart- Extremely Optimistic: As much as I would have liked to see DeAngelo Williams available for Sunday's game it was really nice to see J-Stew have an entire game to be the feature back. As I mentioned earlier, there were so many plays where Stewart turned nothing into something. Non-Panther fans see Stewart as an injury prone back without knowing his situation, we know him as the tough as nails bowling ball who will hit you in the mouth, then run you over- great stuff to see.

Ron Meeks- Extremely Optimistic: Meeks has pitched a tent in this area every week, and he's not giving it up now. Meeks' defense is better than good, it's great. This is, after all, the NFL. Look at the defensive injuries and tell me you aren't impressed with a pieced together defense- some of whom were on practice squads a few weeks ago and tell me 8 stops inside the 30 yard line isn't impressive. Yes, the players account for a lot of that, but credit has to go with defensive scheming too. During the game thread I was going to give him a ‘somewhat' ranking, but I can't do it; especially after the defensive won this game for us.

Chris Harris- Extremely Optimistic: Chris, Mr. CSR, you made us proud. 5 tackles, 1 end zone INT. Harris was flying around the secondary flat out making plays all day. It was great to see.

Everette Brown- Somewhat Optimistic: I like Everette Brown, I like him a lot. Brown had at least 4 QB hurries on Sunday, and contributed to an incomplete pass which was tantamount to a forced fumble. Furthermore, Brown didn't quit on plays- often being one of the fastest guys in pursuit to the sideline. He's young, but he'll learn. I like what I'm seeing.

Tyrell Sutton- Somewhat Optimistic: Great play from the undrafted rookie. He got limited looks, but averaged an excellent 6.3 ypc. I think he could have gotten some more runs, but he looked good. Perhaps he's the future of our ‘three headed monster' not Mike Goodson, who knows?

CJ Wilson- Somewhat Optimistic: Something has to be said when you're hanging on to a roster spot at 4th CB and you end up playing coverage better than a starter. Wilson was very impressive, and it was nice to see that Panthers give some other guys a look.

Nick Hayden- Somewhat Optimistic: Nice work by Hayden in limited time. The best way to justify staying on the roster is to make plays, and he got a much needed sack.

-

PESSIMISTIC

Offensive Line- Extremely Pessimistic: This group has no fight without Jordan Gross; the also open up no holes, protect the QB or get any push either. They have to play better, they have to. Right now, they're not doing anything well.

Richard Marshall- Extremely Pessimistic: When a CB leads your team in tackles, it's never a good thing. It usually means that said corner was out of position so many times that the opposing QB targeted that side of the field. Well, that's exactly what happened with Marshall. He was outplayed by CJ Wilson who ended up covering for him, and if Marshall is the best CB we have (as some believe) we're in trouble.

Chris Gamble- Somewhat Pessimistic: INT good, PR bad. A takeaway and a giveaway balance each other out. From there you go to his coverage and he was caught out of position a few times. Not a great game for Gamble.

Overall Analysis

The Panthers are now 5-7, and if the ball bounces the right way I definitely see this team being able to finish 8-8 or even (are I say) 9-7. I gave Jake a mulligan on his game vs. Philadelphia, so I'll give Matt Moore a mulligan on this game. I personally intend to treat the game vs. New England as his first start. People can talk about Moore playing ‘mistake free' until the cows come home, but in full games where Jake Delhomme has been asked to throw equal to, or less than 25 times his stats have been:

466 yards, 5 TD, 3 INT, 83.65 rating

The fact remains that when Jake is asked to do what Moore did yesterday he'll play well, ask him to throw 30-50 times and he'll fail. I hope Moore gets a shot to throw those 30-50 times so we can see if he can get it done or not. Until then, the jury is still out on Moore and this season as a whole.

65% Optimistic about the future as we face the New England Patriots

0 recs  |  Comment 61 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Matt Moore

Alright, I’ll be the first to start a rousing discussion. There were a lot of things to be encouraged about in his first starting gig in 2009. As stated, the 70% completion rate is big, and his really pretty deep bomb to Steve Smith was even better. He limited his mistakes, and overall did nothing to lose the game for us.

That said, as James said, he didn’t do anything to win it for us either. He was not the “field general” that Delhomme is. At least not yet. A lot of that awareness simply has to come with time in game situations. I hope that given more time in a starting role he will begin to spot blitzes and coverages, call them out, and adjust accordingly. But, part of that burden is on the Offensive Line as well. They need to do their own play recognition duties. They need to help an inexperienced starter out, and be barking out their own orders.

I got exactly what I expected out of Matt Moore on Sunday. Accurate passing in a limited role. The abilities that have resulted in the Panthers retaining him are evident, but can he piece it together to be a real NFL long-term starter? We will get a better look against New England.

by Tater596 on Dec 7, 2009 10:08 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Absolutely.

He didn’t force any throws and only took one bad sack.

He just needs to work on getting the ball out a little faster in the pocket, but that can easily be attributed to rust.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Dec 7, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Rust and Inexperience

definately, but I think he performed admirably… knowing that every single Panther fan in the country had their eyes on him.

by Tater596 on Dec 7, 2009 10:52 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Some of that rust...

may have been gone by now if he had a chance to play earlier on. I am a firm believer that Jake should have been benched (not permanetly) after the Dallas game but given Jake’s contract and Foxy’s loyalty to the veteran guys it was not to happen. Never believed the “Jake gives us the best chance to win” speech either.

This is Moore’s 4th start so we should give him the benefit of the doubt and not nitpick the mistakes. Time will tell if he has the “it” factor.

Besides, Delhomme played worse against Tampa Bay with Deangelo Williams and Jordan Gross in the lineup.

I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it.

by Davejinxer on Dec 7, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Put yourself inside Moore's head

Rust and inexperience…only your 4th start…first in a season and a half…watched Jake throw 18 ints so far…expected to win vs 1-10 team…shaky O line in front of you…trying to not F*ck it up…wondering if a win will keep you the QB job…taking multiple orders from Coach and OC…

I hope he had a few pints after the game cause his head was probably spinning, combination of jubilation and relief!

by PantherPaddy on Dec 7, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

He played fairly well in the Dallas game

Neither INT was solely his fault, and if we have a defense who remembers to tackle we win that game. Buffalo and NYJ were really the only times the coach could seriously consider benching Delhomme, and with arizona next after Buffalo, Jake had another chance for redemption.

by Flowing Willow on Dec 8, 2009 2:49 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Fair enough.

I’ll omit it all together because the sampling size is too small. 20 passes isn’t enough to use it as a stat.

The NFL only start tracking YPA at 100 attempts.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Dec 7, 2009 10:23 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Telling comments about how Moore thinks...

(from Darin Gantt):

But there was no better display of the kind of game they wanted him to play than after his deep ball to Smith. That one moved them to the Bucs 13-yard line, but they gave it to running back Jonathan Stewart on the next three plays before kicking the field goal that gave them a two-possession lead with seven minutes and 12 seconds left.

Fox alluded to it and Moore admitted that he checked to the running play on third down, admittedly nervous about making sure they at least got a field goal out of the deal.

"My whole mindset there was we are down here, let’s just try to pound the ball in," Moore said. "We have a big guy in our backfield. I want to be as safe as possible. Is that me not taking a chance, maybe, but I just wanted to be as safe as possible and guarantee some points, whether it be three or seven.

"I probably could have thrown the ball, but it was my decision to run it with Stewie and it is what it is. I’m happy with the results."

Mostly because the result wasn’t a total disaster.

Moore said from where he stood, he knew the effects of turnovers, as Delhomme’s 18 picks were doing as much to earn him his chance as the starter’s broken right middle finger.

"We just had a big play," Moore said. "That’s momentum. I knew getting three points puts us up by two scores at that point in the game. That was my whole mentality, especially with a guy like that in the backfield. He’s a big, strong guy and we all know how he runs the ball."

……………now that thinking can be viewed in different ways. Do you take from it that Moore’s going to be unable in the future to pull the trigger when he has to, out of fear of a possible mistake? Maybe. But I see it as good sense — in this circumstance — and a hopeful sign for the future. Unlike Jake, who probably would have locked onto a receiver and tried to force a throw into coverage, Moore let the situation dictate his decision to keep it on the ground — maybe Stewart takes it in, but if he doesn’t, a 2 score lead is way more positive than anything else.

by bigdavis on Dec 7, 2009 10:23 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

I agree Big D...

given the circumstances he made a real good decision there.

by paydirt16 on Dec 7, 2009 10:47 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Mark me down for good sense.

In a way I wanted nothing more than to have him whip one into the end zone every time we had a chance…

But if he felt like it gave them a better chance to win taking the 3 points then I’m glad we ran it. It’s better than having him throw in that situation simply to try and solidify his position as starter.

Sounds like he did what he thought was right for the team rather than what was ideal for himself. That being said if he makes a habit of it then we likely have a confidence issue.

This time though I think he made the right choice in a game where the defense more than met expectations.

by GuyIncognito on Dec 7, 2009 10:49 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

+1

I agree…good sense. Also – had Moore put a little less oomf! into the “meet me at the corner” route with Smith, that would have been a TD as well. Que sera, sera though…

by boywonderncsu on Dec 8, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Good common sense

I think Moore’s decision showed good sense and conservative play. He admitted that is was playing not only because of Jake’s broken finger but because of his interceptions and poor playing. I think Matt did just what Fox and Davidson told him to do. It didn’t make him sparkle for the fans but it did win a game. I feel he showed that he isn’t afraid to pull the trigger when he needs too. We just need to give the young QB a chance to get his feet wet and he will do fine. I know that everyone thinks you need a wonderful pedigree to play QB in the NFL but I am not so convinced of that. Look at all of the first and second round draft picks that have be a bust. We have the rest of the year to see him play if Fox will leave him in the rotation.
Good Luck Matt.

by Cwilly1 on Dec 7, 2009 10:51 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I'd say it was good sense, but also self preservation.

The crowd would have gotten a little ugly if he’d thrown an endzone pick, but the call was the right one. Lean on the running game, why a pass play was called that close to the goalline is beyond me.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Dec 7, 2009 10:54 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Let's admit...

The crown at BofA stadium on Sunday sucked. Both from a numbers standpoint and from a unnecessary booing standpoint.

Whenever that camera panned out, or I could hear the boos and lack of enthusiasm, I was disappointed.

by Tater596 on Dec 7, 2009 10:57 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed...

did you notice how nearly all the camera angles on the TV feed were tight crowd shots, virtually no panning or overhead? Hopefully it’ll be different for the Vikings…at least it’ll be dark!

by PantherPaddy on Dec 7, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The crowd boo’d after the field goal even. Yea 7 would have been better but 3 is better than nothing, stand up for your team who’s already winning and just got even more ahead, damned… I’m constantly disappointed in the crowd at Charlotte

by EyeSack on Dec 7, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm in the good sense camp on this one

he made the right decision … a 2 score lead is more important than taking a chance at a pick-6

by bwsmith25 on Dec 7, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Nice reference Bigdavis..

Moore probably has seen Jake throw too many interceptions this year which may have made him a little gun shy.

I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it.

by Davejinxer on Dec 7, 2009 11:50 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

As always great analysis James..

especially in pointing out Delhomme’s effectiveness at the line of scrimmage calling audibles and helping the O-line pick up the LB’s. I do believe that some of the credit for the Panthers effectiveness in the run game belongs to Delhomme for the reasons you cite. Hopefully that knowledge can passed on to Moore or whoever the heir apparent comes to be.

by paydirt16 on Dec 7, 2009 10:59 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Jake's a class act

You better believe that he was on the sideline giving Moore advice and helping him learn those things that only vets really have a good handle on.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Dec 7, 2009 11:14 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

+1

If Moore keeps the spot he’s got a good vet in his corner. Jake will do all the right things regardless of his role.

Love the Optimist James; it’s a great Monday read.

by GuyIncognito on Dec 7, 2009 11:49 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks, I love writing it for everyone.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Dec 7, 2009 11:50 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

He may be working at that capcity for the next few years...

according to his contract breakdown. Unless he can get it together to be the starter he once was.

I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it.

by Davejinxer on Dec 7, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Here's something else on Moore....

I know it’s way too early to evaluate him, or predict his future, but…
let’s compare him — in his 4th start at QB — to a couple others who turned out okay:

Drew Brees 4th start came on 9/22/02, vs Arizona (he was 23) - the Chargers won 23-15.
     he completed 17 of 31, for 181 yds (5.8 YPA) -0
TD’s, 1 INT, 2 sacks.

Peyton Manning’s 4th start was 9/27/98, vs N.O. (he was 22) — the Colts lost 13-19.
     he completed 19 of 32, for 309 yds (9.7 YPA) 1 TD, 3 INT, 4 sacks

Matt Moore’s 4th start was yesterday, vs TB (he is 25) - the Panthers won 16-6.
     he completed 14 of 20, for 161 yds (8.05 YPA) -0
TD’s, 1 INT, 1 sack.

(this doesn’t show anything but that his future is still ahead of him, after 4 starts, as it was for those 2 guys, wherever they are now.)

by bigdavis on Dec 7, 2009 11:18 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Nice info bigdavis

Brees is a weird and rarified situation because he came out of the spread offense. He only really got his feet under him his last season in San Diego, hence why they drafted Rivers the year before.

I’d be interested to see Rivers, Manning (eli), Roethlisberger, Palmer and Brady’s comparable start numbers too.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Dec 7, 2009 11:34 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks! I didn’t intend for you to do the leg work, but I am curious.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Dec 7, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Here ya go --

Philip Rivers 4th start was 10/8/06, vs Pitt (he was 24) - the Chargers won 23-13.
     he completed 24 of 37, for 242 yds (6.5 YPA) 2 TD’s, 1 INT, 4 sacks.

Eli Manning’s 4th start was 12/12/04, vs Balt (he was 23) - the Giants lost 14-37.
     he completed 4 of 18, for 27 yds (1.5 YPA) 0 TD, 2 INT, 2 sacks.

Ben R’s 4th start was 10/17/04, vs Dallas (he was 22) - the Steelers won 24-20.
     he completed 21 of 25, for 193 yds (7.7 YPA) 2 TD’s, 0 INT, 3 sacks.

Tom Brady’s 4th start was 10/21/01, vs Indy (he was 24) - the Pats won 38-17.
     he completed 16 of 20, for 202 yds (10.1 YPA) 3 TD’s, 0 INT, 0 sacks
  (I would note the following wk, Brady had 4 INT’s, a 57.1 rating, vs Denver, and lost 20-31)

Carson Palmer’s 4th start was 10/3/04, vs Pitt (he was 24) - the Bengals lost 17-28.
     he completed 20 of 37, for 164 yds (4.4 YPA) 1 TD, 2 INT’s, 1 sack.

…and I’ll throw in this one, too

Tony Romo’s 4th start was 11/19/06, vs Indy (he was 26) -- the Cowboys won 21-14.
     he completed 19 of 23, for 226 yds (9.8 YPA) 0 TD, 1 INT, 1 sack.

CONCLUSION: too early to tell anything. Moore is within the age group of all these leading current QB’s when they had their 4th start, and his numbers don’t suffer much by comparison, for that game; that’s all I can say for sure right now — we’ll know more in 3-4 years!

by bigdavis on Dec 7, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Wow… Eli Manning really stunk it up!

Thanks for getting the stats bigdavis.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Dec 7, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

* For the fourth start game it is different if

the second or third starts were just the weeks before. Not only was it a 4th start for Moore, it was also a 1st start in a few seasons.

by parkershawn2001 on Dec 7, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You're right - there is a difference, I suppose...

…but I had to make the comparisons as equal as I could — they are in terms of starting experience.

by bigdavis on Dec 7, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I think we have a lot to be positive about in Matt Moore

Were I James the Aussie… I would’ve put the special “cautiously optimistic” tag on him.

Can he be “the answer?” I don’t know, we will get a better look against the tougher competition down the stretch. I hope we continue to evaluate him, so that we know how to spend our draft picks next year.

by Tater596 on Dec 7, 2009 11:23 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

That's kinda what I use the 'somewhat optimistic' part for.

Players who I’m not 100% sold on, but impressed me nontheless.

Moore didn’t do quite enough for me to add him there, yet.

I hope I get to put ‘EXTREMELY OPTIMISTIC’ with big letters after the NE game though.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Dec 7, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Question...

Where’s Neal? Anybody heard from him?

by rawjem01 on Dec 7, 2009 12:06 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Anyone know what happened to Stewart in the second half? He was tearing it up in the first quarter and after that it seemed his production dwindled to almost nothing, (a lot of no gains and even some loss of yards).

by EyeSack on Dec 7, 2009 12:21 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Tampa might've made some adjustments to slow him down.. just guessing, not really sure.

Double Trouble; we've got the best running backs in the NFL that never see the ball!

by D-Ranged1 on Dec 7, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Possibly, I just wasn’t sure how they stopped him so badly seeing as how they’re near the bottom in the rush D

by EyeSack on Dec 7, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Could have also been Fox..

Get a lead, sustain the lead… “20 points should win a game”. Might have shut Stewart down a bit to eat up the clock, though it didn’t work, in my opinion. Seemed Tampa seen the ball more in the second half than first, despite getting shut out.

Double Trouble; we've got the best running backs in the NFL that never see the ball!

by D-Ranged1 on Dec 7, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

shut out in the 2nd*

Double Trouble; we've got the best running backs in the NFL that never see the ball!

by D-Ranged1 on Dec 7, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with your assessments...

But I don’t really understand what we’re looking for. It is often said that Carolina needs a game manager that’s not going to lose the game for us and can hand the ball off. That’s exactly what Moore did minus the pre-snap barking (which I didn’t exactly expect in his fourth start).

On the other hand, when we play our QB as a game manager and call limited pass plays, we wonder why we didn’t score many points and are skeptical because he didn’t rank up 300+ yards and 3 touchdowns.

I, personally, just want, from Moore, a solid QB that’s not going to turn the ball over and can move the chains occasionally to keep the D honest. Nothing more, nothing less. That’s why I think his performance was great. He didn’t win the game for us and I never expected him to, I expected our running to win the game – and it did.

I’m also not sold on dismissing Marshall and Gamble as terrible games yet. I’ll wait to see the PFF breakdown. I remember Gamble was touted as our shut down corner while every hated on Marshall but the breakdown on ProFootballFocus revealed an entirely different story. It could be the same for the game against Tampa, or everyone could be right in that they just played terribly. I won’t be able to commit myself to one side or the other without seeing the breakdown.

Double Trouble; we've got the best running backs in the NFL that never see the ball!

by D-Ranged1 on Dec 7, 2009 1:15 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Might I add...

Double Trouble; we've got the best running backs in the NFL that never see the ball!

by D-Ranged1 on Dec 7, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Gameplans need to be tactile, they need to move, bend and sway to changing conditions.

The aim of the Carolina Panthers offense should always be run first. However, when a situation presents itself where you’re entering a game without your no.1 RB then you need to change gears.

Double Trouble is merely an annoyance without one of the two pieces. When they are together then yes, we need nothing more than a game manager, and one who can identify blitzes. Throwing only to exploit good matchups. When major pieces of the offense are out like DeAngelo Williams and Jordan Gross it becomes incumbent upon creating a gameplan that utilizes what you have in the running game, while making plays in the passing game- more plays that you would when you have both RBs.

On the other side it’s recognizing when an opponent’s best CB is out and grabbing that opportunity by the throat. Targeting Steve Smith four times yesterday was at least 4 times too few. Smitty will eat opposing CBs alive (provided their name isn’t Revis), and Moore didn’t get the freedom to take those shots.

The problem with the 2009 Carolina Panthers’ offense is this lack of malleability when it comes to creating and excecuting game plans. It goes hand in hand with the frustration fans have when we don’t make any second half adjustments. There seems to be an innability, or an unwillingness to admit when something isn’t working and change it up. This goes for gameplans, personell decisions and matchups.

I disagree with your statement that:

I expected our running to win the game – and it did.

The running games as a whole was very dissapointing. We have become accustomed to tearing apart Tampa Bay’s run defense, as recent history shows. It seems ridiculous, but I’m not satisfied with 140 yards rushing when we know we can get over 225.

I stand by my assertation that the defense won this game for us, 100%

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Dec 7, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Of course..

I agree that the defense won the game, they were incredible.

I view the running differently… Sure Stewart ‘only’ got 120yards, meanwhile Sutton put up 38 on his few carries – but look at the average.

Together they averaged almost 5.5 yards per carry. Lets play the hypothetical game and assume Stewart and Sutton rushed as many times as Williams and Stewart did earlier in the season, with that we would have ended up with 138yds Stewart, 107yds Sutton, 245 total. So do we say the running was disappointing or that we simply didn’t run enough? I know Williams was out but Sutton was doing just fine filling in as the back up (Not as good as the original Double Trouble but they were certainly worthy of being the off brand version). Yet we only ran a total of 32 times yesterday compared to 47 times in the first meeting.

Moore was asked to pass 3 more times than Delhomme was in the first meeting and completed 5 more for nearly three times the yardage.

In hindsight, should we have ran more and Moore played less a role or passed more and reduced carries from our backs, making for a seemingly more disappointing run game? (Serious question, by the way, I’m not trying to make a point but interested in your take)

Double Trouble; we've got the best running backs in the NFL that never see the ball!

by D-Ranged1 on Dec 7, 2009 1:46 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I liked Sutton's performance... which is why he was an optimistic this week.

But to just exrapolate out his YPC is a little misleading.

He had 6 carries for 38 yards, one on which was a 20 yard run. Without that 20 yard gain he was getting 3.6 YPC. I doubt if you gave him more carries he would bust out a 20 yard gain every 6th run.

That being said, I get what you’re saying.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Dec 7, 2009 2:14 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Very true, but you never know ;)

Double Trouble; we've got the best running backs in the NFL that never see the ball!

by D-Ranged1 on Dec 7, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

We didn't get as many yds as you'd like because they controlled the clock

we only ran 53 plays to their 70; TOP 28:56 to their 31:04 — our D brags about its work in the red zone (and they should), but they gave a LOT of ground — 315 passing yds to a young QB is too much. They better make some alignment adjustments, or Tom Brady will pick us apart.

by bigdavis on Dec 7, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Panthers.com played it off well...
It was the clearest possible illustration of the “bend-but-don’t-break” mantra.

“That’s what this defense was designed for,” defensive tackle Damione Lewis said.

It allowed Freeman, a first-round pick last April, to have his moments over most of the field, as he completed 21 of 36 passes for 309 yards and an interception outside of the Carolina 25-yard-line.

“Obviously, it kept people on the edge of their seats. It kept me on the edge of mine,” said wide receiver Muhsin Muhammad.

But when the field shortened, the Panthers clamped down and the passes sprayed everywhere, as nine Tampa Bay pass plays inside the Carolina 25-yard-line resulted in more catches by the Panthers (four interceptions) than Bucs receivers (two). When factoring in a sack, the Bucs mustered just 0.9 yards per pass play inside the Carolina 25, with Freeman going 2-of-8.

Outside of the Carolina 25, Freeman’s passer rating was 74.9. Inside of it, it was 0.0.

Double Trouble; we've got the best running backs in the NFL that never see the ball!

by D-Ranged1 on Dec 7, 2009 2:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Marshall was at a serious disadvantage, size wise

He struggles versus large, rangy wide receivers like Edwards and Bryant. He’s an aggressive guy, but Gamble just matches up better against that type of receiver, CJ Wilson too.

by Flowing Willow on Dec 8, 2009 2:55 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

As far as New England goes..

I think we should send a deep bomb to Smith on the first play. It’d be funny – I’d laugh. Especially if it connected.

Double Trouble; we've got the best running backs in the NFL that never see the ball!

by D-Ranged1 on Dec 7, 2009 1:57 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Wait a just minute....

This is all fine and dandy aussie…the only issue…Had Freeman not given it his best Delhomme impersonation the scrore could easily been 37-16 Bucs….The Bucs almost ran at will and the passes over the middle were not defended by Carolina.

Once again we seen Marshall be matched up against taller receivers and getting gashed. Fox-Meeks had Marshall on Bryant and let Bryant brutalize the Panthers until the ints happened.

I say let Moore rip it and fire Davidson.

by rickn3car on Dec 7, 2009 5:01 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Could have been - but wasn't.

And I thank the defense for that – not Freeman. Some of the interceptions went right to the defender, sure, but that’s what I call right time, right place. Others were just good plays by the defense.

And you’re right, they were running pretty well but Caddy never found the end zone and yards don’t translate to points.

I support the motion to let Moore rip (and definitely to fire Davidson) but only when he’s comfortable with doing so.

Double Trouble; we've got the best running backs in the NFL that never see the ball!

by D-Ranged1 on Dec 7, 2009 5:07 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Wait just a minute...

This is all fine and dandy aussie…the only issue…Had Freeman not given it his best Delhomme impersonation the scrore could easily been 37-16 Bucs….The Bucs almost ran at will and the passes over the middle were not defended by Carolina.

Once again we had to see Marshall be matched up against taller receiver and get gashed. Fox-Meeks had Marshall on Bryant and let Bryant brutalize the Panthers until the ints happened.

I say let Moore rip it and fire Davidson.

by rickn3car on Dec 7, 2009 5:02 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

And had Jake Delhomme not given his best Jake Delhomme impersonation we'd probably be 8-4 right now.

Carolina’s defense did what they’ve done all season when they’ve played well, the bent, but they didn’t break.

Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.

by James The Aussie on Dec 7, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Totally agree

I’m taking nothing away from the RZ D, but Freemen lost that one.

I’m excited about a(ny) win, but it was against a terrible team.

I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong about Meeks, he should definitely be brought back next year, even if other parts are gone. The players respond to him, and that speaks volumes.

Davidson had another terrible game plan, and is seemingly getting worse at his job. I understand we had some pieces out, but if we had lost, I would have put it squarely on him.

I think Moore performed well, I just wish we had started him earlier. Also, E. Brown is looking pretty good. This offseason should bring pretty big changes to our team.

by the bomb dot com on Dec 7, 2009 10:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Delhomme with 24 passes a game

That’s a really good point James, about Delhomme playing better with fewer passes. I know you and others have made the point before, but I’m not sure if everyone is listening.

It’s almost a shame for Delhomme that he did so well in the 2004 Super Bowl. I think it skewed Fox’s opinion of him. Delhomme is a game manager, not a barn-burner (except in rare occasions).

I’m not sure if Delhomme will get another chance, and i would actually go with Moore through the rest of the season. But I think it’s actually helpful to Delhomme to sit for awhile. He was overwhelmed, and let’s face it: There’s no more popular guy in town than the backup quarterback for a losing team. Now Delhomme is that guy.

by Negative Man on Dec 7, 2009 10:26 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog focused on the NFL's Carolina Panthers.

Site Code of Conduct

Start posting about the Panthers »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Deangello_pimp_small
Here's why the Panthers should trade for our #2 WR
Chris_harris_headshot_2_small
My Thoughts on Jake Delhomme Being Cut from the Panthers - @ChrisHarrisNFL
Terminatorstewart_small
An Ode to Jake Delhomme... "He is our Quarterback"

Recent FanPosts

Small
Kevin Curtis could be the next Ricky Proehl for the Panthers and is available!
Small
Shawn Andrews
Me_as_a_simpson_small
Represent Your Team in MHR's Live Mock!
Chris_harris_headshot_2_small
(Video) Here's One of My Fave Fan-Created Vids of All-Time! - @ChrisHarrisNFL
Week13-v-cover_ss_full_small
Thoughts on the Overtime Rule?
14650_1190840130500_1213260240_30614180_3739670_n_small
What we should do in the 2010 NFL Draft
Funny-hilarious-kid-child-pics-162_small
Who do the Panthers bring in to Backup Matt Moore?
Chris_harris_headshot_2_small
Four Nights In Vegas Is Always a Wonderful Thing - @ChrisHarrisNFL
Week13-v-cover_ss_full_small
Panthers 2010 W-L Record?
Small
What about these guys?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

SBNation.com Recent Stories

Photo link

A Deeper Look At The 2009 Cowboys Running Game

Photo

Redskins Hosting Private Workout For Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford

Photo

Conflicting Reports On The Future Of 49ers GM Scot McCloughan

More from SBNation.com >


Managers

Catscratchreader_m_small Jaxon

Editors

N1523447507_30151367_6579_small Cyberjag

Img_0764_small LittleKing

Currentflag_small James The Aussie

Authors

Dbc92c5112a9b23c_small Revshawn

Panthers_logo_lead_203x152_small bwsmith25