top dawg

Honestly, we didn't really have to dodge the bullet, because it was only a cap gun. Samuel was destined to leave. We weren't ever going to pay him what someone else would. I said it then in different words: he and Washington deserve one another.

I bet you that Chuba has a better game than Cook.

Just looking at the Bucs, Brady can say what he wants to about execution, but the fact is that a good OC puts his players into position to better execute plays. It was frustrating watching the Bucs close Philly out, knowing that we could've done the same thing. And honestly, we probably would have had better success running the ball then the Bucs did near the end.

He may mean pre-snap...maybe. And if he does, that's kind of a problem.

Robby had a bunch of receptions after week 5 last season, and had four games between 74-94 yards. And, remember, he wasn't that far off from Moore last season in yardage or TDs. So you jump TMJ (whom Darnold doesn't seem to be able to find accurately as well) and talk up Zylstra and Erickson as if they're really starters in the league...ha ha! If Darnold keeps forcing balls into coverage, not anticipating throws (much like his predecessor) that actually maximizes the short open window that's generally the norm in the NFL, and basically dealing with an OC who uses questionable route concepts to plan points of attack, I doubt Shi will be any more effective than TMJ, Robby, Thomas or Tremble have been. But, not to worry, we have CMC (until we don't) to mask deficiencies. You have some valid points, but it's certainly not all black, white and tidy.

I'm sure he was surprised that the ball was thrown straight to the DB instead of him.

Yeah, fug y'all for questioning Robby's work ethic! And fug the rest of y'all for talking pure trash about him. You know who you are.

Last season, we had to play a bunch of newbs, so I think we may have gotten it wrong about Rhule. He's seriously giving me some Rivera vibes, meaning he's going to play underperforming vets until he's absolutely forced not to, either via injury or the vet fugs up so much that even Stevie Wonder can see the need for a change. Maybe once November arrives...

What's Sam Darnold's grade?

Yeah, his first one was dropped. He caught the rest.

1946-1964 Boomers 1965-1980 Gen X 1981-1996 Millennials 1997-on Gen Z

Chuba

An L is an L, blocked punt or not. The fact is is that it shouldn't have been close. We had uninspired play calling and a QB who couldn't hit an open guy for his life...unless it was between the numbers of a defensive back.

Yep, for some reason these guys want to blame Robby, but give inaccurate Darnold a pass. Robby's woes have more to do with Darnold and Brady than Robby forgetting how to run routes.

Darnold is not what I think of when thinking of a franchise QB. The victories that he has had have been against bad teams. He is not a QB that can put a game on his shoulders and drag a team to victory.

I thought bout that, but honestly we didn't do poo the second half. We were never really in line for a victory. The offense has been on cruise in inefficient mode.

I agree, but some things should be automatic at this point.

Excuses excuses! Sam has not only stared down receivers that weren't open, he's missed wide open receivers. He has had time enough, he just hasn't made the best decisions.

Sam Darnold has done some impressive things, especially when juxtaposed against the beginning of his pro career as a Jet. But, he's also showing signs that he is not a legitimate franchise QB, but a decent backup. Sure, he doesn't have optimal protection, but the O-line is protecting him enough to enable him to make better decisions with the ball. Sam also has more than enough weapons that he shouldn't feel compelled to throw into double coverage, and if that's not bad enough, he doesn't even try to fool the defensive backs, he just stares down one receiver--usually D.J. Moore--and is hellbent on getting that receiver the ball. If he can't figure out to meaningfully go through his progressions, Sam Darnold will never be a legit starter in the NFL. I know that people want to treat him like he's a rookie, but he's not. He should be able to use his eyes to scan the field, look off defensive backs, double clutch and generally just do the things that high quality starters can do in this league. If he can't do these basics--which admittedly is still a question--then the Panthers need to acquire someone that can.

Yes, this is somewhat of an ad, but I don't get anything out of it but more people in my party which leads to more security of $25 per month. This is really just an FYI for fellow Huddlers who like saving money--a value. Have you ever heard of Visible Wireless? Some people refer to it as Verizon's Visible. It is an MVNO owned by Verizon. You can get truly unlimited service for $25 per month. Sure, there's kind of a catch for some: you are subject to deprioritization when the network gets busy. Basically, if you're on a congested tower, you're screwed (as far as data anyway). That being said, there are people who can use Visible as their Internet service via a hotspot, because they live in a great location, and, like I said, Visible truly is unlimited. So, it's all about location. Other than the speed cap on hotspot at 5 Mbps, or the standard "DVD" quality streaming, it's all good if you're in a good area. The only other possible problem that I can think of is that there is no roaming. You're either getting Verizon's LTE or 5G signal, or you're not getting anything. Luckily, Verizon's network is pretty extensive. I've been all out to Colorado and down to south Florida, and I've pretty much always had a signal. Unlimited wireless on Verizon's network for $25 per month. It's not necessarily great all the time, but it's good enough and certainly worth the savings to me. Now I will say that due to it being an all digital carrier, it does come with some--what some may call, quirks. I just call it adapting and getting with the times. Visible's network is persnickety regarding devices. Don't think you're going to bearing just any phone to their network. They have an IMEI checker, and you better use it. Their network only supports certain models/submodels of limited Android phones. If you have an iPhone (since the 6), then you're likely good. Another thing is that their customer service is pretty much chat only. They do escalate things and say they'll give you a call, but more than a few say those calls never come. Along with that, if you're not technically adventurous and astute, then you might want to save yourself some trouble and just buy a device off their website. It's the safest way to pretty much assure yourself the least amount of issues establishing service. So, if you want to save a little money and don't need constant blazing fast speeds and willing to make a few sacrifices, you might want to give Visible a try. My home tower is congested as fug in Johnston county, but I have Soectrum WiFi anyway. Away from home, I get a decent signal all day long. While working, I listen to ESPN radio a lot during the day. I couldn't do it with Boost, T-Mobile or Sprint. I haven't tried AT&T or Cricket yet, but I haven't felt the need to. They're more, have data caps, and speed caps in some instances. My biggest issue so far is trying to get an Android device that I'm happy with, doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and that is also compatible with Visible's network. Right now I have an LG G8, my wife the V40 and my son the iPhone 11. I'm looking to get a couple of S10 pluses, but getting a compatible device can be a pain. But, it's worth it to be on Verizon's network. If you decide to try it, use this link and join my party. We have eight (it only takes four for the discount, otherwise it's $40), and not one of us has ever left. https://visible.com/p/TheMacksParty

He's leaving too much meat on the bone. We may get away with that versus the Eagles, but others will certainly make us pay.

Damn! Darnold is inaccurate.

Terrible throw. Just a telegraph of a pass.

We've heard Rhule say many things about his defensive philosophy in terms of team building, but just in case you missed it, Bucky Brooks' kind of gives you an outline of Matt Rhule's thinking on the subject. If you're paying attention, it seems like a totally different philosophy than other Panthers' coaches & GMs have had in the past. They seemed to build from the front to the back, and gave defensive backs the lowest priority (almost to the point where it seemed like they were just happy to have warm bodies bodies out there). Rhule (and company) appears to give the defensive backfield more of a priority, and realizes that at least it's just as important as the second level and the front. They all have synergy between one another and must be balanced. This isn't a regime that's going to give the appearance of neglecting or not giving a sh¡t about the defensive backs to the extent that we must have hog mollies at all costs on the line, Rhule and company are going to find a way to keep as much balance as possible, and not become comfortable with the seemingly accepted thought--at least by some Panthers fan--that you can't strengthen both the front and back, but must do one or the other. And, honestly, it's different and refreshing to see. One way that Rhule believes that he can try and achieve that balance is what Bucky pointed out as Rhule's belief in the "position-less player." Following the Gilmore trade this week, Rhule was asked why the Panthers keep piling up CBs. "It allows us to put more guys in the box and go be aggressive," Rhule said, via USA TODAY. "We try to have position-less players. Like Chinn, to me, Haason Reddick, Brian Burns, Morgan Fox. Those guys have been position-less players." I love Rhule's vision and his assertiveness. Despite ranking near the top of the charts in most defensive categories, Carolina keeps making moves to upgrade talent across the roster, focusing on building a championship squad with the capacity to play position-less football on defense. "We had packages last game where we played with five d-linemen and one linebacker. You saw us last year in three D-linemen," Rhule said. "So we wanna give different looks to the defense and also take advantage of the guys that we have. I think the position-less player is important. But at the end of the day, for us to win, you have to be able to play man and get off the field on third down. So as many guys as we have to cover, we'll take 'em." Keep in mind that Rhule was asked about CBs, but he also mentioned the second level and the front. And maybe inherent in that, is the need or desire to acquire as many speedy, athletic and aggressive players that we gather on defense. I'm thinking we have a "type" (so perhaps that will give draftniks some insight as to draft targets, at the very least on defense). Rhule has been at this for awhile as Brooks points out. Although I probably focused on the meat of his short analysis, every word is certainly worth reading. Brooks called it Rhule's "unorthodox brilliance", and maybe he's right. https://www.nfl.com/news/matt-rhule-s-unorthodox-brilliance-fueling-panthers-rise-daniel-jones-playing-li