MasterAwesome

Excuse me…where’s the option for Intramural Flag Football team??

“Defending superbowl champs” is a generous way of referring to the 5-10 Rams. His master plan was to force his way out of the Panthers to go to a worse team?

He had a pretty awful game against the Packers last week…you guys have a short memory lol. So far he has played well every other game with the Rams.

Who is BC? Corral? Give me Darnold, Corral, and a raw talent like Anthony Richardson and I’m happy.

Why do you guys fall for Linville’s trolling? Imagine giving credence to someone who admits to not watching our games. The dude formulates his arguments entirely from box scores it’s very convincing if you’re in third grade.

Eh I dunno he talked a lot about how we were “hungrier” than they were. Does anyone refer to coaches as “hungry”? That generally implies a lack of effort from the players on the field.

Some people value winning, some people value garbage time stats. Tomato tomatoe.

I would argue that what you just laid out more-so highlights Wilks' conservative nature. He appears to stick with the status quo and is reluctant to change things unless absolutely necessary. To some degree, that's an important quality of a HC because we don't want a guy who makes rash impulsive decisions. Consider though: we give Wilks credit for playing Bozeman over Elflein but remember that even Wilks started Elflein in his first game taking over, and that he only turned to Bozeman after Elflein's injury once he was placed on IR. We also credit him for giving TMJ more snaps but again that was only after Robbie Anderson imploded on the field and forced Wilks' hand into trading him. But yeah I definitely agree with your succinct summary so we can just leave it at that lol. Appreciate the cordial exchange.

What do you mean by Wilks trusted Baker and PJ over Sam? He literally cut Baker and currently has a healthy PJ sitting on the bench in favor of Darnold lol. Do you mean he was more aggressive with them in the pass game? If so, I don't know if you recall PJ's first start of the season against the Rams under Wilks, but it was quite possibly the most egregious lack of trust I've ever seen of any QB in my lifetime. He had one completion beyond the line of scrimmage, and that was 1 yard out lol. And if you recall the end of the first half, Wilks opted to go into half-time with all 3 timeouts instead of calling a timeout and letting PJ try to score with over a minute left and 2 timeouts. They opened things up for PJ more in his second start against the Bucs, but I think we are seeing that same trend with Darnold as well from his first start to his second start (compare his passing charts between the two weeks). Baker only had one start under Wilks and then subsequently was cut, so again not sure how you figure Wilks trusted him more. Don't get me wrong, I sure as hell don't want our gameplan to be to let Sam Darnold sit back and try to carve up defenses. I just think we can't be so one-dimensional like we are now. We should definitely be a run-first team but still sprinkle in enough of a passing game to prevent the opposing team from just stacking the box on every play. Especially if the run clearly isn't working, we can't be so stubborn to stick with it and put ourselves in 3rd and longs every drive. I think CRA said it correctly: Wilks is part of that old-school ultra conservative Ron Rivera type philosophy that gets figured out very quickly.

Fair about Fields. I’ve caught stretches of Bears games here and there but I don’t watch them religiously like I do the Panthers. Incidentally, I saw that PFF rated the Bears as having a top 10 o-line but I saw some pushback articles wondering what the heck they were thinking so I’ll chalk that up to PFF being PFF. NextGen also has Fields leading the NFL with the highest Time to Throw out of any QB though, but I’m pretty sure that doesn’t factor in him evading rushers and extending plays so it’s a pretty flawed metric. Regarding Darnold: I think we have to be nuanced and draw a distinction between a player and the coaches’ treatment of said player. You seem to be putting our lackluster game plan entirely on Darnold rather than considering that maybe our coaches could be mishandling the game plan/play calling. Obviously there is a correlation there, i.e. Darnold’s career performance has warranted a lack of trust, but at the same time that doesn’t mean running the ball on every 2nd and 11 and throwing swing passes to Shenault every other pass play is smart coaching. The Steelers completely shut down the run last week and we could only somewhat move the ball when Darnold was forced to actually throw it. If the coaches opened up the playbook more for Darnold last week it’s very possible he could have pressed and thrown some interceptions, but I’d prefer that over running Foreman up the gut for 1 yard every 1st and 2nd down. We clearly got out-coached and out-schemed last week. It reminds me of when people used to criticize Gano when he played for us, saying “Gano sucks…Rivera doesn’t even trust him to kick anything beyond 50 yards” meanwhile it turns out hey Gano is actually one of the best distance kickers in the NFL. Or imagine holding Rhule’s decision to start Elflein over Bozeman against Bozeman rather than calling it out as a bad coaching decision. Coaches aren’t infallible beings; hell, we’re Panthers fans…questioning coaches is in our blood. You can say “oh that was Rivera and Rhule you’re talking about, they’re idiots” but I don’t think Wilks and McAdoo have done anything to earn our blind trust that they’re making the best decisions and putting together the best game plan week in and week out.

That is a perfectly reasonable take, there's nothing in there I disagree with. I don't want to roll with Darnold next year but I'm fine with him as a back-up, which for some reason is a controversial take. But again I just find it funny that the specific pointed criticism aimed at Darnold in this thread is how the team doesn't trust him and has built its identity around handcuffing him in the passing game, which is true, but when it's coming from posters who I know are huge Fields fans, then it's a bit awkward. I honestly wish the Bears would let him sling it more cause he's got a big talented arm. Their season is over anyways, just let him loose.

Tbh both the Darnold camp and the Fields camp tend to overhype their guy and make a lot of excuses. For Fields, it's definitely more warranted because he's only in his second year, but they are still excuses nonetheless. It's just ironic seeing the Fields camp bring up things like Darnold's passing chart and highlighting how the team is trying to limit his passing and play him conservatively, while ignoring how that has been exactly the Bears' approach with Fields so far lol. There's a reason why Fields has the lowest passing attempts per game of any starter this season despite the Bears being 3-11 and constantly playing from behind. Don't get me wrong, Fields >> Darnold...but it's his rushing ability that gives him the significant edge, not his passing ability. It's actually kinda hilarious how there tends to be almost a direct inverse correlation between how much you love Darnold and hate Fields and vice versa, meanwhile as passers they're almost carbon copies lol. I truly don't understand how people can have such opposing contradictory views about one over the other as passers. I do however understand how you can be much more optimistic about Fields over Darnold because of their relative time spent in the league (which is my position), but that doesn't tend to be the argument - the argument tends to be Fields has already "arrived" and is a clear franchise QB while Darnold is a bust and not even back-up level.

It's ironic how your metric is "winning" while simultaneously touting a QB who is 5-18 so far in his career and has lost 9 out of his last 10 games. Why the selectivity when it comes to winning? By your logic of record being the end-all be-all, you're ironically making the case that your boy Darnold is a better QB than Fields lol is that what you believe? Fields is a damn exciting player to watch and it's looking like we may very well regret passing him up, but at the end of the day if he's pulling off these weekly miraculous highlight plays but not actually able to win games for his team then what's the point? It's almost like supporting cast matters...except apparently only for a guy like Fields but not for a guy like Horn or Gamble. You can't have it both ways.

Yeah there was a key 3rd and 14 late in the 4th quarter where Taylor was left 1-on-1 with Johnson alone covering an entire half of the field lol. That's not on Taylor, he was set up for failure against a very shifty solid route runner in Johnson...that was on the defensive playcalling.

I dunno why you're sneaking Fields into this discussion considering he was available at our draft slot lol. Ironically if anything, you could argue that had we won one more game in 2020, that Horn/Surtain would have been gone (Dallas was rumored to be high on one of the top two corners) and we might have actually ended up taking Fields instead.

Keith Taylor locked his guy down, it was that Keith Trailer guy who kept giving up plays.

Skylar Thompson and Bailey Zappe are the only other two I can think of. Skylar played a little when Tua and Teddy were injured but didn't look great (although he was one of those Preseason Superstars), but Zappe performed pretty well in his 2 starts. Statistically, him and Purdy are remarkably close across the board on most stats and have played roughly the same number of snaps (210 for Purdy, 207 for Zappe).

To some degree that was probably more-or-less part of the gameplan, although I'd frame it as "let's run the ball against a weak run defense" which I'm surprised is such a shocking bombshell strategy to some people. Hey we have a not-so-great QB and a really good run game and we're playing against a team with a much stronger pass defense and a bottom 5 run defense. Hmmm what to do...what to do...truly quite a difficult decision. If we had Darnold airing the ball out downfield in a game where we were up 17-0 early in the 2nd quarter and in control for the entire game, with a strong run game, against a weak run defense, I'd really be questioning Wilks' competence. All that aside, I say to some degree that was probably more-or-less the gameplan because Darnold was clearly going through progressions downfield throughout the majority of the game, so simply looking at his passing chart and his attempts and saying that must have been the "gameplan" is a pretty surface-level assessment which makes sense for someone who admits to not having watched the game. Whether receivers weren't getting open or Darnold was just too conservative to pull the trigger down the field, I can't say without watching the All-22 film. To the OP: I can't imagine seeing enough out of Darnold this season to convince me to forego drafting a QB if there's one available that we think is worth taking. Signing him as a back-up to a cheap contract? Sure, I'm already fine with that...he seems like a good teammate and is serviceable enough as a back-up. But even if we go undefeated the rest of the season and even manage to win a game or two in the playoffs, I'd need to see Darnold actually take over a few of those games where we win on the back of our passing game to think of him as anything more than that. Simply winning because he hands the ball off and doesn't turn the ball over isn't nearly good enough for me.

Our resident Enlightened Realists rushing into every thread to explain the completely novel big-brained concept of tanking for draft position. Guaranteed one-and-done...worst division....need franchise QB.....we got it, don't worry guys. Get some rest and we'll see you in April.

Hmm can’t say I have too strong of memories of Anthony Mason sadly (it’s been 25 years lol), but definitely fond memories of Baron Davis/David Wesley/Bobby Phills (RIP). I still have a little Polaroid picture with David Wesley and Hugo at like a Walmart or Bed Bath and Beyond or something as a kid lol.

The Glen Rice era was pretty hype (albeit short-lived) for 8-year-old me.

Funny you mention the Ravens because they're not built all that differently from us. Yes the obvious difference is that they have Lamar Jackson, but he's essentially an extension of the run game. At the end of the day they're built around a low-volume efficient pass game (limiting turnovers), playing tough defense, and cramming the ball down your throat in the run game while controlling the clock. Do you think the Ravens are capable of winning a Super Bowl with Lamar? Or do you think they should get rid of Lamar and overhaul their entire offensive philosophy considering they're routinely towards the top of the league in rushing and bottom of the league in passing? I'm genuinely curious because I hear a lot of people talk about how you need a dangerous passing attack to win in this league but those same people seem to generally consider the Ravens and Lamar Jackson as formidable contenders...which seems conflicting to me.

I think most of us have seen Mays and Erving out there on multiple snaps (= 6th and 7th o-linemen), but there was a mysterious 8th o-lineman referenced in the tweet in the OP that we were trying to figure out.

According to the snap counts, Michael Jordan played 1 snap against the Seahawks so that has to be the one play being referenced.

I guess he's talking about LeSean McCoy on the Chiefs during their Super Bowl season, but he was pretty much a non-factor. Especially in the playoffs - he had exactly one snap throughout the entire postseason.