1of10Charnatives

I never get upset about betting lines. They are nothing more than a reflection of the overall opinion of bettors. The opinion of bettors has zero impact on the outcome of the game. People who bet will wager their money according to what their instincts tell them. Betting lines are set to make half of them right and half of them wrong (half of their money anyway). Historically the Panthers seem to do better as underdogs, but regardless I don't care much either way. We were huge favorites in Super Bowl 50, and bad coaching and officiating had an impact on the game, the betting line had none.

This is the key point here. Rhule's defense of Brady based on lack of execution during red zone trips in the first half holds water, but what is disingenuous about it is that it distracts from addressing the bigger concern: Brady's poor showing after the other team has made halftime adjustments.

Now you're talking. I just can't worked up about the Jets as an opponent. They are too lame to hate. But the Aints? fug those motherfugers. Especially Payton. Whining ass choking ass bitch. fug fugity fug fug fug em.

The word you're looking for is bullshit.

I remember. @#%$ Jerome Boger. @#%$ him right in the arse. With a big rubber dildo. Sideways.

Nobody deliberately signs players they THINK are bad. But if a players objective track record and performance to date does little to suggest they are anything but, and then they show up and perform as others expected but not as you hoped, isn't that pretty much on you?

Same concern I've had for the past...*looks at watch*.....decade. Offensive line and offensive line. Oh and if you're allowing a third... Offensive line.

So far he looks very viable, especially if we can get him some better protection.

that dude stole my line.

We play the exact same number of AFC opponents we play every year: four. The NFL schedule has a predetermined format to it, part of which is each team plays one division from the other conference each year on a rotating basis. Two of those games are home games, two are away. That pretty much never changes.

If you held a gun to my head right now about the rest of our current roster with Stafford, I'd probably agree with you, but I'd be very nervous and watching your trigger finger. I'm excited about the roster but it's easy to have rose colored homer glasses. I don't think they are all going to be as good as we think they are. Some are going to disapoint. My gut says we're probably still a year away even with middle of the road qb production.

Close. What I'm saying is, in situations where the veteran incumbant is obviously inept and offers little to no reason based on age and past performance to believe he will improve, I'm willing to accept rookie mistakes in exchange for more upside and faster development that will pay dividends down the road. If the vet incumbant is at least solid, then playing a vet is defensible imo. Nothing about our current Oline aside from Moton falls into that category.

Yes. My theory is that we will continue to see speculation based on the game today. But that's only speculation based on years and years and years of being a football fan and watching people post to message boards. It might not happen at all. Maybe no one has an opinion.

I am crossing my fingers and peeking out of one eye and hoping the Oline can. Otherwise, we might be in trouble until our rookies can both figure it out and are allowed to play.

I don't know, but I'll venture a guess that it might.

Simple. I want to see the players who looked the best in preseason and workouts on the field or AT least on the active gameday roster instead of seeing eerily similar rookie reticence to the previous regime. Letting the very first defender taken in the draft start when you were awful at his position last year is not exactly hanging your nards out there, neither is letting a talented 2nd rounder that many had projected in the first be your third receiver, nor giving significant minutes to a 3rd rounder at a position you got little out of last season. The OL we will be starting with is, barring Moton, old, bad, and has no future upside. We have OL rookies that looked promising up to this point. They might be far from perfect, but try to make the argument it should be obvious the guys we're putting out there will be better. They might be, but if they are awful today, my question will be, could the rookie who showed physical prowess and great potential in the preseason really have been that much worse? Against the Jets? That's how much more I want. Don't dip your balls only halfway in and try to tell me you're getting your bellybutton wet. Either you've got a five year plan and you're taking chances and changing things up or you're not. Overall I like Rhule's approach. This stuff I'm dubious about.

So what you're saying is, the more things change the more they stay the same, since that was a different owner, different GM, and different coaching staff, but we're still seeing dubious OL decisions?

Like this: "Sorry pops, I love you and I love the team, but I have to prioritize my health and the health of my family." It's not really that hard. You're an adult. Make a decision for yourself and expect others to respect it.

but would we win is the thing? We have a young roster with some talent on it. I think you're smarter than to say if we put a good but not great aging qb on the roster we're suddenly an automatic contender. For one thing, do you really want to put an aging not especially mobile QB behind THIS OL? Would you really expect that to be an easy fix given how quality LT's grow on trees? I don't think it's a given that this roster with a solid QB is automatically a contender. Talk to me at the end of this season and if things go as we hope they will and the OL rookies look promising, then maybe at that point it's a different conversation, but right now? Nah I don't think acquiring Stafford would have been the right move, and frankly I'm glad we missed out, even if Darnold doesn't turn out to be the answer.

@ZodHow do you like a post seventy bajillion times? I need this functionality ASAP.

The NFL is the highest and most competitive level of football. Anyone at that level who ignores real and meaningful information about what is most advantageous does so at their own expense. There is abundant data that supports the notion that passing is much more important to winning than running. Here is a link to just one article that examines the data in a historical context: The surprising truth about passing and rushing in the NFL (thepowerrank.com) Because most fans love higher scoring games and they are considered more exciting, the league has over the years tailored it's rules to favor offenses and scoring, which makes sense from a business point of view. But unless it further refines the rules to specifically incentivize running, which seems unlikely, I think the game is likely to continue to tilt long term towards passing. I am also a fan of balance, but I think where you and I are probably out of luck is that for a long time, when data analysis wasn't nearly as sophisticated as it is now, and wasn't applied to sports to the level it has risen to, everyone decided 50/50 run and pass was the optimal balance for success and desirable all other things being equal. I think the data is showing that just isn't the case, so we're probably out of luck in that regard, but I sympathize with your waning interest as I'm going through something similar with my love of basketball. The modern game just doesn't hold the same appeal for me.

FIFY

The Tecklenburg Era™ in Carolina has officially begun. Now taking bets on how long it will last or what, if anything, will be it's outcome.

Waitwaitwait..... No, I still don't care.

Viewing the world realistically and continuing to be a Jets fan are mutually exclusive propositions, therefore... things said in this thread.