Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Opinions: Seahawks or Cards more dangerous in playoffs?

Jmac

By Jmac,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Jmac Grand Master

Jmac

Posted
Posted

If we face one of these teams in the playoffs, who will give us the most trouble?  Who presents the biggest matchup problems for us? Are you confident that we can beat either team if we do not get home field advantage? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
uncfan888 Grand Master

uncfan888

Posted
Posted

Well, no matter what we'd play Seattle at home because our record would be better.  And if by some miracle we lose homefield and have to go to Arizona, I feel like we could beat them.  Seattle would be a tougher game regardless of where it's played, but we are the best team in the league..  Bring em on

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthias Proficient

Matthias

Posted
Posted

I would have said the Seahawks, and I might still say they would give us the most trouble, but they lost a key guy for their rushing attack.  I'm not scared of Arizona outside of John Brown's deep speed.  I believe we will get to Palmer a lot and take out their passing game due to being on his back.  It doesn't matter if we had to travel, but it won't come to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KB_fan Proficient

KB_fan

Posted
Posted

I'm surprised this question is being posed as an either / or, because the way things are looking, we may well have to play BOTH.

I'm VERY VERY glad the Seattle game would be in CLT.  And even happier that we beat them in such a good game (i.e. we really won it, there was no let down by Seattle (ok yeah yeah, there was the blown coverage on the Olsen TD..., but Cam made the play) and no fluke on which the game was won, we came back and EARNED that win.) in Seattle earlier this year.  That's HUGE for our team's confidence. 

It doesn't hurt either that we beat Arizona last year in the playoffs.  Of course, no Carson Palmer then.  But still we held them to that ridiculously low total on offense.  Anyway, it should give us confidence that we can win.  I'm glad we had such a shoot out from Drew Brees & the Saints last week.  It's huge that we showed we can keep up and win in an offensive shoot out against a stellar QB.  Not something we've usually been known for.  This season we've got the confidence to win, even if AZ is playing their best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KB_fan Proficient

KB_fan

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, pantherjack77 said:

both the Cardinals and Seahawks have great team chemistry and confidence...something we have...but that is what makes them dangerous...both Arizona and Seattle see themselves beating us...are not intimidated by us...and therefore are going to be tough games..

of course if we continue to play at the level we are...and get a crowd like we did yesterday (loud) I am sure we will handle either one

Agree that both teams have chemistry & confidence and will be tough to beat.  In some ways I really welcome the challenge.  Wouldn't it be something if we win the SB having played Seattle, AZ and NE.  No one could then write off our win as due to a "soft schedule".  Let's go out there and beat the best!

Love what you wrote PantherJack about the crowd.  I've not been at a game in person yet.  I'll be there on Jan 3.  But even just by watching the games via internet here in Africa, I can see the difference in how the crowd is engaged and LOUD.  The Keep Pounding chants are incredible and the energy in the stadium really is noticeable.  Can't wait to be a part of it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Jackofalltrades said:

Seahawks, easily. They're hitting on all cylinders right now and have playoff experience to help them.

They lost Rawls for the year.  Now that teams, non garbage Clausen led worst in the NFL Ravens teams, can gameplan for that attack? They aren't as scary as they were appearing to become. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...