Still seeing the old Carolina's had an easy schedule excuses...

[stankowalski]

Why does this continue to be an issue?  None of the top team's opponents have a combined record over .500.  In fact Arizona's schedule has been easier if you see that their opponent's combined wins/losses is worse than ours.  But how often do you hear this about the Cardinals?  Relatively speaking from looking at opponents combined records we have had an "easier" schedule than New England, Cincinnati, and Denver.  But even the "hardest" schedule out of all of them (New England) is still only a 7 win difference.  Is that really SIGNIFICANT over 3/4 of a season?  And if those teams would have won all their games like Carolina has the difference would have been even less. 

So basically the media is penalizing us for winning all of our games.  Ridiculous.

Edit for comparisons:

Team                         Opponents Combined Win/Loss

Carolina                      75 wins/94 losses

Arizona                       73 wins/96 losses

New England              82 wins/87 losses

Cincinnati                   79 wins/90 losses

Denver                       81 wins/88 losses

If every team handled their business and went undefeated like they're supposed to:

Team                         Opponents Adjusted Combined Win/Loss

Carolina                      75 wins/94 losses

Arizona                        71 wins/98 losses

New England               80 wins/89 losses

Cincinnati                     76 wins/93 losses

Denver                         78 wins/91 losses

 

[-13 Amp-]

The way I've seen it mostly is broken down and people pick out the teams we've played that's over .500 and as of right now we've played 2 and the pats played 3 and the cards have played 4...But both the cards and pats lost a game to one of the teams over .500 (and lost a game to teams under .500)

Its basicly the best knock they have in the Panthers so they use it to death and don't be surprised of the Panthers win the super bowl that they did it because the NFL had a down year

[The Lobo]

16 minutes ago, stankowalski said:

Why does this continue to be an issue?  None of the top team's opponents have a combined record over .500.  In fact Arizona's schedule has been easier if you see that their opponent's combined wins/losses is worse than ours.  But how often do you hear this about the Cardinals?  Relatively speaking from looking at opponents combined records we have had an "easier" schedule than New England, Cincinnati, and Denver.  But even the "hardest" schedule out of all of them (New England) is still only a 7 win difference.  Is that really SIGNIFICANT over 3/4 of a season?  And if those teams would have won all their games like Carolina has the difference would have been even less. 

So basically the media is penalizing us for winning all of our games.  Ridiculous.

You are absolutely correct. This drives me nuts. No other "good" team has a schedule that is hard. The Seahawks whooped a bad Ravens team big deal. We smoke a bad Falcons team (who had a high ranking offense) and we shut them out...media says "oh the Falcons are bad" yet they crown the Seahawks. Ha f that

[Jangler]

What do they think about eggnog? Personally I like it in coffee.

[usmcpanthers]

and to top it off about Seattle, everyone has already forgotten they were gifted a win versus Detroit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Udogg]

It's the only thing they can think of.

Every other theory has been shot down.

1. Team won't score without Kelvin Benjamin.

2. Can't beat Seattle

3. Defense carries team

4. Won't be able to score when it matters

5. Due for a letdown

6. Cam's can't compete at MVP level

7. Well the schedule is soft

8. Goodell is fixing it so New England won't win.

[stankowalski]

And guess which team is the only team in the league to have NOT lost to a sub .500 team.  Carolina.

[heelinfine]

20 minutes ago, The Lobo said:

You are absolutely correct. This drives me nuts. No other "good" team has a schedule that is hard. The Seahawks whooped a bad Ravens team big deal. We smoke a bad Falcons team (who had a high ranking offense) and we shut them out...media says "oh the Falcons are bad" yet they crown the Seahawks. Ha f that

It boils down to the fact that the haters are running out of excuses for the Panthers success.

If they want to ride the "weak schedule" narrative,  so be it. Just point to the fact that we are basically curb stomping our "weak schedule". The #1 scoring offense in the league is throttling their inferior competition by an average scoring margin of 12.9 ppg, also a NFL best.

Drop mic.

[KillerKat]

Nobody ever says poo when NE has cupcake schedules every fuging year. They can just fuging eat a whole big bag of whale dicks.

[stankowalski]

34 minutes ago, The Lobo said:

You are absolutely correct. This drives me nuts. No other "good" team has a schedule that is hard. The Seahawks whooped a bad Ravens team big deal. We smoke a bad Falcons team (who had a high ranking offense) and we shut them out...media says "oh the Falcons are bad" yet they crown the Seahawks. Ha f that

Well technically the Seahawks have had a "tougher" schedule than all of the "elite" teams.  But they've lost, so there's that.

[t96]

We're undefeated. We're a target. Just ignore them.

[Khaki Lackey]

36 minutes ago, Jangler said:

What do they think about eggnog? Personally I like it in coffee.

I tried some in some Cap'n Crunch last Saturday. Surprisingly disappointing.

[stankowalski]

7 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

We're undefeated. We're a target. Just ignore them.

I prefer to correct them.  When they want to base their arguments on weak stuff like this it should be ridiculed and shown why it's a weak argument.

Besides if we ignored everything what would we talk about? 

[BIGH2001]

A weak schedule doesn't exist in professional football.