So Remmers was our highest graded Offensive Player

[panthers55]

4 hours ago, The_Rainmaker said:

Come on man what are you taking about that year we lost Mitchelle , Munnerlyn and other secondary players so yes they had to start before they where ready. Same thing this year with Bradberry

 

Not at all. Who did we start out at the beginning of the year?  Hint.  They were veterans and one played the year before for the Falcons.  Yes they were not great but we still played them until the rookies were ready and we had little to lose since we already had a losing record.  But we could have brought in more vets like we did with Peanut last year and did with safeties this year.  But we went with rookies because our staff does a great job teaching them and bringing them along not because we had no other choice.

[juliosantos]

is this real life?

[panthers55]

4 hours ago, GoobyPls said:

Wtf? 

 

Like i I said the chances of their being a dump off when it's 3 receivers only is slim l, a dump off in our offense is 10 yards down the field.

First of all we don't use 11 personnel nearly as much as 12 personnel so it is not that often we use 3 receivers. And when we do have 3 receivers we usually are  not in max protect.  And if they have 7 DBs as you suggest, we would be running the ball not throwing it anyway since that would leave them with no LBs. So your premise is flawed from the beginning.

[The_Rainmaker]

8 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

None of that makes it any better.

Hoping one of our players gets hurt is a pretty good sign you take football way too seriously and probably need to get your real world priorities straight.

At the end of the day its all about winning and I rather have a JAG get injured vs my franchise QB. BTW its not like the NFL and the owners care about injuires and player saftey its all about winning & $$$ something you support as fan.

 

 Far as real world priorites where do you stand on the whole issue of Kapernick. 

[GoobyPls]

4 hours ago, panthers55 said:

First of all we don't use 11 personnel nearly as much as 12 personnel so it is not that often we use 3 receivers. And when we do have 3 receivers we usually are  not in max protect.  And if they have 7 DBs as you suggest, we would be running the ball not throwing it anyway since that would leave them with no LBs. So your premise is flawed from the beginning.

Uh wrong 

 

We lapped the field when it comes to using max protection. So yes we are throwing constantly with 3 receiving option. Max protection has nothing to do with running the ball to begin with. The coaches know this line isn't as good as its made out to be, so they help them as much as they can. I can probably count with one hand the amount of times we use 5 or 4 receivers sets in a game.

[panthers55]

1 minute ago, GoobyPls said:

Uh wrong 

 

We lapped the field when it comes to using max protection. So yes we are throwing constantly with 3 receiving option. Max protection has nothing to do with running the ball to begin with. The coaches know this line isn't as good as its made out to be, so they help them as much as they can. I can probably count with one hand the amount of times we use 5 or 4 receivers sets in a game.

Dont waste my time pretending to explain the game to me. We do use some max protect especially on obvious throwing down which we have been in far too many times due to being in third and long due to mistakes and poor execution. That same formation can also be used for a tight end screen as well as a power running formation. So max protect is not a specific play or formation but a designation of how many running backs and tight ends we keep in on a passing play to block.  We can either run out of the two back set or the one back and one tight end set which when they stay in to block on a passing play is called a max protection. You are right about the 5 or 4 receiver sets.  Teams just blitz us when we show an empty backfield  and spy Cam running.  

[GoobyPls]

3 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Dont waste my time pretending to explain the game to me. We do use some max protect especially on obvious throwing down which we have been in far too many times due to being in third and long due to mistakes and poor execution. That same formation can also be used for a tight end screen as well as a power running formation. So max protect is not a specific play or formation but a designation of how many running backs and tight ends we keep in on a passing play to block.  We can either run out of the two back set or the one back and one tight end set which when they stay in to block on a passing play is called a max protection. You are right about the 5 or 4 receiver sets.  Teams just blitz us when we show an empty backfield  and spy Cam running.  

What same formation? max protect is not a formation. You can call max protect from various formation, the panthers specifically call it mostly from split backs.

 

Any team brave enough to blitz another team while having 5 wide is in over there head.

[panthers55]

4 hours ago, GoobyPls said:

What same formation? max protect is not a formation. You can call max protect from various formation, the panthers specifically call it mostly from split backs.

 

Any team brave enough to blitz another team while having 5 wide is in over there head.

That is exactly what I told you. Max protection is a philosophy and cab be run with different personnel groupings and formations. What makes it max protection is whether everyone stays in to block on a pass. But you can run or pass out of those formations as well.  If you can't even understand that, I am wasting.my time here..

And yeah you can blitz with 5 receivers in several ways. You seem the only one in over your head.

[Mr. Scot]

13 hours ago, The_Rainmaker said:

At the end of the day its all about winning and I rather have a JAG get injured vs my franchise QB. BTW its not like the NFL and the owners care about injuires and player saftey its all about winning & $$$ something you support as fan.

 

 Far as real world priorites where do you stand on the whole issue of Kapernick. 

Nice attempt at deflection.

You said you hoped one of our own players gets hurt.  That's a really sh--ty thing to do.  No excuses.

The phrase "This isn't Madden" seems lost on you.

Grow up, kid.

[The_Rainmaker]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

Nice attempt at deflection.

You said you hoped one of our own players gets hurt.  That's a really sh--ty thing to do.  No excuses.

The phrase "This isn't Madden" seems lost on you.

Grow up, kid.

I'm not deflecting and yes I want him to get injured. BTW your the one deflecting the question on Kapernick. So whats your stance a 5x Super Bowl champ "coach" 

[Mr. Scot]

15 minutes ago, The_Rainmaker said:

I'm not deflecting and yes I want him to get injured. BTW your the one deflecting the question on Kapernick. So whats your stance a 5x Super Bowl champ "coach" 

Trying desperately to switch to any other topic is pretty much the definition of 'deflecting'.

And thanks for confirming what kind of person you are.

You probably ought to be banned for crap like that.

[The_Rainmaker]

39 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Trying desperately to switch to any other topic is pretty much the definition of 'deflecting'.

And thanks for confirming what kind of person you are.

You probably ought to be banned for crap like that.

I'm not deflecting the question, I'm on the record I would like to see Mike Remmers get injured so Daryl Williams can play RT. Rather save the franchise QB and the jobs of other players  than see a JAG player hold the whole team back

Answer the question on Kapernick, let see your stance on football and real life  issues. Mr I know everything douche lol 

[RumHam]

saw Remmers get blown up on Sunday. Both tackles are the problem. Stop drafting fuging DTs and LBs and address the poo in need.

[RumHam]

Week 4 and we're talking about the draft. not good.