Preseason Games

[NanuqoftheNorth]

Yeah, thanks to the Panthers running a vanilla offense during previous preseasons, our regular season opponents were often fooled by Shula's clever twists. 

This was especially true on first downs. 

[DaveThePanther2008]

8 hours ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Yeah, thanks to the Panthers running a vanilla offense during previous preseasons, our regular season opponents were often fooled by Shula's clever twists. 

This was especially true on first downs. 

Well hopefully Turner will be a bit better than Shula.  Than again Shula's offense was closer to a Pee Wee league set of plays than an  NFL team.

[Pejorative Miscreant]

On 7/17/2018 at 8:57 AM, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Would you rather see what our offense is going to look like in preseason? or

Would you rather see a vanilla offense and keep the good stuff for our regular season?

I personally could care less if we win a game in preseason and keep what we plan to do during the regular season under wraps.

I realize you have to work on some of the plays but showing off too much gives teams that we play early extra footage to game plan off of.

Keep it under wraps for Dallas

During the Shula era I would have been extremely perplexed and asked you to explain the difference.  

 

[Snake]

16 hours ago, Davidson Deac II said:

As with almost all NFL teams in the salary cap era.

Negative only the bad ones. Good teams actually have good depth at core positions. It's why teams like the packers, patirots, eagles, and Steelers can overcome losses. Not to mention there GM doesn't go on IR sprees like ours. 

[Pantha-kun]

After seeing what happened to Juilian Edelman last year, I want Cam, Greg, Funchess and CMC to not play a single snap of pre season.  If they HAVE to play just give them the first drive of game 1 and 3.

I actually would like to see Ian Thomas  , Armah, DJ Moore, and Donte Jackson to get ALOT of action. 

[Carl Spackler]

Generally a good preseason record has translated to a good regular-season record. Not sure we've ever been worth a damn after going 0-4 in preseason

[Davidson Deac II]

1 hour ago, Snake said:

Negative only the bad ones. Good teams actually have good depth at core positions. It's why teams like the packers, patirots, eagles, and Steelers can overcome losses. Not to mention there GM doesn't go on IR sprees like ours. 

Did you watch the patriots last year?  They were thin at several positions, especially in the secondary.  Having a qb like Brady can overcome weaknesses. The Steelers are thin at WR this year unless their draft pick comes on strong. Having Antonio Brown mask a lot of weakness, but if he goes down, they have Ju Ju and a bunch of questions.  I will grant you the Eagles, but they were bad for several years, which means higher draft picks with cheap players and more available cap space. 

 

I am no fan of Marty, but being a GM these days means you have to make some hard choices, and be thin in some areas.  Nature of the beast.  

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, Snake said:

Negative only the bad ones. Good teams actually have good depth at core positions. It's why teams like the packers, patirots, eagles, and Steelers can overcome losses. Not to mention there GM doesn't go on IR sprees like ours. 

So where are we painfully  thin in your estimation. And when did Hurney go IR crazy last year? Just trying to gauge what you are most worried about.

[Snake]

23 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

So where are we painfully  thin in your estimation. And when did Hurney go IR crazy last year? Just trying to gauge what you are most worried about.

We are thin on both the T and DE spot. CB is also super thin not to mention both Safety spots where we will be starting more or less back up quality players. Also there is no one behind Newton and we didn't address that or T so it's not crazy Cam could miss a game or two because of injuries from a weak line. I think you can be thin at one or two of these but to ignore them all is risky. 

[Snake]

33 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Did you watch the patriots last year?  They were thin at several positions, especially in the secondary.  Having a qb like Brady can overcome weaknesses. The Steelers are thin at WR this year unless their draft pick comes on strong. Having Antonio Brown mask a lot of weakness, but if he goes down, they have Ju Ju and a bunch of questions.  I will grant you the Eagles, but they were bad for several years, which means higher draft picks with cheap players and more available cap space. 

 

I am no fan of Marty, but being a GM these days means you have to make some hard choices, and be thin in some areas.  Nature of the beast.  

And the Pats lost last year because that thin spot was exploited. They were thin because of injuries not depth. You leave off the packers as well who almost made it to the playoffs by shear depth. Going into the season with no T depth, no DE depth, no CB or DB depth, and no back up QB is risky. 

[panthers55]

4 hours ago, Snake said:

We are thin on both the T and DE spot. CB is also super thin not to mention both Safety spots where we will be starting more or less back up quality players. Also there is no one behind Newton and we didn't address that or T so it's not crazy Cam could miss a game or two because of injuries from a weak line. I think you can be thin at one or two of these but to ignore them all is risky. 

First of all every team not named Philly or Minnesota last year was thin at quarterback if their starter went down.  As for tackle as in DT we have at least 4 guys who can start. DE isn't thin either. We have guys who aren't proven like Cox, and Hall and three guys who can start in Peppers, Horton and Addison.  Five guys who can give us quality minutes. Five guys at corner with starting experience  and 2 more exciting young guys.  At safety we don't have much behind Adams and Searcy  until Gaulden or another backup steps up. Still we play a lot of nickel, single high safety looks and cover 3 shells so that we don't need as many safeties as we do corners. And some of our new linebackers are capable of playing safety. 

If by thin you mean we don't have starting quality proven players 4 deep at every position, you're are right. But with only 53 people on a roster you have to make choices and count on guys being versatile. But no we aren't thin at any.position besides TE IMO.  After all what do we have? 90 people going to camp. How is that thin.

[DaveThePanther2008]

6 hours ago, Carl Spackler said:

Generally a good preseason record has translated to a good regular-season record. Not sure we've ever been worth a damn after going 0-4 in preseason

In a normal season I would like to see more but unless you are changing coaches every year it isn't often you bring in a offense.  A good thing for us is that though this is an improved offense the approach will be different.  

THIS YEAR I am not so worried about the pre-season record.

[Snake]

1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

First of all every team not named Philly or Minnesota last year was thin at quarterback if their starter went down.  As for tackle as in DT we have at least 4 guys who can start. DE isn't thin either. We have guys who aren't proven like Cox, and Hall and three guys who can start in Peppers, Horton and Addison.  Five guys who can give us quality minutes. Five guys at corner with starting experience  and 2 more exciting young guys.  At safety we don't have much behind Adams and Searcy  until Gaulden or another backup steps up. Still we play a lot of nickel, single high safety looks and cover 3 shells so that we don't need as many safeties as we do corners. And some of our new linebackers are capable of playing safety. 

If by thin you mean we don't have starting quality proven players 4 deep at every position, you're are right. But with only 53 people on a roster you have to make choices and count on guys being versatile. But no we aren't thin at any.position besides TE IMO.  After all what do we have? 90 people going to camp. How is that thin.

Philly and Minnesota had starting QB's behind their starter, we don't even have a Anderson type QB for one. Secondly I wasn't talking about DT were we are deep but OT. Thirdly we have one starting CB and after that???? Hopes and dreams. We are thin and there is no way around that. We have extreme depth at WR, DT, and C but that's it. 

[Davidson Deac II]

12 hours ago, Snake said:

And the Pats lost last year because that thin spot was exploited. They were thin because of injuries not depth. You leave off the packers as well who almost made it to the playoffs by shear depth. Going into the season with no T depth, no DE depth, no CB or DB depth, and no back up QB is risky. 

The Pats were thin in the secondary because they didn't many have quality players.  Their secondary was bad from the beginning.  And if they had injuries and the backups came in and didn't play well, that means they didn't have depth.  

 

Otherwise, you are making my point for me.  With the salary cap, it's very difficult to have quality depth at all spots.  Only way to do it is to have a young team with a lot of relatively cheap draft picks signed.  And when you try to resign those young players, you pay more and give up depth in some areas.  Something Philly will have to deal with in a couple of years.  We could have greater depth, but it probably would have meant not resigning some of our Vets

 

In a couple of years, the Eagles will be in a similar situation to the Pats and other teams.  They will have to resign or release some of these players, paying bigger contracts and as a consequence, will lack depth in some areas.