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!

     

Could Rip Scherer be part of Jakes problem

jpo287

By jpo287,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

jpo287 Newbie

jpo287

Posted
Posted

First off, I am not a Jake apologist and and not looking for excuses. I realize that Jake's problems started last year against Arizona. But usually, Jake has a bad game and then bounces back after a game or two. Needless to say, there hasn't been any bounce back this year. And while Jake has never been a great QB, he has always been better than what we are seeing this year. So I got to thinking and am wondering if the new QB coach, Rip Scherer, could be part of the problem.

I looked up his numbers while in Cleveland. In the four years he was the QB coach, they threw 70 TD's to 82 INT's. Of course he didn't have the best talent to start with but still, 70 TDs to 82 INTS! And this was across all four years he was there. In fact, they threw more INTs than TD's in three of his four years. So, could Scherer be part of the problem with Jake this year? His QBs do have a history of being turnover prone.

Again, I am not looking for excuses...just wondering???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpo287 Newbie

jpo287

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I still think Jake really started looking awful after his tommy john surgery. Quite sad too since right before he was injured he looked better than he ever has before.

Even last year he had his share of bad games.

Actually Jake wasn't too bad last year. He had the bad game against Tampa and Oakland throwing 7 INT in those two games. He only threw 12 INTs all year though which means he only threw 5 INT in the other 14 games. And how about those passes in the final seconds of the Chargers games, or against the Saints or his game against GB. I know Jake gets beat up all lot around here but you can't really say he had a bad year last year. You can say he had two bad games but two games do not make a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted

Actually Jake wasn't too bad last year. He had the bad game against Tampa and Oakland throwing 7 INT in those two games. He only threw 12 INTs all year though which means he only threw 5 INT in the other 14 games. And how about those passes in the final seconds of the Chargers games, or against the Saints or his game against GB. I know Jake gets beat up all lot around here but you can't really say he had a bad year last year. You can say he had two bad games but two games do not make a year.

Finally some facts and actual information instead of the usual hysterical commentary. :hurray:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpo287 Newbie

jpo287

Posted
  • Author
Posted

He isn't the one overthrowing, underthrowing, lame-duck throwing, and in general making poor choices/throws. He might not be helping a whole lot, but I wouldn't put much (if any) of the blame on him for the inept passing offense.

Isn't that kind of like saying Fox doesn't deserve any of the criticism for the teams poor play. After all, he's not making them miss blocks or tackles.

Look, all I am saying is maybe he came in and started changing Jake's mechanics or something. We all know they weren't great to start with. But as bad as they were, he was still able to connect with Smith almost at will. Now, there's nothing. It can't be the surgery because he was fine last year. The only other major change, other than age, is the QB coach.

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...