Am I watching the same team as y’all?(message to the haters)

[panthers55]

12 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I don't I think that was overblown at all.

Just the opposite. I'm not sure people realize just how big a cluster @#$& that really was.

Going into the biggest game of the year against a suffocating defense, especially given that you were exposed just a few weeks before, and deciding to do exactly what you've already put on 18 games worth of game film for a defensive genius to review, is such an incredibly stupid decision that I'd only expect an absolute moron to do that.

Rivera isn't an absolute moron, but he still did that, and frankly it's unforgivable.

We had the number 1 offense in the league scoring over 30 points a game. We were 15-1 and thought no one could stop us. Were we over confident? In hind sight yeah.  Should we have changed things up? Absolutely.  Would we do things differently if we could replay that game? Definitely.  Unforgivable? Hardly. I think your crticosm is a little overblown as well.

[GoobyPls]

4 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Only people who have never played or coached a sport at any level would think this let alone post it. Otherwise you have no clue how much time, preparation and hard work goes into being prepared for a game. It doesn't happen by accident let alone in spite of coaching.

Coaching football isn’t rocket science. And teams win in spite of coaching all the time

[panthers55]

1 minute ago, GoobyPls said:

Coaching football isn’t rocket science. And teams win in spite of coaching all the time

You either have no clue or are just trolling. I will be kind and say it is the latter. Again teams can overcome a coaching error but tell me an NFL team that won a Super Bowl with a terrible coach.

[GoobyPls]

36 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

You either have no clue or are just trolling. I will be kind and say it is the latter. Again teams can overcome a coaching error but tell me an NFL team that won a Super Bowl with a terrible coach.

Terrible no, mediocre yes. Kubiack is as mediocre as they come. Mike McCarthy another mediocre coach carried by a great QB. 

 

Like I said coaching football isn’t rocket science

[Mr. Scot]

48 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

Coaching football isn’t rocket science. And teams win in spite of coaching all the time

Coaching football at the pro level is pretty close to rocket science.

Bad coaches do win games over good ones. And good coaches do sometimes make awful coaching decisions.

Teams win games in spite of bad decisions, huge mistakes, poor plays, missed assignments and a million other things. They also lose games in spite of phenomenal efforts, miracle plays, favorable matchups and fortuitous circumstances.

still, when the game's over, it all gets recorded in the record books the same way.

[panthers55]

17 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

Terrible no, mediocre yes. Kubiack is as mediocre as they come. Mike McCarthy another mediocre coach carried by a great QB. 

 

Like I said coaching football isn’t rocket science

Actually coaching can be  harder than rocket science. In rocket science many variables are fixed whereas in coaching most variables are in flux and require significant  adaptation. A trait  that many rocket scientists actually struggle with. Coaching requires skills that would be beyond the capacity of most rocket scientists such as managing personalities and competing priorities. Seems you likely haven't studied either.

[Sasquatch]

8 hours ago, Doc Holiday said:

Seriously after the preseason and week 1 injuries who saw this coming? Not me, I fully expected us to struggle just to hit .500

Ummmm 

Did you realize that the difference between the 3-1 and the .500 is one game , in other words, one 63 yard field goal. Gano misses that kick and we're right there.

[pantherphan96]

Rivera is a mediocre coach carried by a once-in-a-generation talent at QB. He's ultra-conservative in his philosophy which has led to middling success due to the (overall) quality of our defense. If he really was a great coach it wouldn't have taken years to be in position to have back-to-back winning seasons.

[emhoward]

I think most of the people who want Rivera fired put a lot of emphasis on gameday coaching/decisions, and rightfully so, it's the most important aspect of the job. But I don't think Rivera gets enough credit for what he does during the week, the part of the job the fans ignore. That's the preparation part of the job, and it's vital, and I think it's one of Rivera's strengths.

[GoobyPls]

2 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Actually coaching can be  harder than rocket science. In rocket science many variables are fixed whereas in coaching most variables are in flux and require significant  adaptation. A trait  that many rocket scientists actually struggle with. Coaching requires skills that would be beyond the capacity of most rocket scientists such as managing personalities and competing priorities. Seems you likely haven't studied either.

I’m sure it’s harder LOL, that’s why guys with zero experience get coaching jobs. 

 

John Fox went 46-18 with the Broncos, now nobody wants him. Jim Caldwell, Jeff Fisher all have good records nobody wants them. Rivera without Cam would be in their same predicament 

[GoPanthers123]

NFL.com has us ranked in the top 5. Even the media likes us, doubters be gone!

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, GoobyPls said:

I’m sure it’s harder LOL, that’s why guys with zero experience get coaching jobs. 

 

John Fox went 46-18 with the Broncos, now nobody wants him. Jim Caldwell, Jeff Fisher all have good records nobody wants them. Rivera without Cam would be in their same predicament 

Actually Fox  did get a job after Denver. Then in Chicago he went 14-34 which is why nobody wants him now. Which proves my point. If coaching we're so easy Fox would have been as successful in Chicago as in Denver but he wasn't. Because as I told you many of the variables vary from team to team and from year to year so it is hard to be a successful coach every where you go. 

Fisher was 173-165 as a head coach which is barely above 500. And his last 5 years coaching at STL/ LA Rams he was 31-45 with 0 winning seasons. He went 4-9 in 2016 with the same Rams team Sean McVay went 11-5 the next year. The NFL stands for not for long. No matter how good you were at one place, if you move on and do worse at the next you get canned and now raise the concern that you only won because of a quarterback not on your own merits. Even Belichick suffers those questions about his success being the result of Tom Brady. Of course he has showed his system works with other QBs at least in the short term.

The biggest variable is personnel and a franchise quarterback. If you have good players you have a shot to have a winning season. If not, you better hope your new owner is patient.

[bigdavis]

12 hours ago, Doc Holiday said:

Sorry man but you’re being ridiculous and literally all the evidence is against you. Lol

Free *FreeFua*

[bigdavis]

9 hours ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

The word "regress" is used a bit too often around these forums.  It's kind of used as a blanket term to cover when the offense, or a specific player of the offense, is out of rhythm, when the defense matches up well with us and has a good game, when there are injuries, etc, etc, etc...

Having a bad game is not "regressing". One bad game is one bad game. Now if you have two, three, or four bad games, you're regressing.

I'd point out that our points totals have gone 16/24/31/33  I believe that's defined as Progression, not Regression.  Defense is a different thing, but I see steady improvement in the offense's production, and that's with no Olsen, and only minimal snaps from Samuel and Moore.