Panthers this century are....

[Harbingers]

4 minutes ago, PantherPhann89 said:

Fortunately, we no longer accept mediocrity. 

As long as Hurney is around we only accept less. 

[Mr. Scot]

1 hour ago, Tbe said:

But I hear Marty Hurney isn’t responsible for any of that....lol

Well, we've got one guy running around saying Marty gets credit for all of the winning, even during the seasons after he was fired and had nothing to do with the team.

Apparently, his influence is far-reaching.

[BrianS]

What I find interesting about that chart is that nearly all of top 10 teams are the ones who play in divisions with a couple of terrible teams.

Patriots?  Jets, Dolphins, Bills.  6-0.

Packers?  Lions, Bears, Vikings.  5-1.

Steelers?  Ravens, Bengals, Browns.  5-1.

Ravens?  Steelers, Bengals, Browns.  5-1.

Etc.

You can have a division with two dominant teams.  But not three.  This is what our problem has been.  Yes, the Saints are good and will be so long as Brees / Payton are there.  However, there is an opportunity for us, we simply have to beat the Falcons and Bucs every year and split with the Saints.

 

[carpanfan96]

Only 14 teams with a winning record, 9 teams with a winning % over .53

 

Seems the NFL outside a handful of teams is the very definition of mediocre 

[CRA]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Igo said:

Saw this on the Twitter.

Looking at all the team's seasons this century from best two worst

Panthers are....

The definition  of mediocre.

But in fairness...it doesn’t paint that accurate of a picture when you leave postseason success out of the equation. 

Postseason over the same timespan? Carolina trends better 

[1of10Charnatives]

14 minutes ago, BrianS said:

What I find interesting about that chart is that nearly all of top 10 teams are the ones who play in divisions with a couple of terrible teams.

Patriots?  Jets, Dolphins, Bills.  6-0.

Packers?  Lions, Bears, Vikings.  5-1.

Steelers?  Ravens, Bengals, Browns.  5-1.

Ravens?  Steelers, Bengals, Browns.  5-1.

Etc.

You can have a division with two dominant teams.  But not three.  This is what our problem has been.  Yes, the Saints are good and will be so long as Brees / Payton are there.  However, there is an opportunity for us, we simply have to beat the Falcons and Bucs every year and split with the Saints.

 

Actually I had a lot of hope til this season that much of the Saints success rested with Brees and not Payton, because Brees ain't gonna play forever but as long as Payton keeps winning, guess who we'll have to deal with?

But damned if the dude didn't take Teddy Bridgewater and still dominate the division. Indications are they will still have to reckoned with once Brees is gone.

[1of10Charnatives]

7 minutes ago, carpanfan96 said:

Only 14 teams with a winning record, 9 teams with a winning % over .53

 

Seems the NFL outside a handful of teams is the very definition of mediocre 

Shhhhhhhh.

You're not supposed to point out the elephant in the room.

[onmyown]

I did this research myself and posted the thread like 4 years ago but it was only since inception (1995)

and we were much much worse that mediocre like #23 is I remember correctly

i guess that was before the last 4-5 years was able to even out 1995-200

but wow jumping up 7 spots

 

 

[onmyown]

But hey guys we aren’t the browns lions or jets, so we’re actually a good franchise.

[Waldo]

11 minutes ago, CRA said:

But in fairness...it doesn’t paint that accurate of a picture when you leave postseason success out of the equation. 

Postseason over the same timespan? Carolina trends better 

I disagree. I always thought that approach just skews the numbers unfairly. Treat postseason separately. Adding postseason to regular season in a clump just skews the numbers and muddies the picture on regular season success. That or use a 19 or 20 game average donominator for every year.

[CRA]

3 hours ago, Waldo said:

I disagree. I always thought that approach just skews the numbers unfairly. Treat postseason separately. Adding postseason to regular season in a clump just skews the numbers and muddies the picture on regular season success. That or use a 19 or 20 game average donominator for every year.

postseason play really is all that matters to me.   I'd rather judge a franchise or coach of what their postseason record/appearances were than what the regular season said. 

So, personally, that is how I would view/rank frachicises over that time span.  I mean, could care less if team A finished a non-playoff season at 8-8 vs another that went 4-12. 

[Waldo]

6 minutes ago, CRA said:

postseason play really is all that matters to me.   I'd rather judge a franchise or coach of what their postseason record/appearances were than what the regular season said. 

If you really want to go a step farther, championships won would be the most meaningful number without need of interpretation. 'Second place is the first place loser'. Always liked that one. 

 

 

[MHS831]

5 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

You needed a chart to tell you that this team has been mediocre it's entire existence?  

RR's latest T-shirt:

[CRA]

so for example the Titans rank 2 spots ahead of us going off those regular season.  Would you of rather been them? It implies they had a better decade. 

They had 3 playoff wins.  Best accomplishment was a division title. 

Carolina had 8 playoff wins.  Won 2 conference titles.  Appeared in two Super Bowls.  

It isn't really close who had a better decade.  Carolina. 

Same can be said for someone like Dallas.  Same postseason resume as Tennessee.  Who had a better decade? Carolina.