Shackling your quarterback

[grateflday]

Being brutally honest, if you have to resort to this tactic, you may as well bench him.

Sadly the QB's on the bench are worse and the only guy that might have been able to come in and win was put on IR because the HC/GM panicked that Moore might have to play.

[magnus]

I think their tactic was a matter of being up 14 points. Once the lead went, we started to throw. And apparently people forget we did so fairly well.

[MaineManPanther]

Being brutally honest, if you have to resort to this tactic, you may as well bench him.

Not if your going to shackel the backup even more. Delhomme was given some oppurtunites to throw. And on when it did work it work decently. This was large in part becaue of our intial conservative plan let us do play action throws well.

[outlaw4]

Being brutally honest, if you have to resort to this tactic, you may as well bench him.

Also being brutally honest, he'd do the same thing to Matt Moore.

(At least, I get that weird feeling that Fox just doesn't have faith in him.)

[panthers55]

To be brutally honest, Neither Fox or Davidson know how to read the ebb and flow of the game and make adjustments based on what is working or not. Otherwise they let Jake make the throws yesterday since he was on and accurate. Other weeks when he wasn't they should have dialed it down and run more often. I have been a critic of Henning over the years but he was very good at feeding the stud and exploiting the mismatches. Davidson wouldn't even know what a mismatch looks like let alone exploiting it. That is very sad given that when he came here that is exactly what he said he would do.

[CatMan72]

Moore could go out there and throw smoke routes all day.

It really has become absurd how much we're trying to hide Jake with our playcalling.

[R0CKnR0LLA]

Shackling? Sounds pretty kinky.

[PanthersAlv]

Did Jake actually play Sunday? lol

[Mr. Scot]

I think their tactic was a matter of being up 14 points. Once the lead went, we started to throw. And apparently people forget we did so fairly well.

Well, you know how Fox works when he has a lead.

I'm not speaking solely of yesterday though. I'm speaking in general.

You limit the playbook when you've got a young guy who hasn't mastered the offense (Moore in 2007) or a young guy who's been a little erratic and needs to concentrate on safe, high percentage throws (Young and Cutler this year). In cases like these, that strategy make sense.

When you have to do it to a long-time veteran who knows the offense like the back of his hand, that's a whole other matter. The only time you limit that guy's game is when he's playing badly. And if he's really playing so badly that this sort of tactic becomes necessary, you may as well just bench him.

I questioned last week whether we could win consistently employing the strategy we did against the Cardinals. For certain, I know we can't beat good teams like that.

At least with Moore, if he plays well with a limited offense, you can open it up more over time. If, on the other hand, you put more and more chains on Jake, at what point does it become counterproductive?

[uncpanther]

Jake will not be benched this year as long as Fox is coach, if Fox remains coach after this year then there may be a change. If Fox is gone then there will def be a change. The better option is Moore but that would make Fox and Hurney look incredibly stupid for giving Jake a huge contract with guaranteed money. That sad part is that we are a playoff team if we had a better QB and Moore regardless of what everyone thinks deserves a chance to see what he can do.

[Khyber53]

Look, when called on Jake was answering the bell. He was making throws at the end, and at least three of his incompletions were right on the money, but dropped by the receivers. Was Jake shackled? Not completely at the end, but enough to the point where they may have kept him from winning the game.

I'm putting this one on a few people's shoulders. Davidson, Jarrett and Williams (and man, I hate to put it on Dangelo's shoulders). Jake was playing well enough to win the game and he should have won it. We should have won it.

Even with New Orleans unravelling our defense, we remained in contention until Dangelo's fumble at the end. That fumble and the 7 points resulting from it, cost us the game. Yanno what, though? Fumbles happen. And rarely are they good.

We did see a team match and outplay the number one team in the league Sunday, barring a couple of fumbles. And perhaps, we can take something from that.

[Davidson Deac II]

And that's Jake's fault, of course. Everything that goes wrong is.

That was Jake's fault. He is the one that makes the choices on where the ball is thrown. The offensive coordinator designs the plays, and they usually have several options. I doubt the coordinator said absolutely throw it deep even is Smith and Jarrett are covered.

That being said, everything is certainly not Jake's fault. But this year, in most of our losses, the passing game has been one of the major factors in a loss. Against Philly, it was bad special teams play, no running game, and a shitload of int's. Against Atlanta, it was fumbles, poor special teams play, and a critical interception. Against Dallas, it was an ineffective run game, and interceptions. Against Buffalo, missed field goals, a dropped punt, and bad interceptions. Against New Orleans, injuries, an ineffective passing game and a couple of fumbles. The passing game, while not the only factor in any loss, is a common factor in all of our losses. And its the most glaring need.

[Davidson Deac II]

Someone please satisfy my curiosity and tell me why it seems to be a foregone conclusion that Moore is better?

Is it just the delusional belief that any starting Div-II college QB would be a better than Jake, or is there something in Matt's numbers that suggest he would be better? Because Ive been looking at his stats and looks to me that making the switch isn't "out of the frying pan and into the fire" bad, its more like just a different spot in the frying pan.

Its not a foregone conclusion that he is better. Its more of a Jake is not working out, so why not give Moore a try. He can't be any worse.

[PanthersPhan18]

Someone please satisfy my curiosity and tell me why it seems to be a foregone conclusion that Moore is better?

Is it just the delusional belief that any starting Div-II college QB would be a better than Jake, or is there something in Matt's numbers that suggest he would be better? Because Ive been looking at his stats and looks to me that making the switch isn't "out of the frying pan and into the fire" bad, its more like just a different spot in the frying pan.

Only way to know is to give him opportunities, no?