4 /3 or 3/4 scheme.

[KSpan]

16 minutes ago, Icege said:

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same Brian Burns re: run defense. The Brian Burns I'm talking about is the football player that was #7 in the league for TFLs while also racking up 12.5 sacks in a college defense.

Sacks count as TFLs.

[Stuart Smith]

2 hours ago, lightsout said:

I've seen 3-3-5 teams stop the run effectively. Scheme matters less than matchup and execution. You don't want to run a base 3-4 against a 2 te set, but you don't want to run a base 4-3 against that either. Neither offers a distinct advantage in that scenario. Base defense is just presuming the offense is in a typical pro set, and pro set is often 3 wr and a single back, so that has shifted. 3-4 fits today's NFL best.

 

We're a year or two away from truly being good on offense. It's why a 7 or 8 win season would be a good year for us this year. Rookie QB, new staff, new systems. We all should be wanting to see progression week over week more than anything.

I hope we have more that another 7 win season. There is more enthusiasm now in the Panther fan base than there has been for several years. To win only 7 games again and say “it will take a year or two” will be unacceptable for many fans. You will continue to see empty seats. 

[TheCasillas]

10 minutes ago, KSpan said:

Sacks count as TFLs.

Depends on who is taking the stats... TFLs and Tackles are actually not officially tracked by the CBA. For instance: Pro Football Reference does not count TFLs as Sacks, they count them as Tackles, but ESPN counts TFLS and Sacks as Tackles. 

Basically, there is no consistent pattern to how these specific stats are tracked bc they are not official stats that CBA tracks.

 

Does A Sack Count As A Tackle For Loss?

No, the majority of stat keepers do not count a sack as a tackle for loss. Sacks and tackles for loss are considered separate statistics. That all being said some websites and stat keepers do count sacks as a TFL aka tackle for loss.

The defining factor that establishes that a sack does not count as a tackle for loss is that the NFL and associated Madden videos games do not count a sack as a TFL.

[lightsout]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Smith said:

I hope we have more that another 7 win season. There is more enthusiasm now in the Panther fan base than there has been for several years. To win only 7 games again and say “it will take a year or two” will be unacceptable for many fans. You will continue to see empty seats. 

 

Fans need to curb their expectations. It's extremely hard to win consistently in the NFL, and it's even harder with an entirely new staff, systems, rookie QB and entirely new offensive weapons.

It's like telling NC State to win the ACC every time they graduate a 2 year starter and hire a new coach. Could it happen? Sure. Is it gonna? Absolutely not.

The difference in last season and now, with 7 wins, is had we not fired Rhule we absolutely would not have gotten those wins. We would've won another game or two at least had we fired him last off-season. We finished strong and got to 7. 

I expect us to struggle a little but be competitive early and week to week build and improve and it be apparent in the play. That's something we HAVEN'T had in a while. That should be our expectation, given our circumstances. If you're expecting playoff berth, you're likely to be very disappointed.

[Sgt Schultz]

18 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

Depends on who is taking the stats... TFLs and Tackles are actually not officially tracked by the CBA. For instance: Pro Football Reference does not count TFLs as Sacks, they count them as Tackles, but ESPN counts TFLS and Sacks as Tackles. 

Basically, there is no consistent pattern to how these specific stats are tracked bc they are not official stats that CBA tracks.

 

Does A Sack Count As A Tackle For Loss?

No, the majority of stat keepers do not count a sack as a tackle for loss. Sacks and tackles for loss are considered separate statistics. That all being said some websites and stat keepers do count sacks as a TFL aka tackle for loss.

The defining factor that establishes that a sack does not count as a tackle for loss is that the NFL and associated Madden videos games do not count a sack as a TFL.

Does the NCAA still count sacks against rushing totals?  That was always the big difference, the NFL accounts for them in the net passing stat while the NCAA took them out of the rushing totals, at least from what I remember.  I could see that altering the TFL between the two, as well.

[TheCasillas]

19 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

Does the NCAA still count sacks against rushing totals?  That was always the big difference, the NFL accounts for them in the net passing stat while the NCAA took them out of the rushing totals, at least from what I remember.  I could see that altering the TFL between the two, as well.

yep they do

[Stuart Smith]

1 hour ago, lightsout said:

 

Fans need to curb their expectations. It's extremely hard to win consistently in the NFL, and it's even harder with an entirely new staff, systems, rookie QB and entirely new offensive weapons.

It's like telling NC State to win the ACC every time they graduate a 2 year starter and hire a new coach. Could it happen? Sure. Is it gonna? Absolutely not.

The difference in last season and now, with 7 wins, is had we not fired Rhule we absolutely would not have gotten those wins. We would've won another game or two at least had we fired him last off-season. We finished strong and got to 7. 

I expect us to struggle a little but be competitive early and week to week build and improve and it be apparent in the play. That's something we HAVEN'T had in a while. That should be our expectation, given our circumstances. If you're expecting playoff berth, you're likely to be very disappointed.

Given the length Tepper has gone to in an effort to put a winning team on the field I think he will be very disappointed with 7 wins also. 

[stratocatter]

Tepper and his lengths…. I believed then and still believe we were in a 3-4 D because the Steelers ran one and Rivera liked being Head Coach.
 

We may be doing that now for all I know. I mean, we don’t know what conditions Reich was willing to agree to get the job. 

I find it amusing that they are essentially still on the patented Rhule 7 year plan, Rhule just won’t be here for it (not complaining about that).

If you think about it, that Rhule guy was smart. Don’t over promise, don’t mess around and have to backtrack off your 5 year schedule in year 3. That is a bad look. Better to get that out of the way up front, and you won’t have to revise it again 8 years after year 5. (Supposed to be tongue in cheek humor, for the ones reaching for the poo icon). 

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by stratocatter

[Sgt Schultz]

3 minutes ago, stratocatter said:

Tepper and his lengths…. I believed then and still believe we were in a 3-4 D because the Steelers ran one and Rivera liked being Head Coach.
 

I've always said something similar.  Tepper, Hurney, and Rivera were in a meeting and Hurney and Rivera had no answer for why the defense stunk so badly.  Tepper probably asked about whether a 3-4, like they played in Pittsburgh, would work and the other two figured he wanted to hear "yes," so we became a 3-4.  Sort of.

Never mind the fact that nobody had any idea how our DL or LBs would work in that scheme.

 

[stratocatter]

Rivera had run both, successfully. So I got it on that front. I thought a lot of him as a coach when he was hired. Not as much after that abrupt (and seemingly impulsive) 3-4 switch and since he went to DC. 

[Sgt Schultz]

5 minutes ago, stratocatter said:

Rivera had run both, successfully. So I got it on that front. I thought a lot of him as a coach when he was hired. Not as much after that abrupt (and seemingly impulsive) 3-4 switch and since he went to DC. 

Maybe it's my own perception, but he never seemed to fully buy into the 3-4 switch.  Hurney would have given the thumbs up to a 1-6 if he thought it would ingratiate him with the boss.

As for Rivera, it was reported that he said during his interview for the Panthers job that a coach has a shelf life of about ten years and then the message gets stale.  He is right on that count.  Very few coaches last longer than that in one job and those who do often have a downturn and have to "reinvent themselves" to return to success.  He was nearing that mark when the wheels started coming off and Tepper came in.  I remember thinking he seemed tired.

[stratocatter]

I think Rivera knew the team wouldn’t be successful fast enough. Changing schemes, teaching the organization to scout and evaluate from a 3-4 perspective, etc, it was gonna take time he didn’t have. And (correctly) figured he was helping to dig his own grave, but had no way to avoid it and remain employed. 

Edited August 14, 2023 by stratocatter

[csx]

Easier to get players in the 3-4.

[stratocatter]

36 minutes ago, csx said:

Easier to get players in the 3-4.

Good!