Chuba Hubbard......

[kungfoodude]

4 hours ago, Khyber53 said:

I forgot about Alex! Really liked that dude. But let's face it, we need another Brad Hoover. 

It's not really necessary. There are better and more versatile options for part time lead blockers in the modern game. 

[Mage]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

Atlanta passed for over 500 yards on 58 passing attempts to 18 rushing attempts against team that is bottom 5 in pass defense and top 12 in rushing defense.

They rushed for 225 yards on 38 attempts to 30 passing attempts against a team that is bottom 5 in rushing defense and 23rd in pass defense.

Notice how they adjusted their offensive gameplan to suit the opponent? That's what smart football looks like.

We don't do that.

At this point I have to assume you are intentionally being ignorant.

Falcons passed a lot against the Bucs because they had to.  It was a high-scoring game, Bucs had 24 points by halftime.  

They ran the ball a lot against us because they had the lead for the whole game.  Again, this is basic football common sense.  You have lead = you run ball.  You don't have lead or are in a high-scoring game = you pass ball.  

If the Panthers had a lead, they would run the ball more.  You know, like when they ran the ball 31 times against the Raiders.  But we can't do that because we generally don't have the lead.  But again... I shouldn't even need to be explaining this.

[PNW_PantherMan]

4 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Atlanta passed for over 500 yards on 58 passing attempts to 18 rushing attempts against team that is bottom 5 in pass defense and top 12 in rushing defense.

They rushed for 225 yards on 38 attempts to 30 passing attempts against a team that is bottom 5 in rushing defense and 23rd in pass defense.

Notice how they adjusted their offensive gameplan to suit the opponent? That's what smart football looks like.

We don't do that.

So you think we are 5-10 years away from competing but we can dictate our game plan to our opponents and be competitive?  There's plenty to complain about but I don't know where this is coming from.

[kungfoodude]

2 minutes ago, Mage said:

At this point I have to assume you are intentionally being ignorant.

Falcons passed a lot against the Bucs because they had to.  It was a high-scoring game, Bucs had 24 points by halftime.  

They ran the ball a lot against us because they had the lead for the whole game.  Again, this is basic football common sense.  You have lead = you run ball.  You don't have lead or are in a high-scoring game = you pass ball.  

If the Panthers had a lead, they would run the ball more.  You know, like when they ran the ball 31 times against the Raiders.  But we can't do that because we generally don't have the lead.  But again... I shouldn't even need to be explaining this.

They literally did not have the lead the whole game. I am not surprised this was missed by you because it doesn't appear you watched it.

[Mage]

5 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

They literally did not have the lead the whole game. I am not surprised this was missed by you because it doesn't appear you watched it.

And guess what the Panthers did in the first half until end-of-1st half drive when they had to throw?  Ran the ball 13 times vs 17 passes.

Gee, almost like the Panthers would have a more even run/pass split if the games were closer.  Gee, almost like it is hard to keep running the ball when the other team scores 30 points.  Who would have thought?  

Edited October 15 by Mage

[Waldo]

7 minutes ago, Mage said:

And what happened to your argument that they abandoned the run in the 4th quarter?  Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?

They abandoned the run when Dalton threw a pick when they were running down the damn field while trailing by 8. That series was 5 runs to 2 passes with 1 pick. It was the pass that put the game out of reach, the running was working. 5 of his 18 carries came on that one drive in the 4th quarter with the game still very in reach. The points given up didn't change the effectiveness of the running or disprove it was the right choice, especially against a team ranked 25/27 against the run. 

Not playing against your opponent weakness is dumb. Not leaning on your strengths is dumb.

 

 

 

[Mage]

3 minutes ago, Waldo said:

They abandoned the run when Dalton threw a pick when they were running down the damn field while trailing by 8. That series was 5 runs to 2 passes with 1 pick. It was the pass that put the game out of reach, the running was working. 5 of his 18 carries came on that one drive in the 4th quarter with the game still very in reach. The points given up didn't change the effectiveness of the running or disprove it was the right choice, especially against a team ranked 25/27 against the run. 

Bro, just read your own posts and ask yourself if what you are saying makes sense.  You are suggesting a drive where they ran more than they passed is evidence they abandoned the run?  Seriously?

Edited October 15 by Mage

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

So you think we are 5-10 years away from competing but we can dictate our game plan to our opponents and be competitive?  There's plenty to complain about but I don't know where this is coming from.

Yes, that is how taking advantage of your opponents weaknesses works. It's certainly complicated by our own weaknesses and the stream of errors but people are having some amazing recollections of what actually transpired in this matchup. We led the game until 6:10 remained in the 2md half.

We scored to pull within a one score game(28-20) at the 0:10 mark of the 3rd quarter. 

We were driving for that potential game tying score at 10:54 of the 4th quarter when Dalton's pass was intercepted by ATL who drove 84 yards in 5:09 to take a 34-20 lead.

This potential scoring drive which we basically were running all over them, I might add. 

So, basically had we likely just, IDK....kept running the ball maybe this is an entirely different outcome.

Some of you guys apparently thought you were watching the Bears game. This was far closer to the Cincy game in which a few key plays kept us from potentially winning.

As I said, the opponent was a bottom 5 rush defense. Act accordingly.

[ForJimmy]

How does the quote go "you throw to score, you run to win."  Get a lead and run the ball to end the game quicker.  If you are behind by multiple scores and don't trust your defense yeah you have to start throwing the ball.  The clock can quickly become your enemy or best friend.

[Mage]

We ran the ball 5 times vs 2 passes on that drive.  It is actually blowing my mind that you all are trying to use that drive as evidence of Canales not running the ball enough.  

On top of that, we were down by 8 points.  It was not a guarantee we would tie the game and with the way the Falcons offense was moving, we couldn't afford to only run and keep wasting clock.  After that INT we didn't get the ball back until 5 minutes left.  And that was after a drive we had got cut short.  If we kept running, very real chance we never get the ball back.

It is like we're ignoring basic football logic and clock management.

Edited October 15 by Mage

[Waldo]

12 minutes ago, Mage said:

Bro, just read your own posts and ask yourself if what you are saying makes sense.  You are suggesting a drive where they ran more than they passed is evidence they abandoned the run?  Seriously?

I guess you missed the point where that was the beginning of the 4th quarter and not the 1st. Which is WTF I have been talking about the entire time. 13 carries in the first 3 quarters is dog poo. 

[Davidson Deac II]

We didn't abandon the run until we went down 34-20 in the 4th qtr.  

We were down 28-20, and we marched down the field running the ball.  8 plays, 6 runs and two passing plays.  Then they stopped us on first down and we threw on second and 8.   And Dalton got picked.  You can't run the ball on every single play.  

Once we went down 35-20, well most teams are going to throw the ball more.  

[kungfoodude]

35 minutes ago, Mage said:

We ran the ball 5 times vs 2 passes on that drive.  It is actually blowing my mind that you all are trying to use that drive as evidence of Canales not running the ball enough.  

On top of that, we were down by 8 points.  It was not a guarantee we would tie the game and with the way the Falcons offense was moving, we couldn't afford to only run and keep wasting clock.  After that INT we didn't get the ball back until 5 minutes left.  And that was after a drive we had got cut short.  If we kept running, very real chance we never get the ball back.

It is like we're ignoring basic football logic and clock management.

See, now you are changing your story from "down all game."

This is just your personal bias.

[strato]

I am enjoying this debate. I am just going to say, the offense needs to be as balanced as you can make it. 

When you are good at the passing game and good at the running game, you can do what is necessary. Falcons seem to be there. 

What will generally not work is running with no passing. It is done to set up the pass. So you have it set up, and won't pass? That's not ideal either. Or, you do pass but fug it up. 

It is generally execution anyway. Whatever the play call, no execution = failed play. 

The whole thing with Bryce was run, pass, no difference. Stack the box bring everybody up like it is a run every time. 

 

Edited October 15 by strato