Cam vs Tim

[Showtime]

I would agree with this if these things were actually happening. But for the most part they aren't. We aren't having a lot of three and outs. We are scoring at a very high rate. We are among the best in the league in those two things. We have been consistent. Outside of the Tennessee game we haven't been held to less than 16 points. We have scored 20+ points in 10 of our 13 games!

Maybe we haven't been as consistent within the game. But that is the natural ebb and flow of the NFL. You won't be great on offense on every drive, or half, or game. Green Bay even has games where they struggle for periods of time. In the first half against Detroit a few weeks ago Green Bay's offense was pretty bad. If it wasn't for a Detroit turnover on their own 13 Green Bay likely would not have even scored in the first half.

But when GB was struggling that first half their defense rose up to the challenge and shut out Detroit and made a play by getting that turnover.

Against Atlanta week 5 in the first half GB only scored 6 points and had a turnover.

I am not going to go on but that is life in the NFL.

I just feel like your expectations for what this offense should have to do in order for us to get more wins is unreasonable and unrealistic. Especially with a rookie QB, as dynamic as he is.

What I don't think is unreasonable or unrealistic is having a defense that can sometimes carry us during the stretches when our offense struggles. And right now they can't. And it is the biggest reason we are 4-9 right now in my opinion.

Except they are true Teeray, you just look at vacuum stats and you compare them with other teams vacuum stats, which are completely taken out of context instead of the ones that actually matter. Efficiency for example. Which is the one stat that most closely relates to winning in the first place. So you use stats and examples that mean less, while overlooking this one, which we suck in.

And it's not natural for a team that puts up 23 points in one half, to put 0 in the other. And this last game wasn't the first game we played similar to that. That is not at all the flow of the game in the NFL. That's actually what the mean by consistent/inconsistent.

We are not scoring at a high rate for how how many chances we get. That's what they mean by vacuum stats. When you look at PPG, it's taken out of context. It doesn't tell you the whole story. Neither do yards. That's actually our problem. That's what makes you inefficient.

-If you get 3 opportunities to score and you score on all 3 and put up 21 points you did your job even though you put up below league average points. As an offense you played a perfect game and there's really no way the other team could have outscored you.

-If you get 7 opportunities to score and you score on 4-6, you still did your job. Maybe you got 3 touchdowns and 2 FG's. Great job, putting up 27 points.

-If you get 7 opportunities to score, and you only score on 3-4, I don't give a damn you put up 21-28 points and you don't even have an interception or fumble. You played bad! You played inefficient. You probably lost the damn game. Because for each opportunity you had, and you missed, so did the other team. You should have put up 35 in this situation. Just because you put up 28 in this situation, it doesn't mean you should have won that game because it was considered good in those other situations. This is the example people miss. They think if an offense does this and lose it means they did good and defense sucked. Not. At. All.

That's why scoring rate alone means nothing. And don't act like we have been high in PPG all season long either. We have been 19th or lower. This was just a recent bump. Lions, Indy and Tampa back to back helped. And we would have been nowhere near 35 without 3 takeaways against the Lions.

I don't think I have an expectation of putting away more than 1 out of 9 games when you have every possibility to do so is unreasonable at all. 1 out of 3 is not asking for much. 1 out of 9 is poo not to mention the way they took place. Right there in the red-zone for half of them, failing repeatedly on try after try, like the most recent example. And to keep putting that blame on the defense, or to keep talking about what happened in the game up until that point, is a major cop-out.

In the end it doesn't even matter. If we have the ball, we're tied or down by a score, and there's time on that clock, that score might as well be 0-0. It's no different. Nothing that took place before that point in time should matter. Forget the picks. Forget the big plays given up by your defense. Forget the bad calls or whatever. You got 1-2 minutes and you got the ball, you have every opportunity to still win the damn game. Put it away. It's that simple and only the offense can do it 99% of the time.

Teams don't put up a lot of points in the first half and then cruise to the finish on a defense's back in the second or the 4th quarter while the offense takes a break, which is what it sounds like some people expect. That doesn't happen often in the NFL. The biggest fight usually takes place right there at the end so you better be prepared for that every game. Sometimes that might be a defensive battle, more often it's an offensive one. Our D did close out every game we were up but close at the end of the game. Jacksonville, Indy and Washington. But don't expect this to happen with more than 10 minutes on that clock. Heck even 6 minutes is too much.

[MWCarolina]

Andy, not only has a supporting team around him to help him win even when he's having a bad day, he also has a reliable receiver in A.J. Green. In all honesty, A.J. makes the receivers on this Panther team look lazy has heck.

I'm sure if you was honest to yourself, you would admit that Andy would be playing much worst than Cam if he was a QB on this team.

and i agree here, if Andy were a panther we would be like 2 and 11 instead of 4 and 9. Dalton isnt awful, dont get me wrong, but he's had a really good defense helping him, has as much (maybe more) weapons than Carolina has including AJ Green (young rookie WR i wanted here), Jerome Simpson (came on strong last year), Andre Caldwell is a good 3rd wr, Cedric Benson is a good runner and they have Jermaine Gresham at TE, plus a real good defense with corners and DTs.

[mav1234]

AJ Green makes Smitty look lazy? ...

[teeray]

Except they are true Teeray, you just look at vacuum stats and you compare them with other teams vacuum stats, which are completely taken out of context instead of the ones that actually matter. Efficiency for example. Which is the one stat that most closely relates to winning in the first place. So you use stats and examples that mean less, while overlooking this one, which we suck in.

And it's not natural for a team that puts up 23 points in one half, to put 0 in the other. And this last game wasn't the first game we played similar to that. That is not at all the flow of the game in the NFL. That's actually what the mean by consistent/inconsistent.

It is unusual for a defense to give up 24 points in a half. Or 35 points in a half like against Detroit. It is unusual for a defense to give up 16 points in a half. The average NFL defense only gives up 21.5 points per game (OR 10.75 points per half).

And it isn't unusual for a team to struggle in one half of a game. It happens all the time in the NFL. That is natural. I just gave you two examples from the Packers alone. And they are historically good on offense this year. Even they can't avoid pitfalls and struggles for periods of time.

We are not scoring at a high rate for how how many chances we get. That's what they mean by vacuum stats. When you look at PPG, it's taken out of context. It doesn't tell you the whole story. Neither do yards. That's actually our problem. That's what makes you inefficient.

-If you get 3 opportunities to score and you score on all 3 and put up 21 points you did your job even though you put up below league average points. As an offense you played a perfect game and there's really no way the other team could have outscored you.

-If you get 7 opportunities to score and you score on 4-6, you still did your job. Maybe you got 3 touchdowns and 2 FG's. Great job, putting up 27 points.

-If you get 7 opportunities to score, and you only score on 3-4, I don't give a damn you put up 21-28 points and you don't even have an interception or fumble. You played bad! You played inefficient. You probably lost the damn game. Because for each opportunity you had, and you missed, so did the other team. You should have put up 35 in this situation. Just because you put up 28 in this situation, it doesn't mean you should have won that game because it was considered good in those other situations. This is the example people miss. They think if an offense does this and lose it means they did good and defense sucked. Not. At. All.

I am not sure what opportunities you are referring to here. Do you mean possessions or red zone opportunities. Regardless we have been great in both. The way I am reading it I assume by scoring opportunities you mean the red zone. We are currently ranked 8th in the NFL in red zone efficiency at 55.32%. That is better than New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Cincy, etc.

We are also ranked 6th in red zone opportunities and 5th in red zone TDs. So we are getting to the red zone more than most of the NFL and scoring when we get there more than most in the NFL. What more are you expecting??

Compare that to Denver (who we like to use around here lately). Some on here have said "The Golden Calf of Bristol makes the most of his scoring opportunities!!" Well, the last three weeks they score TDs on only 33% of their red zone opportunities.

That's why scoring rate alone means nothing. And don't act like we have been high in PPG all season long either. We have been 19th or lower. This was just a recent bump. Lions, Indy and Tampa back to back helped. And we would have been nowhere near 35 without 3 takeaways against the Lions.

I don't think I have an expectation of putting away more than 1 out of 9 games when you have every possibility to do so is unreasonable at all. 1 out of 3 is not asking for much. 1 out of 9 is poo not to mention the way they took place. Right there in the red-zone for half of them, failing repeatedly on try after try, like the most recent example. And to keep putting that blame on the defense, or to keep talking about what happened in the game up until that point, is a major cop-out.

In the end it doesn't even matter. If we have the ball, we're tied or down by a score, and there's time on that clock, that score might as well be 0-0. It's no different. Nothing that took place before that point in time should matter. Forget the picks. Forget the big plays given up by your defense. Forget the bad calls or whatever. You got 1-2 minutes and you got the ball, you have every opportunity to still win the damn game. Put it away. It's that simple and only the offense can do it 99% of the time.

Teams don't put up a lot of points in the first half and then cruise to the finish on a defense's back in the second or the 4th quarter while the offense takes a break, which is what it sounds like some people expect. That doesn't happen often in the NFL. The biggest fight usually takes place right there at the end so you better be prepared for that every game. Sometimes that might be a defensive battle, more often it's an offensive one. Our D did close out every game we were up but close at the end of the game. Jacksonville, Indy and Washington. But don't expect this to happen with more than 10 minutes on that clock. Heck even 6 minutes is too much.

If we had an even average defense we wouldn't be in those positions. I don't disagree that we haven't been very good in those type situations. Those are the type of things that will improve with experience. but we shouldn't even be in those situations. We should be running the clock out and taking a knee instead of have to try and go 80 yards in 2 minutes for a win which inherently has a low probability.

[BigSyke]

peyton never had a good defense i think(sb defense picked up later that year in the playoffs but never really was GREAT), i know he never had the number 1 d in the league like tom brady. then brady has not won anything since spy gate, i find that very telling.

i think tom also had some calls go his way like the raider game.......and he had very good kickers. but tom is clutch and does very well in big games. i just think peyton might edge him a bit in pure qb skill.

now cam reminds me of randall cunningham and big ben combined. big arm, b+ and some times A+ accuracy(when he is on), break tackles, elusive and deceptive speed. he had instant success like ben to, just not in the win category. ben has two sb rings. he could have three. randall went to the championship game and would have won if randy would have caught that deep ball. cam also has that pretty deep ball too like randall.

and remember alot of MOBILE qbs have been close to or in the superbowl. rodgers,mcnair,young,mcnabb, elway, and fran tarkenton.

so i think cam will be like those guys more than, peyton,brady,marino, montana, and unitus.

[chef17]

Andy, not only has a supporting team around him to help him win even when he's having a bad day, he also has a reliable receiver in A.J. Green. In all honesty, A.J. makes the receivers on this Panther team look lazy has heck.

Unlike the highlights of those Panthers' receivers being afraid to fight for everyone of Cam's balls, all I see of A.J. is a kid who always seems to be in the right place at the right time and make those catches for his boss, NO MATTER HOW HE THROWS THEM. That sure nuff goes a long way in minimizing Andy's Ints and other so called mental mistakes.

I'm sure if you was honest to yourself, you would admit that Andy would be playing much worst than Cam if he was a QB on this team.

:lol: This has gone full retard

[TheRealDeal]

:lol: This has gone full retard

This guy has been full retard for a long time. Everything he posts is pure comedy. If you can decipher what he's saying, it's well worth the read for a few laughs.

I'm pretty sure the media molested him as a child...and as an adult.

[mav1234]

"If you gave Andy Dalton three times as many weapons, a decent OC, and two of the best backs in the league, he'd SUUCCKK!" The reason we wouldn't win more with Dalton is the same reason we don't win more with Cam... and it's got little to do with the offense.

[chef17]

"If you gave Andy Dalton three times as many weapons, a decent OC, and two of the best backs in the league, he'd SUUCCKK!" The reason we wouldn't win more with Dalton is the same reason we don't win more with Cam... and it's got little to do with the offense.

Those trade Cam and Dalton claims are pretty stupid. We have no idea what Dalton could do if he was asked to throw down the field more. We have no idea how Cam would look where he was asked to make shorter throws. To pretend either one of them would look the same in a completely different offense with a completely different supporting cast is beyond stupid.

[Showtime]

It is unusual for a defense to give up 24 points in a half. Or 35 points in a half like against Detroit. It is unusual for a defense to give up 16 points in a half. The average NFL defense only gives up 21.5 points per game (OR 10.75 points per half).

And it isn't unusual for a team to struggle in one half of a game. It happens all the time in the NFL. That is natural. I just gave you two examples from the Packers alone. And they are historically good on offense this year. Even they can't avoid pitfalls and struggles for periods of time.

I am not sure what opportunities you are referring to here. Do you mean possessions or red zone opportunities. Regardless we have been great in both. The way I am reading it I assume by scoring opportunities you mean the red zone. We are currently ranked 8th in the NFL in red zone efficiency at 55.32%. That is better than New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Cincy, etc.

We are also ranked 6th in red zone opportunities and 5th in red zone TDs. So we are getting to the red zone more than most of the NFL and scoring when we get there more than most in the NFL. What more are you expecting??

Compare that to Denver (who we like to use around here lately). Some on here have said "The Golden Calf of Bristol makes the most of his scoring opportunities!!" Well, the last three weeks they score TDs on only 33% of their red zone opportunities.

If we had an even average defense we wouldn't be in those positions. I don't disagree that we haven't been very good in those type situations. Those are the type of things that will improve with experience. but we shouldn't even be in those situations. We should be running the clock out and taking a knee instead of have to try and go 80 yards in 2 minutes for a win which inherently has a low probability.

Not beginning in the 4th quarter or second half. Again you are under the assumption if you score 26 or even 30 points you should automatically win. Not at all. And that doesn't mean your defense did a bad job. Our D's closed games out when we had the lead with less than 5 minutes to play every game.

The average points a team scores depends largely on the type of offense you are and the number of drives or scoring opportunities you have per game. So in a game with 20 scoring opportunities that score should be upwards of 30, for example in a game with a lot of turnovers or between two passing teams. If those turnovers took place in bad spots, it should be even higher. In a game with 10 opportunities facing a rushing team BOTH scores should be lower. That has a lot more to do with your offense, turnovers and where they happen, than just your defense. Simply looking at the PPG average and saying we should win because we average this much offensively, is short sighted and a bad statistical analysis. And it doesn't necessarily make you a bad defense. That's what efficiency is for. It tells you what PPG or YPG doesn't.

You need to look at how some of those other defenses stack up against common opponents we have played. Just to give you an example:

-Houston, who is coming up, gave up 33 to New Orleans.

-Detroit Lions gave up 35 to us, and 28 to Minnesota.

-New Orleans gave up 42 to Green Bay, 33 to Houston, 27 to Carolina.

-Atlanta gave up 30 to Chicago, 28 to Seattle, 31 to Philadelphia

Does that mean Lions defense sucks? Houston's? New Orleans? Atlanta's?

If you have a bad defense you should get blown out a lot when you have a quarterback that's near the top of the league in interceptions and one of the most inefficient offenses in the league. Out of all teams the Lions put up 49 points against us, also in a game we had 4 turnovers. And the game was close to the very end. In fact we've had more close games than anyone.

Why can Seattle, Chicago and Philly put up 30 points on Atlanta and we only put up 17 or 23? Cause our offense is inefficient as poo. You can't beat Atlanta putting up 17 or 23 points even without turnovers. Or how about we look at how other defenses stack up against GB, arguably the best offense in the league:

Here's Green Bay's schedule

vs New Orleans 43-34

vs Carolina 30-23(4 turnovers)

vs Chicago 27-17(2 turnovers)

vs Denver 49-23

vs Atlanta 25-14(2 turnovers)

vs St Louis 24-3(1 turnover)

vs Minnesota 33-27

vs San Diego 45-38

vs Minnesota 45-7

vs Tampa Bay 35-26

vs Detroit Lions 27-15(3 turnovers)

vs NY Giants 38-35

vs Oakland 46-16

So St Louis has the best defense in the League? lol. Notice a pattern? We're actually the only defense that kept GB to 30 points with our O turning over the ball 4 times. Lions D had to deal with 3. Atlanta with 2. The Rams with only 1. Or how about we look at what happens to another good defense when you have an inefficient offense and turnover machines:

-Philadelphia's defense gave up:

35 to Atlanta

29 to the Giants

30 to Chicago

38 to New England

31 to Seattle

26 to Miami and Matt Moore!

Does Phily''s defense suck too, or is it just the fact they too have one of the most inefficient offenses in the league and Vick led the lead in picks and got benched, and Young picked right back up where he left off throwing 4 interceptions?

[Claws]

fug poo no. Teboow is fuging terrible. God winning those games dontchaknow?

[chef17]

What are you using to say the Eagles have a good defense?

[Showtime]

What are you using to say the Eagles have a good defense?

Well Teeray was talking about points so I pointed out their points allowed. And if you were to go by what most around here use to bash ours, they would be ranked 11th in total yards allowed.

Of course none of those stats actually mean poo when it comes to ranking a defense. Neither does red-zone efficiency. All completely worthless for judging defenses. Worthless. All of them. They are all primarily offensive measurements which is why they are completely inaccurate and never actually tell you anything about a defense.

That's why it's just better to look at common opponents and turnovers. And even better when measuring your defense against a very efficient, very consistent common opponent like GB. If turnovers were equal you could actually rank defenses a lot easier using that method.

What you will find out though, is that if turnovers were equal, most NFL defenses are pretty much identical. There might be one that stands out a bit from the rest or one that's a little worse. But none of them make or break a team. It's their offense that does. Mainly QB's and turnovers.

[chef17]

Well Teeray was talking about points so I pointed out their points allowed. And if you were to go by what most around here use to bash ours, they would be ranked 11th in total yards allowed.

Of course none of those stats actually mean poo when it comes to ranking a defense. Neither does red-zone efficiency. All completely worthless for judging defenses. Worthless. All of them. They are all primarily offensive measurements which is why they are completely inaccurate and never actually tell you anything about a defense.

Philly is ranked 20th in points allowed. That would not make them a good defense. And most here bash our defense because they are 29th in points allowed.

So how often a defense lets the other team get into the endzone vs. kicking a field goal doesn't tell you anything about a team? Have to disagree on that one.

When turnovers play a pretty important part in ranking defenses what method would be easily when you eliminate turnovers?