Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Bleacher Report: Panthers are "model of inconsistency"

top dawg

By top dawg,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Lt Pinkerton Newbie

Lt Pinkerton

Posted
Posted

There really are very few teams that contend year in and year out. Injuries may be the reason for a down season in many teams, but don't forget that one or two bad games will leave you out of the playoffs (2006) and what is considered a good season. Keep in mind that every year the panthers have had a shot at the playoffs going into the last game of the season since the superbowl season. I'm pretty sure that isn't a "model of inconsistency."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bleys Newbie

bleys

Posted
Posted

Do you buy the injury excuse that Saints fans made last year for why they finished last in the division?

I don't follow the Saints closely, but if Jangler is right in the amount of injuries they dealt with.. I answer yes and no.

First, to address "yes", do you consider 17 or more injuries an excuse or a reality? If you find it an excuse, then I might laugh, but accept that it's your opinion. No team is going to win in that scenario.

But, to respond "no", it depends on whether that team brought in a lot of injury prone players (which is the only argument you can make, IMO).. And that could tie into my opinion on OUR '06 season. We had a lot of injury prone players, but none-the-less, the fact remains, you can't win games with a team decimated by injuries. If you feel thats the case, then cool, but I whole heartedly disagree since teams don't win poo with 17+ starters injured.

panthers have the best overall record.

Nonsense! I did not know this before I went on a rant! lol

Still, unacceptable to have 1/3 of your team (most, if not all, starters) out due to injury and LOSE GAMES! wtf.....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gman was right Newbie

Gman was right

Posted
Posted

I dont see anything WRONG with the article.

I think its about spot on. As much as people dont like the truth, it is the truth.

The injury bug has been an excuse for way to long.

Hell, just last season the Steelers were down to their 3rd string RB, and a patched Oline.

Then the Pats the year before that overcame many injuries to make the playoffs.

injuries are just and excuse.

Great teams find ways to coach around and overcome them.

Thank you so much for saying this! You took the words straight out of my mouth! Injuries is nothing more than a complete excuse. I'll give you 2004, but 97 had nothing to do with injuries and neither did 06. The defense was too old and all the issues with Kerry Collins and Kevin Greene was why went 7-9 that year after going 12-4 the year before. Injuries were hardly a factor in 06 either after they went to the nfc championship game in 05. They lost hartwig for the season but Hangarner was just as good if not better than him. We lost Wharton at LT but Gross did an even better job with him out of the lineup and Jeremy Bridges did a great job taking over Gross's spot at RT. The team was just flat out average that year with Jake throwing three game losing INTs in the final seconds in the game vs Philly, cincy, and Washington then the loss to the vikings with that stupid chris gamble lateral. This article is spot on! People are just using the injury excuse because they are in denial and are embarrassed how inconsistent this team is. Thanks again for posting this. I would have done it myself but people would have accused me of "trolling".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
X-Clown Mentor

X-Clown

Posted
Posted

I don't follow the Saints closely, but if Jangler is right in the amount of injuries they dealt with.. I answer yes and no.

First, to address "yes", do you consider 17 or more injuries an excuse or a reality? If you find it an excuse, then I might laugh, but accept that it's your opinion. No team is going to win in that scenario.

But, to respond "no", it depends on whether that team brought in a lot of injury prone players (which is the only argument you can make, IMO).. And that could tie into my opinion on OUR '06 season. We had a lot of injury prone players, but none-the-less, the fact remains, you can't win games with a team decimated by injuries. If you feel thats the case, then cool, but I whole heartedly disagree since teams don't win poo with 17+ starters injured.

I think it was 18 players overall, not necessarily starters. But when you count players like Aaron Stecker, Mark Simoneau, Hollis Thomas, Mark Campbell, David Patten, and Kevin Kakrjakljakljfdakljsdfkljhian towards that number, it's not as much as it would seem. Especially when almost none of those guys would start on our team.

And oh yeah, Reggie Bush (even though they played a lot better without him).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bleys Newbie

bleys

Posted
Posted

Um, how about that the panthers are inconsistent? :rolleyes:Every time they have a winning record they finish 3rd or 4th the next year just like the other teams did. So they're the most successful inconsistent team in the division? Ok.

yeah, injuries are a bitch when you're in one of the most competitive divisions in the league.

You can dismiss '06, '07, hell.. even '04.. but the fact still remains you can't have a pooload of injuries and expect to stay competitive in this NFL, much less this division.

If you think so, so be it. but I think most will disagree if you really believe that.

It's easy to say, "Injuries are no excuse" all the while totally ignoring the competitiveness in the NFL.

I really think some of us don't realize what this game demands in order to be successful.

It's sooo easy to throw poo at a wall and expect it to stick...

I think it was 18 players overall, not necessarily starters. But when you count players like Aaron Stecker, Mark Simoneau, Hollis Thomas, Mark Campbell, David Patten, and Kevin Kakrjakljakljfdakljsdfkljhian towards that number, it's not as much as it would seem. Especially when almost none of those guys would start on our team.

And oh yeah, Reggie Bush (even though they played a lot better without him).

So 6 out of 18 are not starters and 2 of those are reliable backups if not projected starters at some point in their career in Patten and Stecker.

Can't help but think that's a reach man.

------------------

for the record, the article is accurate.. look at the track record.. why is it accurate? hmmm... does it have more to do with our organization being on a high school level or because of injuries?

I think if you take a second to look a that question, you'll see why people look at injuries as the culprit. Our FO is much better than people give credit, but easy to dismiss when you ignore important factors...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gman was right Newbie

Gman was right

Posted
Posted

yeah, injuries are a bitch when you're in one of the most competitive divisions in the league.

You can dismiss '06, '07, hell.. even '04.. but the fact still remains you can't have a pooload of injuries and expect to stay competitive in this NFL, much less this division.

If you think so, so be it. but I think most will disagree if you really believe that.

It's easy to say, "Injuries are no excuse" all the while totally ignoring the competitiveness in the NFL.

I really think some of us don't realize what this game demands in order to be successful.

What injuries caused us to miss the playoffs in 06? I already went over the two biggest injuries that year and you can make a case that their replacements were BETTER! Losing Wharton and Hartwig had nothing to do with losing those 4 games that I mentioned. And even if we had Jake in 07 the team would have done no better than 8-8. The problem those two seasons we were trying to pound the ball with Deshaun Foster when he was not a feature back. We were just an average team those two seasons. Its as simple as that! You know this as well but will not admit it because you are embarrassed and are in denial.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bleys Newbie

bleys

Posted
Posted

What injuries caused us to miss the playoffs in 06? I already went over the two biggest injuries that year and you can make a case that their replacements were BETTER! Losing Wharton and Hartwig had nothing to do with losing those 4 games that I mentioned. And even if we had Jake in 07 the team would have done no better than 8-8. The problem those two seasons we were trying to pound the ball with Deshaun Foster when he was not a feature back. We were just an average team those two seasons. Its as simple as that! You know this as well but will not admit it because you are embarrassed and are in denial.

do you read ANYTHING I ever write? If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it. You on the other hand will go down in flames before you ever jump ship.

If you believe we only had 2 serious injuries in '06, then there is the issue. I guess it's not your fault, since you haven't done the research or watched that season (to which I'll leave up to you to figure out)..

Injured that year...

Mike Rucker, Mike Wahle, Dan Morgan, Travelle Wharton, Smitty out 2 games, Delhomme 3 games (to which we gave up passing and went wildcat to DWill), Justin Hartwig, Na'il Diggs, Deshaun Foster... Can continue if needed.. 3 guys injured during game 1..

And to say "Oh, well, Wharton got injured, we'll just stick Gross here with no adverse affects and plug in Bridges who we just signed and doesn't know the offense... BUT, they are better than what we had" is pretty lame man. I hate to think of you in these terms, but you're rational leaves me with no other option than to guess you're one of those who are a victim of "Madden Intellect"..

I wasn't calling you out so much as pointing out there is a lot your missing, but since you want to go there... so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...