I have read in pretty much all of the post-game threads that Seattle was overrated

i want to hear discussion from the Panthers fans on why this is so

and i promise to not use the words hillbilly or redneck in this thread

1/23/2006 12:28:14 PM

it makes Carolina a crippled team that got beat by a healthy one... that's about all

1/23/2006 12:30:57 PM

A)What the fuck are you talking about?(Title)
B)Check one of the 293093039 threads already devoted to this subject.
C)No ones gives a fuck about such words. Learn how to troll.

1/23/2006 12:31:44 PM

is a 13-3 team overrated?

a team with the MVP?

a team with the #1 passer in the NFC?

a team with a better fanbase than Carolina?

1/23/2006 12:33:23 PM

Seattle = overrated...
Seattle > crippled panthers
crippled panthers > chicago bears

1/23/2006 12:35:14 PM

I wouldn't be taking any bets on Seattle if I was you Mr. Kruk. That's all I need to tell you. Regarless of what they did to Carolina. That's all.

1/23/2006 12:35:34 PM

the Panthers weren't crippled when they beat the Bears. we crippled them and then almost made a comeback

but that's a discussion for a certain 4 page thread


so you're telling me that if Foster or Davis were healthy, you guys would have won last night? you're fucking insane. you guys got lucky with a punt return that should have been called back. you should have been shut out last night. and gg Steve Smiff. you must have been crippled to be shut down like that. and you too Jake

1/23/2006 12:38:12 PM

week long than the bears. So what do you say to that?

1/23/2006 12:39:52 PM

I don't think there overated, but I think the game would have been closer had Foster been in there. I think the Seahawks will lose to the Steelers because the Steelers have more weapons.

1/23/2006 12:41:09 PM

Quote :

"week long than the bears. So what do you say to that?"

i can't say anything to that since I don't understand what the fuck it means

"week long than the bears"

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 12:42 PM. Reason : ,]

1/23/2006 12:41:57 PM

yes, a healthy foster and davis means the panthers take more time off the clock, and more pressure of Delhomme, and thus, the passing game and the running game improve...

helps the offense, helps the defense, evens the game right up...

seattle didn't have to play against the run, start forcing their D to think on 2 dimensions and you change how they play the game entirely...

1/23/2006 12:43:50 PM

LAST NIGHT MADE ME A BELIEVER OF SEATTLE....I'M NOT SO SURE THE STEELERS WILL WIN THIS ONE...I HOPE SO THOUGH

1/23/2006 12:43:54 PM

Quote :

"I think the Seahawks will lose to the Steelers because the Steelers have more weapons."

Not really, they just have an extremely good defense that causes turnovers. I wish I could find someone who is taking bets on this game. No sane person would pick Seattle.

1/23/2006 12:44:26 PM

WHATS THE LINE?

1/23/2006 12:46:23 PM

-4 points right now. It should be around -6 or -7 before the game.

1/23/2006 12:48:51 PM

PITT (-4)

1/23/2006 12:49:10 PM

Yes the Panthers got beat up - lack of depth and we were just rundown by the time we made it to seattle to play.

But the point is this Kruk, your Bears got trashed - and that's your team, so hang it up and shut the fuck up. You are only trying to troll the panthers b/c your team got tossed by em.

/eot

1/23/2006 12:59:51 PM

dude, why are you talking shit about the team that beat your team?

1/23/2006 1:02:43 PM

Quote :

" if Seattle is overrated what's that make Carolina? "

the wildcard team that took two division winners out of the playoffs.

1/23/2006 1:09:03 PM

hard to believe this is even more pathetic than that other thread he made!

1/23/2006 1:16:25 PM

nope, it's just a response to all of the rednecks and hillbillies in other threads who are trying to make excuses as to why the Panthers lost

this thread is MUCH better (but probably won't make it 2 pages)

1/23/2006 1:30:47 PM

I dont understand the overrated talk about seattle either... they were the #1 seed and they did go to the super bowl like the #1 seed should

1/23/2006 1:33:35 PM

if we couldve established a running game then it would have been a game. And all you trollers dont be hating that your team didnt make it to the final 4, so please STFU and get on our level. Thank you.

1/23/2006 1:35:39 PM

Quote :

"yes, a healthy foster and davis means the panthers take more time off the clock, and more pressure of Delhomme, and thus, the passing game and the running game improve..."

I hate to state the obvious, but as of about the 2nd quarter, you were not going to win that game via rushing. Hell, how many rushing attempts did you even run ALL game.


I found it for you:

Quote :

"Rushing Attempts 12 "

25% of which, were Delami Sandwich running

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 1:36:54 PM

I said it before, when justifying why Tiki deserved the MVP more than Alexander

this has been the easiest road to the Super Bowl any team has ever had

the longest string of weak-ass rush defenses probably ever seen

and the guy gets the fucking MVP for it

and Seattle gets a fucking Super Bowl trip





that being said, they totally dominated a very solid Panthers team last night

1/23/2006 1:40:13 PM

To establish a running game, it is most often best to first of all not be down by SEVENTEEN after 4 possessions

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:56 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 1:41:58 PM

Quote :

"yes, a healthy foster and davis means the panthers take more time off the clock, and more pressure of Delhomme, and thus, the passing game and the running game improve... helps the offense, helps the defense, evens the game right up... seattle didn't have to play against the run, start forcing their D to think on 2 dimensions and you change how they play the game entirely..."

A healthy Davis and Foster don't stop you from going down 17-0 after 4 Seattle possessions.

The only time you were in a position to run the ball was before you got the lead and, guess what, that's when you did. You barely got a reprieve with the picked up flag on the Smith touchdown and then you went and let them score again.

You had no running game because you were never in a position to run the ball.

1/23/2006 1:50:47 PM

^yea i guess having our 3rd and 4th string RB in there didnt matter at all.

God some of you people are dumb, not having a RB was a reason we lost. We are a running team, when we cant run we lose. Seattle didnt score until their 3rd possesion. That means we had 3 possesions to establish the run and couldnt. Thus all they have to do is key on the pass and get the 2 picks that lead to 10 of the first 17 points.

1/23/2006 1:54:34 PM

Even Joe Gibbs wouldnt have run the ball in your situation, and thats saying a LOT


ps running backs dont make tackles, thats what you needed

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 1:55:41 PM

Since we had no run game, Seattle knew they only had to stop the pass.

Total Offensive Plays:

Seattle - 72
Carolina - 27

1/23/2006 2:06:34 PM

you had 35 passing attempts, and punted at least 5 times, where are you getting 27

1/23/2006 2:07:10 PM

Quote :

"yea i guess having our 3rd and 4th string RB in there didnt matter at all. God some of you people are dumb, not having a RB was a reason we lost."

Ok, lets review. While being your "third string RB", Nick Goings was your starter for a good portion of last year and had a good number of 100 yard rushing games. Nick Goings is a more than serviceable running back. Nick Goings wasn't running for shit before he got hurt. Your leading rusher in those first few possessions was Delhomme.

Your 4th string running back is also the guy who handles some of your kickoff returns, so my wager is he's not complete shit either. You know why he never really got the chance to run the ball? Because all the Panthers did was let Seattle march down the field.

Oh, and the interceptions Delhomme threw had less to do with Seattle "keying in on the pass" and more to do with Delhomme making some of the worst throws I've seen since Favre's last INTs. Here's a little tip, generally you want your quarterback to at least be FACING THE DIRECTION HE IS THROWING.

Quote :

"Seattle didnt score until their 3rd possesion."

Why don't you go fact check that for me real quick.

1/23/2006 2:10:05 PM

let's review...

1st or 2nd string running back in the game and we run the ball more (so just forget that "12 rushes" number, if anything htat proves my point that NOT having our running backs meant we had to go to an exclussively arial attack, meaning seattle could just drop as many as they wanted to)...

we move the ball more... take time off the clock... change field position more... and guess what,t hat 17-0 turns into 7 or 10 - 0, and that's assuming that our main running backs don't manage to get moving, if they do then it turns into 7-3 or 10-7 or even turns it around completely...

you're fooling yourselves if you think seattle didn't get handed this game because of a crippled panthers offense... assuming nobody gets injured on pittsburgh's team they're going to knock seattle all across the field

1/23/2006 2:15:25 PM

THE DEFENSE GOT RUN OVER LIKE A TRAIN

1/23/2006 2:20:24 PM

well, when you're on the field for 12 minutes at a stretch taht tends to happen...

in the opening series,a nd any time after that our offense had held onto the ball for more than 2 minutes the defense was fine, but after 2 road playoff games, getting banged around a ton, and then not having any time to rest on the sidelines (a perfect example is the series after Smith ran back the punt) they couldn't stop anything...

give them time to rest (through the use of a healthy running game) and their performance changes drastically

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 3:06:27 PM

Quote :

"is a 13-3 team overrated? a team with the MVP? a team with the #1 passer in the NFC? a team with a better fanbase than Carolina?"

The thread should have ended there. I wanted the Panthers to win as much as anybody but take off your biased blinders. Seattle is the better team no matter who is playing RB. And some of you even alluded to what if Stephen Davis played. Wow. Davis couldn't beat me out for the starting job.

Point is: They got WAXED by the better team.

1/23/2006 3:31:15 PM

i dont think it has anything to do with who was at running back. the offensive line didnt even pretend to block, whether it be run block or pass block. thats the way it was all season. there was a string of a few games there where they did decent, but i think the numbers show that was an abberation more than a legitimate change. all that happened last night was the offensive line of week 1-14 (i'm guessin here as to when they got that first 100yd rushing game by foster) showed up. last year it was proven that goings could get it done on the ground, hence the confidence in him, but if theres no decent blocking, its all for nothin. result: butt whippin.

1/23/2006 3:40:10 PM

keep in mind this place is filled with NC State fans

they wont give the better team any credit for shit

1/23/2006 3:41:33 PM

i think thats pretty much the case for most fans. i've visited a lot of teams' messageboards and its not a state/panther thing. people just know their team and notice things their team is doing wrong more than what the other team is doing right.

i'll give the seahawks credit though, they beat the crap out of the panthers and deserve to move on. i woulda liked to have watched the same game but with the panthers actually showing up to play though. saw performances like that too often this season to put all the accolades on seattle.

1/23/2006 3:46:24 PM

Quote :

"1st or 2nd string running back in the game and we run the ball more (so just forget that "12 rushes" number, if anything htat proves my point that NOT having our running backs meant we had to go to an exclussively arial attack, meaning seattle could just drop as many as they wanted to)... we move the ball more... take time off the clock... change field position more... and guess what,t hat 17-0 turns into 7 or 10 - 0, and that's assuming that our main running backs don't manage to get moving, if they do then it turns into 7-3 or 10-7 or even turns it around completely... you're fooling yourselves if you think seattle didn't get handed this game because of a crippled panthers offense"

Newsflash: Your running game has sucked all year no matter what was lined up in the RB position.

On top of that, if you'd rather have Davis running the ball than Goings this season, you should probably get your head checked.

You didn't lose this game because of an inability to run the ball. You lost because Seattle is a better team, Delhomme played like shit, and your defense played like shit.

And honestly, how can you say that you had a "crippled offense" when all season your entire offense was Steve Smith and he was perfectly healthy?

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 4:50:21 PM

Quote :

"You didn't lose this game because of an inability to run the ball. "

i disagree, but not because we were "crippled." more because we've had an inability to run the ball most of the season. had the panthers been able to run the ball, it might've been a different game (same result possibly, but at least more balanced). point being though that we havent been able to run the ball most of the season, so there was no reason to expect it for that game.

1/23/2006 4:57:07 PM

it figures that we can dissect the best defense in the nfl, but one that's ranked in the 20's can shut us down

1/23/2006 5:01:05 PM

poor gameplanning like crazy. i like fox, but i would like to see henning and trgovac gone.

1/23/2006 5:03:08 PM

RUNNINGBACKS DONT MAKE TACKLES

SEATTLE SCORED AT WILL

GET THE FUCK OVER IT

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 5:06:07 PM

everybody played terrible. defense and offense. but had they been able to run the ball (again, not the RB but a complete inefficiency on everyone's part), they could've at least made an attempt to slow it down and keep the ball away from the seahawks.

1/23/2006 5:14:12 PM

if you think that not having a running game doesn't strongly affect the abilities of the defense then you really need to stop now...

if you think that seattle scoring at will had nothing to do with the defense being on the field 40 minutes during the game then just stop now...

if you think that Goings would have been a better choice than Davis or Foster then just stop right now...

and if you're going to continue to ignore the fact taht goings was knocked out of the game as well, rendering that point moot anyway then just stop now...

because if you don't stop now, then you look like someone who's never seen a football game before

1/23/2006 5:22:55 PM

agree with everything except goings not being better than davis at this point. davis is good for goalline situations, but otherwise he just takes baby steps, can't find holes, and practically runs in place

1/23/2006 5:28:15 PM

Quote :

"if you think that seattle scoring at will had nothing to do with the defense being on the field 40 minutes during the game then just stop now..."

THEY HAD 17 POINTS AFTER 4 TIMES WITH THE BALL

1/23/2006 5:31:52 PM

Quote :

"more because we've had an inability to run the ball most of the season. had the panthers been able to run the ball, it might've been a different game "

So if you had become a team you hadn't been all season (excluding one or two games), it would have been a different game.

Gotcha.

Quote :

"it figures that we can dissect the best defense in the nfl, but one that's ranked in the 20's can shut us down"

It's because the Bears didn't respect Steve Smith in the slightest. He proceeded to shit all over them.

Quote :

"if you think that not having a running game doesn't strongly affect the abilities of the defense then you really need to stop now... if you think that seattle scoring at will had nothing to do with the defense being on the field 40 minutes during the game then just stop now..."

Seattle scored most of their points early in the game. What the fuck are you on about? Or were they really tired 10 minutes into the first quarter?

Quote :

"and if you're going to continue to ignore the fact taht goings was knocked out of the game as well, rendering that point moot anyway then just stop now..."

You were already down 10-0 at the very end of the first. With the next down being 3rd and 8 (so you were going to throw -- or would you have prefered to run with a healthy Foster on that down?) and with Seattle scoring a touchdown on their very next drive. The only reason you could have had a running game at that point was because of the picked up flag on Smith's punt return.

Quote :

"because if you don't stop now, then you look like someone who's never seen a football game before"

And yet you're the man who is saying things like...

Quote :

"if you think that Goings would have been a better choice than Davis or Foster then just stop right now..."

The only thing that should "stop right now" is you ignoring the obvious, especially because you look like a man who has never watched a Panthers game before.

Lets sum things up real quick.

I think -
The defense sucked well before they were ever tired.
Delhomme sucked because he didn't look where he was throwing the ball.
You've been a team who relied on Steve Smith all season and lost because Delhomme was too busy fucking up and Seattle was too busy actually covering him in order for him to get the ball.

You think -
That we can ignore the fact were unable to run the ball last week (and really all season) and won that game, yet somehow this loss ultimately comes down to the fact that you were missing your top running back who averages 58.6 yards per game.

Please remove your head from your ass and wake up to the real world.

1/23/2006 5:44:41 PM

this thread is gay on so many levels...all you dumb fuckers talking about what if's. Gimme a fucking break...just let it go.

1/23/2006 5:48:43 PM