Panthers were also in new territory last year, joining the ranks of the clubs stuck in 'no franchise QB' purgatory for the first time since drafting cam. It's somewhere you want to escape from ASAP. That said, Rhule is a process driven rebuilder of programs so I don't think they'd make this move as part of a 'win now' roll of the dice. It's certainly something you'd expect of the Raiders or Cowboys.

But I could see them going for it simply dependent on their evaluation of Bridgewater. He was doing alright until he got injured, putting the Panthers right back in Cam territory with a QB underperforming every time he gets busted up. If fit, he could do the placeholder role until they draft a legit QB, but drafting a legit QB is very hit or miss. Theoretically the Panthers could burn more picks searching for this promised land than they might just getting the real thing immediately.

Very interesting.

Where is Jimmy Clausen these days? :vader:

Saints are gonna struggle next season with their cap situation.

Panthers get Watson, CMC back and firing, maybe a decent draft if there’s any good picks left after the Watson trade, and a playoff push is very achievable.

Panthers were way more competitive than their win loss indicates.
Just having CMC out there could have been enough for 4-5 more wins.

Would love it if Carolina got DW

Come on Packers.....

Rodgers bottles it again

I think Matt LaFleur gets some blame here for his mind-numbing decision making at the end. I mean, Rodgers went 33/48 at 10ypc with 3TDs and 1 Int. No running game hurt more than Rodgers. Of course, going down in the 1st Half didn't help.

I don't think that's entirely fair, dannyboy. Don't get me wrong, it's always good to see Green Bay fail (though it's even more fun to see Brady lose) but you cannot just the QB for that.

All you need to know.

What the **** is this quote? Sounds like something a coach from the 60s would have said.

Harsh. His receivers dropped about 3 passes which were massive plays including the 2 point attempt. I think the biggest error he made was not picking up the open man in the endzone when he threw to the double covered fella instead. Brady threw 3 interceptions, 2 of which under pressure and he just decided to bomb it like a hail mary. In the end he got away with it thanks to the defence. Brady is exceptional though, what a player, but let's face it, they do have a real team there.

Just caught up with the AFC game, I think both of those teams are better than the packers, and despite the Bills being very good, the Chiefs defence rinsed them, must've sacked Allen 10 times or at least covered his receivers off so well he couldn't throw. Allen was brilliant at rushing, had he not been so strong out of the pocket they wouldn't have scored a point. Chiefs so strong in offence too, Mahomes passing is brilliant, the receivers drop nothing, and Hill is an agile little bugger like Kamara at the Saints. They are going to win it again.

Yeah I couldn't believe they didn't go for it on that 4th and goal. Had they scored they would've needed only an FG for OT, instead they had to recover and get into the end zone. Quitter decision.

What the hell is wrong with coaches?

I realize that quantitative analysis is difficult, I pull my hair out trying to explain to people all sorts of reasoning behind why statistical analysis says to do something, but you have to have people that do this for you. That last sentence is most damning. As if you have to fail before you succeed. You've got a history of thousands of football games to draw experience from and make the correct decision, so do it. Let somebody else fail so you can succeed.

I don't know - it was a tough call.

If you miss it, you are down by two scores (well, a TD plus the 2). Take the three, your defence has done a pretty good job of stopping them over the second half, get the ball back and have another shot. If it had worked, everyone would have praised him for a shrewd call.

Another one for the hindsight playbook, I reckon...

The thing is that the data will never exactly match up with the current match position (for example due to injuries) so I think there are arguments for ignoring the data driven approach on some occasions but it's definitely important for coaches to be aware of what the data says, and ideally to have a good reason why you are ignoring.

If you watch this video very carefully, you can see Matt Lafleur when he was a coach with the Falcons staff.

Re the data point I'm surprised no team has just started going for two point conversions as a default since I'm sure they are quantitatively better, it's what I'd do if I was coaching.

If it's the fourth quarter, and Teddy Bridgewater is your QB, I'm not doing it

Back during the GSoT days, Jeff Wilkins got hurt on the opening kickoff for the Rams. (Against the Falcons, of course) They went for two the rest of the game and went 4/5 on them. Kicking the XP depending on the situation of the game makes sense. What I don't understand is going for 2 in the first half to make up some points somehow. Like instead of an XP to make it 17-16, you go for 2 to make it 17-17. If you go for 2 in that situation, then you should go for 2 every single time.

I reckon Doug Pederson started going for the 2 as standard practice
the year the Eagles were successful but I don't have any data to support it.

Here's an article on it, https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2020/1/...t-nfl-dorktown, and a whole load at 538, https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/2-point-conversions/

I reckon if you practised 4th and shorts loads you could become really good at 2 pointers and hit them way more than average. If I was playcalling I'd also go for anything less than 4th and 3 regardless of where I was on the field.