« Postgame Q&A | Main | Fox: Kalil didn't re-injure ankle »
November 09, 2008
Postgame questions answered
Q. Wouldn't you say that, barring injury, Deangelo is pretty much the next 1,000 yard back? With less than 400 yds to go, he might even surpass 1,444. But what is the deal with Stewart? He just isn't running through people lately.
Posted by: Bill English | Nov 9, 2008 8:38:17 PM
Bill: DeAngelo has 662 yards in nine games, so he's far ahead of schedule to hit 1,000 yards. At this pace, he'd rush for about 1,200. But he seems to be getting better as the season progresses. Stewart is struggling, maybe that heel injury has been a factor. But he had a couple of pretty powerful runs against the Raiders. -- David
Q. If this is what we look like against a team that's 2/6, what on earth are we going to do against Tamps and/or Giants? We're sunk unless we can come up with better playing than today! So much for the play-offs! Not a chance the way we played today!
Posted by: jg | Nov 9, 2008 9:09
JG: No doubt, the Panthers won't beat many NFL teams playing the way they did today, let alone the Giants or Bucs. They've bounced back all season, though. At least they played badly (at least offensively) and won. -- David
Q. My two question for the week...
After today's lack of offense, do you believe Jarrett will be activated next week instead of someone like Barnidge?
Second: Did Delhomme injure himself after that first TD pass, because he overthrew both long and short passes.
Posted by: Nate | Nov 9, 2008 9:21:38 PM
Nate: Barnidge has a spot on special teams, so I doubt you'll see that happen. Hackett was open a few times and Jake just missed him. Don't think there was anything wrong with Jake physically. He was just off today. There was no mention of injury with him.
Q. Would some reporter stand up and ask John Fox "Aside from injury, how bad would Jake have to play to be benched?"
We now know that he can have 4 ints, and not complete a pass in the second half and STILL take the field. Go Figure.
Posted by: jason | Nov 9, 2008 9:25:45 PM
Q. I have thought for some time that the Panthers need to evolve into a 2-quarterback team and shuffle them throughout the game. That way, the team constantly has a warmed up and capable quarterback. Jake is near the end of his career and the team cannot put itself in a position where they lose because of him.
Posted by: Dennis | Nov 9, 2008 9:53:41 PM
Jason/Dennis: Do you really think any team that's 7-2 is going to bench its quarterback or try a platoon system? Jake had a bad game, yes, but this is a guy who is 10-3 in his last 13 starts. Coming into this game he'd thrown 19 touchdown passes and had just five picked off in his last 12 games. A bit early to panic, I'd say, and any move to bench him would be an unbelievable disruption to a team that's got the inside track on winning the NFC South and get to the playoffs. -- David
Q. How does Peppers show up for a game, dominate, then disappear like a ghost in the next one? Is this an indication of drug or alcohol abuse? Kind of reminds me of the old Kerry Collins games.
Posted by: Jeff | Nov 9, 2008 10:07:39 PM
Jeff: It's been one of the frustrating things about Peppers for Panthers fans to deal with and something nobody's really been able to figure out (although there's certainly no basis to thinking the reasons you're speculating about are true). He's become more consistent this season, though. -- David
Posted by Observer Sports on November 9, 2008 at 10:16 PM | Permalink
Comments
Wow. I really can not believe some of you people. Theres a few of you who say that after todays game that the Panthers arent going to make the playoffs, then there are others who say we need to bench Jake? What is wrong with you guys? Did we lose today? I thought we won. I will admit, we should have rolled over the Raiders like we did against the Chiefs, but come on guys, enough with the pessimism. We won.
Posted by: cats38 | Nov 10, 2008 12:55:53 AM
Yeah seriously, those were some of the stupidest questions I've ever read. Peyton Manning threw 6 INT's in a game, would you have screamed for his head to? It's like these people get dumber every year, I don't understand it.
Posted by: Ootgrad | Nov 10, 2008 8:13:26 AM
Don't overlook the fact that the Panthers were playing a VERY motivated and fired-up Raiders team. Their defensive line dominated the Panthers' offensive line all day, in both the running and passing games. Pressure from the Oakland line was a major factor in a couple of the INTs.
Yes, Jake had a bad day and the defense (and special teams) had to bail him out, but I recall at least two games so far this year where Delhomme had to bail-out the defense (SD and Arizona).
This kind of game came at the perfect time since they still got the win (on the road!) and it ensures the Panthers will not overlook a struggling Detroit.
Posted by: Jon | Nov 10, 2008 8:15:34 AM
Ootgrad,
I'm not screaming for Jake's head nor am I advocating him not being the starter on this team, b/c he is. However, I wouldn't have minded seeing Fox sit Jake for one series and let him compose himself. After that 4th int, on the next drive both of his passes missed our receivers by several yards. We're not talking about missing by a foot or so, he missed them by YARDS. After that, we never threw the ball again, and luckily didn't have to. But in all my years watching football, albeit I'm only 24, I have never seen a professional QB not complete a pass in a half. And, I'm not sure Jake could have.
As for the Raiders D-line dominating our O-line, its not too difficult to win that battle when the Raiders were stacking the box w/ 8 and even 9 defenders. If Jake could have hit a couple of those open deep passes it would have opened up the running game a bit more. Plus, as I mentioned above, when your QB completes zero passes in a half, the defense isn't exactly going to be back scared on their heels.
As others have mentioned, I fully expect Jake to bounce back, and seeing as how we are playing Detroit next week, he should be able to regain his confidence against a horrible defense.
Posted by: Mason | Nov 10, 2008 8:43:07 AM
They are referring to nothing but overthrown passes and throwing into double coverage regularly. I can't say that Peyton Manning is guilty of that. Maybe Rex Grossman or David Carr. Yes, he has had much better games this season, but you have to call a spade a spade (and take off the beer goggles please).
On that note, why is the coaching staff getting a C?? If Jake did at least 50% better, that offense (and thus the team as a whole) would have been dominating! Why fault the coaches for one spazzy player they can't seem to control? What were their other options? Bench him in favor of the backup? That guy is a Jake clone according to his stats. The running game was being stifled the entire first half (short of that long TD run with 3 min left), so credit them for sticking with it despite the dismal blocking.
What else do you expect the coaching staff to do!? Maybe they should have suited up and went out there themselves. It couldn't have been much worse. Better yet, they should have pulled a Singletary and mooned the offense. LMAO!
Posted by: Keeping It Real | Nov 10, 2008 8:49:39 AM
With time our home crowd will get better, it takes time to build that fan base that is educated and knows to make noise when your defense is on the field, to not make noise when your offense is on the field and that the wave is so stupid and should be banned at the stadium. The reason I have to say all of that is due to the following comments....
1) Jake is old and we need a two-QB system
2) Is Juluis Peppers on drugs
3) We need to draft Tebow
Wake up people!!!
Posted by: Chris | Nov 10, 2008 9:30:44 AM
Mason give me a break!!!!!!!! How about the pass Jake threw to Moose in the second half that hit him in between the 8 and 7 that he dropped. Guess that was Jakes fault too. Wait how about that 4th pick that went off the hands of one of our receivers. EVERYONE has a bad day at their job. Give Jake a break he'll be just fine. He has played his ass off all year we won get on the plane and get home who cares how pretty or ugly it was!! It's a W.
Posted by: wowo | Nov 10, 2008 9:31:12 AM
Last season Payton Manning had a 6 int day. Do you think they should have pulled him? or benched him. I will admit that Payton in that game did complete passes, but still.
Also, you don't bench you starting QB in a game like that when he's turned it around before and has finished off games. He's the comeback kid you know or have we forgotten the times when he's saved the team.
Posted by: LittleKing | Nov 10, 2008 9:40:17 AM
Mason...which part of it was Jake's fault when Hoover tipped the ball into the hands of an Oakland receiver? Which part of it was Jake's fault when Muhammad dropped a ball delivered right between the numbers...again?
Yes, KIR, McCown is absolutely a "Jake clone," aside from the fact that he has a lower completion %, lower TD %, higher INT %, lower YPA, lower YPC, lower YPG, lower QB rating, and takes way more sacks. Aside from that, they're VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL.
Posted by: Michael Procton | Nov 10, 2008 10:13:26 AM
MP, at that point in his career (McCown's current age) his numbers were the same. In fact, I would say that the big difference between the two would be that McCown is more athletic. Don't get confused though, I would not put the kid in. That was my whole point.
And Hoover had to do a 360 and reach behind him to "not catch" that pass. Moose's drop was the only one in the game. To sum up Jake's performance yesterday, Sorenson says it best..., "But Carolina’s offense was almost as inept. Quarterback Jake Delhomme, who had been so precise this season, threw seven passes to his own guys and four to the other guys."
So please get over the love affair and call a Jake a Jake. Hopefully he pulls it together again sooner than later.
And little king, to compare the two QB's is absurd. Manning is much more accurate and 10 times the better game manager and decision maker. The comparison reminds me of a picture I saw of Jake approaching Peyton in the one Pro Bowl he made to say something to him that Manning obviously thought was ridiculous. Peyton surely was thinking, "who does this guy think he is?"
I liked Jake 100 times better when he was giving his fellow teammates all the credit. The rest of you should take the hint and follow his lead in doing that.
Posted by: Keeping It Real | Nov 10, 2008 10:42:36 AM
Going West is never easy for an East Coast team. EC teams are .500 over there from what i read. Much better than the West Coast percentage, but still. Couple of those INT's aren't on Jake, but others are. The Raiders played spirited defense, but our defense was just as good. In the end, I'd rather win 17-6 than lose a close game, like I was worried about last week with the cards.
Jake rarely has two bad performances in a row. Just wait for next week :)
Posted by: Mav | Nov 10, 2008 11:57:39 AM
All four interceptions were Jake's fault. The Hoover pass was impossible for Hoover to catch, he could only get one hand on it. If he had not tipped the ball, it wouldn't have been intercepted, but it was an awful short pass and completely Jake's fault.
Jake looked abysmal on Sunday, but the offensive line looked pretty awful too. Travelle Wharton was being pushed around, and Otah had a couple awful mistakes. Maybe Kalil coming back will help a bit, and I don't expect Jake to have a day like that again, but this offensive line needs to gel better on pass protection if we want to win a playoff game. We're going to be facing better defenses than the Oakland Raiders.
Posted by: Christian | Nov 10, 2008 1:11:29 PM
Procton,
WTF!?!? Are you serious about that pass to Hoover? It was a 7 yard pass that he threw a foot and a half behind Hoover. That was an absolutely terrible throw. Coming out of the flat that ball should be in front of Hoover off of his right shoulder. Instead that ball was back behind his left shoulder which is why he had to jump back around. Unfortunately, if Hoover wouldn't have made a play on the ball it probably would not have been intercepted.
This is yet again another case of your biasness getting in the way of your judgment. I love Jake, but that was a terrible throw and he had a terrible game. Like I said, he will bounce back however.
Posted by: Mason | Nov 10, 2008 4:14:58 PM
Wowo
Didn't I say in my post that I fully expect Jake to bounce back? And yes, Moose dropped a wide open pass. So lets chalk up that one "should have been reception" and Jake is still 8-27 in that game. All I said was that by the end of the game, you could visibly see that Jake could not complete a pass. We also had the ball with 9 minutes left and only a 1 score game and never attempted a pass. The coaching staff decided that 3 and outs were a better alternative than letting Jake throw the ball.
Posted by: Mason | Nov 10, 2008 4:21:01 PM
No...the coaching staff decided that keeping the clock running was the best option when Oakland had showed they couldn't move the ball all game. It's incredible to see this much bitching after a loss. WE'RE 7-2! WE'VE GOT THE #2 SEED IN THE NFC!!! If you guys expected 8-1 or 9-0, jump on that Titans bandwagon. It's not too full yet.
Posted by: Michael Procton | Nov 10, 2008 5:22:34 PM
I thought it was a good ugly win. Delhomme had an off day. I think more credit should be given to the Raider's pass defense. The first three interceptions were pretty exceptional plays by the cornerback and safety, especially the third pick. But Jake was definitly off. The 4th interception was inexcusable.
Deangelo Williams is becoming a force. He seems to find a crease where there doesn't appear to be one. He had a couple of runs yesterday where he made something out of nothing.
Mark Jones is looking like a good pick up. He is consistent. He only needs to learn how to beat a kicker or punter to score a touchdown. His running out of bounds when the punter touched him was inexcusable.
I love watching Peppers when he plays like he did Sunday. I also liked the way the coaching staff moved him around some. The first sack he ran over that guard. He is looking the way he did in the first 12 games of 2006 when he was running down everything.
Posted by: Dan | Nov 10, 2008 5:30:19 PM
Post a comment
Advertisements
