« Entertaining half, dramatic and bizarre ending | Main | Steve Spurrier's terrible Tuesday »



Tom: I disagree about the call. First off, I love the aggressive attitude of Chudzinski as a play caller and think that he's brought a level of offense innovation that's light year ahead of anyone John Fox employed. And I would have liked this call at an earlier time in the game. The problem with the call was that it was late and at a very critical time when it was important to get a first down and control the clock. Early in the game, it's a great aggressive call. Later, it's foolhardy and ended up costing us. And no- I would not have ripped them for running on 3rd and two. It was the right thing to do. I would have called an option play, which the Saints failed to stop all day.


i so agree nothing wrong w/being daring but there is something wrong w/being stupid and that was a dumb also we have to allow our guys to go for it when its 4 and 1 , the coaches need to show some confidence in our guys get some swagger! they are are a young team w/nothing to lose!! LETS GO PANTHERS

Tim Mayes

Tom - You are absolutely right on!...my feelings exactly!


it would have been a good call if you are willing to back it up with an attempt to go for it on 4th down. You have to go into these things with with some sort of plan. Punting is not an offensive weapon!


I disagree with you Tom, and agree with PantherD. All 3rd and 2's are not made equal and mostly would love that call. However, 1)Critical pt in game with little to no opportunity to recover from mishap; 2)consider the quarterback/offense you are up against - #2 offense in the league, if you are going to bet against them, u better hedge yr bet somehow...which brings up #3)if you don't get the 1st down, u are too deep in yr own territory not to punt, plus you've stopped the clock. On this drive, the Panthers were running well and N.O. defense was looking winded. Heck, Cam could have just leaned over from the line of scrimmage and gotten those two yards just with his height...lol! Love the aggressiveness, just have a little more smarts with it.


Smarter play calling and time management would've won the game. This needs to be looked at closely before Sunday in Atlanta, as the offense is doing what it's supposed to do, and we finally got a run game going again, so it falls on coaching, defense and special teams.


You have 40 seconds at most to make the call. And it took all of you more than 40 seconds to type your cogent thoughts here. As such, face it, these are gut calls. You look like a genius if it works - you feel stupid if they don't. The only thing that worries me is that we do seem to lack confidence in our ability to pick up 3rd and short via the run. That is the only thing worth questioning.


Tom it is great that you are showing this level of support for our team. But come on man! We needed to maintain the drive and score and eat clock. Do a poll. You're in the 10% who don't watch football on this one.

alan johnson

Tom, I agree wiyh panther D. In a situation like that, and that late in the game, and with a lead, lets get the 1st. down,keep the drive alive, and run the clock down. WE're trying to get our !st.win. The play didn't need to be a run. We had good sucess using the tight end for short gains.


It was preconceived that a bomb would be thrown on third and short. The exact same play was called on the Panthers second possession. Same result. Drive stopped. At that point, taking time away from the Saints was the most important thing to do. Right call in the first quarter, wrong call with a lead and 6 minutes left.


WildBill...I was sitting on my sofa half drunk and it took me 3 seconds to know that we HAD to have a first down. If we sustain that drive and eat the clock, we win. Plain and simple. A FG would make a 7 point lead and a TD ices it with 11. I love the aggressiveness this year, but tactical mistakes have cost us dearly.


JStewart - in the 3 seconds you made that decision what play did you call? Hmmm. That's what I thought, you didn't call a play - because you have no pressure on you to make that call. I'm just sayin'...


Tom, you are kidding right??? There is a difference between being aggressive and being smart, it's called winning. There is no way that is a good call in that situation. The game plan is to keep Brees on the sideline, where he can't hurt you. I love the way Cam has performed, but Chud has asked too much of a rookie QB on a not very good team. Aside from all the bad mistakes and blown big plays by the Panthers, the primary reason the Panthers are 1 & 4 is because of the "aggressive" play calling. As well as Cam has performed, he is a rookie and not a 10 year vet. The RBs need to be used more and play calling more balanced. Cam is being put in a situation of having to throw 40+ passes per game behind a not very good O line, a recipe for disaster or a 1 & 4 record.

Scott in CA

I agree. This is a team still learning how to win. Nothing wrong with going for the knockout punch. If it had worked, then everyone would be calling Rivera a genius. Reminds me of the Saints' onside kick in the Super Bowl...


Tom Sorensen, just another member of the Charlotte media more interested in having "excitement" than wins.

Jeremy Davis

The only problem with this article Tom is that if the offensive playcall would have been to run Jonathan Stewart up the middle he would have picked up those two yards and even more. As passionate as Cam is about winning, I'd even say that Cam picks it up (though I prefer Jonathan since he's our POWER RUNNINGBACK). Jonathan would have picked it up, debate it all day long but that's his job and that's what he does. Brees would have never had the opportunity to go down the field. Playcalling lost this one for us.


So many memories It's good to know i haven't yet aclualty finished this game .But it just shows how AVALANCHE fought for the needs of the many even if it didnt seem so at the time. Destroying the reactor, attacking Shinra .Everything they do is to help others but not themselves


Charlotte certainly has plnety to do if your up for it. I don't anyone staying downtown for a few nights would have any problem finding something to do without leaving. They could take a trip down to Ballantyne in much less than 45 minutes if they leave after 7pm. I make it from Downtown to Ballantyne in 40 minutes everyday at rush hour and I can get there in 20-25 minutes if I work late. However for a night or two there is no need to leave DT.


So assumably plepoe preaching, say, Buddhism, or sedition, or a religious message of love entailing the notion that mass sodomy of Christians to help save them from their brainwashing, would enjoy the same protections you're talking about?By the way, it frankly seems like a rotten thing to do, to force a captive audience to listen to plepoe read scripture -- especially such fire-and-brimstone stuff as this guy was reading. He's lucky someone didn't punch him out for being an annoying, opportunistic jerk. Say what you like about the Black Panthers, but they are at least in dialog with the plepoe standing around -- who are free to leave if they want (not being preached at in a place where they are stuck waiting to conduct their business), free to ask questions, free to disagree, and are respected enough to be offered a response to their disagreement. THAT is what free speech is for: not for picking inopportune times when one can cram one's ideology down unwilling others' throats.

The comments to this entry are closed.