Slow Starts A Concern?

Maybe a stupid topic but the whole off season crap has me depressed and reflective. While we don't always start every game slow and finish well, nor every season, we do tend to be a come from behind team frequently. Certainly last year's slow start was heavily influenced by injury and you could discount it. But is it a concern that frequently we struggle in the early part of a game? Certainly making adjustments as the game progresses is a great thing, but is there a concern that we're not getting our players ready to come out punching from the first whistle or that we're not game planning well and have to change strategies mid game? We struggled the first half of the Super Bowl as well and despite liking to place blame for 60 minutes of football on Kasay's one kick, fact is had we come out sharp and executing, that kick might have been irrelavant.

I love that our guys have heart and keep fighting, but I wonder if there's some flaw in what we do or how we do it that needs fixing so we can play a full 60 minutes all the time?

 

We are definitely slow to adapt, the Super Bowl a prime example. It's not like we were going to wear down Ted Washington by banging Davis into him 15 times in the first quarter. We were lucky to even be in that game at halftime.

I don't know if it's stubborness or what.

 

It's that whole 15 round fight, wear 'em down with body punches philosophy.

 

I do think that overconservative deal hurts us. Or else I wouldn't bitch about it for 3+ years.

And that's part of what happens - you've gotta play a flawless game to be terribly conservative, and have the lead necessary to keep being conservative.

Part of the reason keeping Muhsin would've been advantageous? Maybe just the pipedream, but I'd hoped it would mean we'd have the ability to be less conservative.


We use 2 WR as our entire passing attack. And now we have less at WR. It sucks, because now the draw might be realistic.

 

With all the discussion of the off season, is the honeymoon over now for Fox? I don't mean he's bad and dump him, but is the coming season a biggie because we have less stars in our eyes now and with the "plug in a bargain player" mentality, now Moose and maybe not being able to sign another guy who wants to stay (Fields) are we going to be looking harder at Fox & Company saying maybe they don't really have the answers after all? After 1-15 it was easy to fall in love with ANYONE who could turn it around and then to follow improvement up with the Super Bowl was heady stuff for everyone. But now are cracks beginning to show in the foundation? Does Fox need a big season to keep the fans believing?

 

Well, another disappointing offseason followed by a sub-playoff performance wouldn't be good for his career, no.

Injuries or not, our line was horrid last year, and despite the INTs, it's hard to call our secondary good. And those were two places we said we'd do something different. We did. And it contributed greatly to our problems.

If we make more decisions like this, including the departure of Fields or Minter, something like that, and the team suffers from it, then we're in a downward spiral. That's a concern, because if that's true, we're headed down again. And to hell with that, I've had enough shit seasons in 10 years, it makes no sense to come out of cap hell and be competitive with the same rules that send you right the hell back down to cap hell and shit seasons.

 

yeah, no more blaming Seifert, this is Fox and Hurney's show from here on out..

 

I want Fox & Co to succeed and spectacularly so, but once the euphoria of the SB settled, we got a crash trip back down to earth - which many SB losers or even winners do. I love that Fox can bring so much enthusiasm and heart to the guys - I think last year showed that even more then the SB run and I'm not on a bash Fox campaign, but I think that starry eyed "Fox is our saviour" feeling many were caught up in (self included) is clearing to the reality that Fox has got a lot going for him, but they've also made some not so good decisions and some of those have hurt the team.

We may have jumped the gun on Jake - I like him as our QB, but I don't think he did anything this past season that would have forced us to over pay for him when his contract expired. Pop in a tape of some of his early season throws sailing 4 feet over the receiver or bouncing in the turf several yards shy of the receiver - or a completion to the wrong team, and he'd be hard pressed to demand a huge payday.

We secured our Defense only to have them lose a step (or two) aside from Pep and the linebackers and Morgan still can't play 16 games. And we believed too much that our magnificent defensive line would enable us to play with a secondary guest player of the week type rotation which may have limited what Minter could do while baby sitting those around him.

I agree we pay out big bucks to guys that I wonder about and then let someone solid walk with offers that are rather pitiful. Have we also low balled Fields thinking his love for the team justifies it? Did we bank on Moose giving us a home town discount and if he wouldn't the hell with him? I just haven't seen anything that makes me think they really wanted to keep him unless he WOULD play for chump change. And while I know Peete is probably an excellent mentor, make him QB coach - he gets a ring if the team gets one and at least as an official COACH he can claim some responsibility in getting the win rather then being the clipboard carrier.

I'm starting to think Fox is a great coach who may not be a good personnel guy which is something we've suffered with all along.

 

I really contribute the slow starts to game planning. Panther football really is like chess, starts slow and sometimes ends with one dramatic move created by nudging your opponet into making a mistake based on something you saw earlier.
I understand this approach well, it was the same approach we used in college. We pounded the ball alot, only throwing in certain down and distance situations. Then the staff would look at those passing situations and start using them a little more to set up other things. Meanwhile, the defense is shouldered with maintaining control of the game while the offense feels things out.
While I understand this approach, I prefer something a little more aggressive.

 

This is a brilliant analogy, especially for the offense. The flaw, as much as I've defended Henning, is that we sometimes seem to eager to feel the opponent out instead of dictating and setting the tone. This does not mean we shouldn't run the ball early. It does mean we should be a little less predictable on the first series. Mix in a screen pass, play action, or a quick hitch. Make room for the running game by doing this. To often we'll hand the ball off three times and punt, hoping not to make the big mistake early. This isn't a bad method, but there are others ways to be safe early besides 3 off tackle runs.