A Non-Double Digit Loss Dynasty

you have me on the two seasons, I thought he went 2-14 both years; he went 7-9 with what Mooch had won 10 games and a division with.

We were in a cap purge when Fox picked up this team. Was 2-14 good enough then? I'm not looking to pick on you, as much as that Dennis Erickson clearly blows but he gets defended; John Fox keeps us competitive year after year.

 

I couldn't really care less about Erikson but he did not have much to work with that second year.

I like Fox and I have not been one calling for his head. I guess the frustrating thing about our team has been our unwillingness to address areas of need and it cost us games.

We have not had a good safety tandem since 2003 and we have lost games because of it. We have not had a good compliment to Smith since Moose left besides Key and we cut him. You can live with failed attempts to improve the team such as Carr and Kemo but there is little excuse for starting Deke Cooper or Nate Salley for a year or Keary Colbert.

 

I don't think too many teams can win when they end up with their 5th QB to finish.

We lost the Center and LT, LB and had corners in and out in another season. The line had to shift all over the place to find a solution.

How many running backs were we down to on that other season?

It's a bit of an anomoly to have that many losses at one area.

What do you think the predictions for our seasons would be if it was known that we would lose those guys?

 

You're missing the obvious point, he's awful. He signed on to that team, nobody ambushed him into the idea that they were old and overpaid.


Deke Cooper worked out well. That didn't lose us football games. We should've had more, and we could've, but we didn't lose for it. The pass rush was a much greater problem.

 

I think what bothered people most is that we got blown out repeatedly. Only two of our losses were close, and our wins came against teams that were either awful or resting their starters. There is no reason to sugarcoat 2007. The Panthers were awful and fans had every reason to be pissed about the product on the field.

 

No, 2007 wasn't good enough. The blowouts are a concern. We also picked it back up and started playing like it mattered, especially when things on both sides worked together.

I think we've gone around the bend already about expectations. I think we could've, and probably should've, done more over time, but if this is a baseline, and this is "as bad as it gets", this is far from the worst thing. Saying that rock bottom is still 7-9 isn't sugarcoating.

 

Did we really? Is it really just a coincidence that the Panthers "picked it back up" late in the season against other teams that were coasting to the playoffs? I don't buy that.

Pretending like that 7-9 means we were decent this year is sugarcoating. Everyone knows that we were worse than mediocre, which is what you'd generally associate with a record close to .500. As stated above, Carolina got repeatedly blown out in its losses and its wins came against teams that were either putrid or had no particular incentive to win.

 

OK, then we disagree. I saw a team that had some bouts of giving up, that came together at the end and played some tough teams tough.

I didn't say we were decent. If you notice, I called it rock bottom there, so I guess you'd say you put the word decent in my mouth.

Either way, we disagree. Some think it's sugar coating to say we've never lost 10 games. It's a minimum goal. But we've done it, where under the past two coaches we ended up failing significantly.

 

Maybe Erikson does suck but regardless of that he had little chance in San Fransisco. If you are going to do a cap purge you should not fire the coach because you have a bad record that year. I guess that happens though.

Cooper and Harris both wiffed on the winning TD that Crumpler had against us in the second Atlanta game. Granted they might have won anyway but that was a big gaff.

 

Wow, I didn't think ya'll would take this thread seriously.

lol