Red zone and 3rd down

[imac_21]

We have to get better in these two areas. We can't rely on FGs to win games like last year.

Look at the Cardinals in 2005. Neil Rackers kicked 40 FGs, but they weren't winning games. They went 5-11.

Shit. Did I just disrespect Neil Rackers?

 

[abaskin18]

If Vinatieri had signed with AZ, Rackers would have been cut.

 

[Bemular]

We have to get better in these two areas. We can't rely on FGs to win games like last year.

Look at the Cardinals in 2005. Neil Rackers kicked 40 FGs, but they weren't winning games. They went 5-11.

Shit. Did I just disrespect Neil Rackers?

I don't think Smith intended any "disrespect" to Newton but he did call him out. Thus, if Rackers were the QB and if your comment read:

"Yeah, Neil Rackers threw for a lot of 300-yard games. That's great. You're not winning, though."

Then yes that would be "calling out" a QB by name. This isn't the same thing as picking a fight - it just says that Smith took his comments from being generic about the team and personalized them. Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[imac_21]

I don't think Smith intended any "disrespect" to Newton but he did call him out. Thus, if Rackers were the QB and if your comment read:

"Yeah, Neil Rackers threw for a lot of 300-yard games. That's great. You're not winning, though."

Then yes that would be "calling out" a QB by name. This isn't the same thing as picking a fight - it just says that Smith took his comments from being generic about the team and personalized them. Why is that so difficult to understand?

So if I had said that "Rackers kicked a lot of field goals. That's great. You're not winning though."

Then I would have been dissing Rackers?

It's only calling out Newton if you believe that the QB is the only player responsible for wins and losses.

Is talking about Willis' success early in his career calling him out if I mention that we were still losing?

If I talk about Fitzgerald's success in Arizona on an individual level but the Cardinals struggles as a team calling out Fitz?

If I mention Steven Jackson's success last year despite the lack of wins, is it calling him out.

It's not calling someone out to say he put up numbers despite his team's struggles. Putting a name on the player does nothing to change that.

The only way it was calling Newton out is if you consider throwing for 300 yards to be a strike against a QB. Smith painted it as a strike against a team.

Essentially what he said is that he would rather have the season he had last year and go 13-3 than have the season Newton had and go 6-10.

I think most would agree with that. Unless you had to pick one for a fantasy team.

 

[Bemular]

So if I had said that "Rackers kicked a lot of field goals. That's great. You're not winning though."

Then I would have been dissing Rackers?

It's only calling out Newton if you believe that the QB is the only player responsible for wins and losses.

Is talking about Willis' success early in his career calling him out if I mention that we were still losing?

If I talk about Fitzgerald's success in Arizona on an individual level but the Cardinals struggles as a team calling out Fitz?

If I mention Steven Jackson's success last year despite the lack of wins, is it calling him out.

It's not calling someone out to say he put up numbers despite his team's struggles. Putting a name on the player does nothing to change that.

The only way it was calling Newton out is if you consider throwing for 300 yards to be a strike against a QB. Smith painted it as a strike against a team.

Essentially what he said is that he would rather have the season he had last year and go 13-3 than have the season Newton had and go 6-10.

I think most would agree with that. Unless you had to pick one for a fantasy team.

Couple thoughts:

First, let’s clear up the obvious confusion surrounding the phrase "called out". Calling someone out has two distinct meanings. 1: To challenge someone, or 2: To simply mention someone's name in association with an event or circumstance. Smith did the latter. Such as Imac & Bemular were called out for prolonging this senseless discussion.

Second, comparing the QB to any other position in the context of this discussion is beyond senseless. Right or wrong, W's & L's are attributed to QB's. Nobody I know runs around making comments such as: "Patrick Willis was 13-3 as a starting LB" or "Neil Rackers was 5-11 as the starting PK"

"Yeah, Cam Newton threw for a lot of 300-yard games. That's great. You're not winning, though."

The above sentence resolves grammatically, logically and rationally to be a comment about Cam Newton. Clearly, Smith is calling out Newton, clearly he is referencing his 300-yard games AND clearly he is saying Newton is not winning as a result of throwing for 300+ yds/gm.

His position that the Yds/Gm is an overrated stat was supported by raising the yds accumulated while playing from behind argument which was supported by calling out Cam Newton as a specific example of that argument; saying that, while "Cam Newton threw for a lot of 300-yard games" He didn't win.

That is what the word "you're" means in the last sentence. Now, if you want violate the generally accepted rules of grammar and loosely attribute the word "you're" to the noun "team" as opposed to the Pnoun "Cam Newton" - Great, knock yourself out.

 

[clyde_carbon]

What a stupid analogy.

 

[Bemular]

What a stupid analogy.

You got something intelligent to say? Yeah, didn't think so

 

[1911Alaska]

What a stupid analogy.

ehhh, this thread is kind of stupid and pointless. Nothing against Imac, he just kind of pointed out the two most obvious issues with the team. With out proposing a solution to the problem, or asking anyone there opinion on it.

 

[clyde_carbon]

You got something intelligent to say? Yeah, didn't think so

You do know I was talking about the OP, right?

I really should just start putting your posts on ignore.

 

[MHSL82]

ehhh, this thread is kind of stupid and pointless. Nothing against Imac, he just kind of pointed out the two most obvious issues with the team. With out proposing a solution to the problem, or asking anyone there opinion on it.

IMAC's post has nothing to do with red zone and third down conversions. It was about Alex mentioning Cam Newton to say that 300 yards mean nothing when the team loses (by their defense or whatnot). Everyone jumped on Alex for saying that, saying you should never call out a player. IMAC said it's not calling out a player if you just use it as an example of a larger point and don't intend on discrediting the player, but rather the common conception that 300 yards = win. IMAC changed the position to kickers, not QBs, to see if people would still think it was calling out someone to name a kicker to claim a larger point, that kicking record field goals does not = wins (because of deficiencies in offense, defense, or whatnot).

 

[Bemular]

You do know I was talking about the OP, right?

I really should just start putting your posts on ignore.

I did not. I suspected, based on our last board war, that your comment was directed at me.

I apologize - My bad.

Please disregard the "stupid analogy" comment I posted in the other thread as well. Interestingly, I felt this was an issue we agreed on, so I found it confusing that you were "seemingly" attacking me. Clearly you were not, so again I apologize.

 

[Hangman]

IMAC's post has nothing to do with red zone and third down conversions. It was about Alex mentioning Cam Newton to say that 300 yards mean nothing when the team loses (by their defense or whatnot). Everyone jumped on Alex for saying that, saying you should never call out a player. IMAC said it's not calling out a player if you just use it as an example of a larger point and don't intend on discrediting the player, but rather the common conception that 300 yards = win. IMAC changed the position to kickers, not QBs, to see if people would still think it was calling out someone to name a kicker to claim a larger point, that kicking record field goals does not = wins (because of deficiencies in offense, defense, or whatnot).

I think you are missing his point along with everyone else. The whole point is that it is not disrespecting Cam at all. He did not call out Cam at all. People who think so do not know how to read or listen to what people are saying correctly.

2 years ago if someone said "Frank Gore runs for 100 yard games, but they're not winning though." That is not a disrespect to Frank Gore. It is not calling out Frank Gore. It is calling out the 49ers. That is the "they're" used in the sentence. The 49ers, not Frank Gore.

He is stating the fact that the Panthers were down late in games and had to run the no huddle. That the Panthers had to throw more because that was their only shot at winning the game.

This is more a shot at the Panthers inability to get a lead and hold it by running and running out the clock. Nothing more and nothing less.

Only sports pundits want to make this a bigger issue that it is to create a controversy to have something to stir the pot. Congratulations to all the people who fell into their trap and don't think for themselves.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I think you are missing his point along with everyone else. The whole point is that it is not disrespecting Cam at all. He did not call out Cam at all. People who think so do not know how to read or listen to what people are saying correctly.

2 years ago if someone said "Frank Gore runs for 100 yard games, but they're not winning though." That is not a disrespect to Frank Gore. It is not calling out Frank Gore. It is calling out the 49ers. That is the "they're" used in the sentence. The 49ers, not Frank Gore.

He is stating the fact that the Panthers were down late in games and had to run the no huddle. That the Panthers had to throw more because that was their only shot at winning the game.

This is more a shot at the Panthers inability to get a lead and hold it by running and running out the clock. Nothing more and nothing less.

Only sports pundits want to make this a bigger issue that it is to create a controversy to have something to stir the pot. Congratulations to all the people who fell into their trap and don't think for themselves.

Stop. RBs, Kickers, or any non-QB position aren't judged directly by wins/losses. QBs, rightfully or wrongfully, are judged by wins/losses. You'll never hear anyone say, "Oh, Adrian Peterson runs for a lot of yards and TDs, but he doesn't win football games." You know why? Because he's a RB. That analogy is not applicable in this case.

Saying a QB doesn't win games holds a lot more shock value than saying a Kicker or a RB doesn't win games.

 

[Hangman]

Stop. RBs, Kickers, or any non-QB position aren't judged directly by wins/losses. QBs, rightfully or wrongfully, are judged by wins/losses. You'll never hear anyone say, "Oh, Adrian Peterson runs for a lot of yards and TDs, but he doesn't win football games." You know why? Because he's a RB. That analogy is not applicable in this case.

Saying a QB doesn't win games holds a lot more shock value than saying a Kicker or a RB doesn't win games.

Again Smith said they're not winning not he is not winning. Big difference.

 

[Bemular]

Again Smith said they're not winning not he is not winning. Big difference.

Hangman, here is Smith's quote regarding Cam:

"Yeah, Cam Newton threw for a lot of 300-yard games. That's great. You're not winning, though."

 

[Hangman]

Hangman, here is Smith's quote regarding Cam:

"Yeah, Cam Newton threw for a lot of 300-yard games. That's great. You're not winning, though."

Yeah, read the whole quote again and not that line.

"This is the honest truth: I could absolutely care less on yards per game.” Smith said in the interview. “I think that's a totally overblown stat. Because if you're losing games in the second half, guess what? You're like the Carolina Panthers and you're going no-huddle the entire second half and, yeah, Cam Newton threw for a lot of 300-yard games, that's great. You're not winning, though."

You're = Carolina Panthers not Cam Newton. End of discussion right there.

He did not say Cam is not winning games because of his 300 yard games. He is saying even with 300 yard games the Panthers still managed to lose. It might be because of Cam throwing INT after INT. It could be the lack of a running game. It could be because special teams sucks or the defense blows. Or it could be because the coaches did not coach well at all. All that is beside the point. He said despite Cam throwing 300 yard games the Panthers lost. If he was calling out anyone it was the Panthers as a whole.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Again Smith said they're not winning not he is not winning. Big difference.

Not a big difference at all when he name drops a specific player.

Again, it's not a huge deal, but if you can't see why the Panthers might be offended, you need to take your rose colored glasses off.

 

[Hangman]

Not a big difference at all when he name drops a specific player.

Again, it's not a huge deal, but if you can't see why the Panthers might be offended, you need to take your rose colored glasses off.

The panthers should be offended he called them out. Not just Cam. He was not targeting Cam at all. he just happened to be the QB of the shitty Panthers who lost every time its QB threw for over 300 yards.

 

[clyde_carbon]

The panthers should be offended he called them out. Not just Cam. He was not targeting Cam at all. he just happened to be the QB of the shitty Panthers who lost every time its QB threw for over 300 yards.

The Panthers are offended. And they're offended he used Cam's name in particular.

He could've made his point without mentioning any names. Any time you put QB in the same sentence as wins/losses it's a touchy subject, especially coming from another player.

 

[imac_21]

What a stupid analogy.

It had to be if I hoped for you to understand it.