Mr. Scot

Ah yes, the old "accuse your opponent of what you're actually trying to do" tactic. Always amusing You wanna drop out? No problem, but you should probably do so by just admitting the conversation is over your head. Though truth be told, even if you don't wanna admit it, I'm pretty sure anyone reading this, watching you dodge the questions and just cut and paste the same recycled answers over and over again can probably already see that

That'd primarily be an example of a Coryell type receiver, though a WCO can sometimes take deep shots as well. The guys that are gonna best fit our attack though are the YAC guys, regardless of size.

Not necessarily... What I honestly wish more people understood is that Canales doesn't necessarily look at Bryce the way we do. People are looking for excuses based on an assumption that he does. But I think if we're honest with ourselves, he doesn't. Canales may genuinely believe we can win, and even win big, with Bryce at question. Do I believe it? No, but what I, you or anyone else believes doesn't really matter. So basically, if Canales believes in Young, then He's going to continue working with him as the starter until there comes a point where he doesn't. That likely ends up being a sh-t sandwich for Panther fans, but what's new?

Nah. I'm talking nuts and bolts football. You're trying to deflect from the fact that you don't understand the difference between a stylistic analysis and a measure of ability. You can go back to pre-draft analysis and you'll find a lot of the talk(even on this same board) had Bryce pegged as a WCO or possibly an E-P fit. That idea came from understanding the schemes and matching them to his streniand weaknesses as a prospect. (and yes, he has strengths; hell, even Manziel had strengths) Again though, since you seem to need this simplified even further, just answer these two questions: - Who was the college OC that Bryce thrived under? - What kind of concepts did he run in the NFL?

Not a defense of him...an understanding of the problem. (something you seem to be lacking right now) Bryce in a Canales offense is not an example of a stylistic mismatch, but I can give you one if that helps. When he was playing for the Panthers, Cam Newton sat under OC's running Coryell type offenses. Newton had a big arm and was a strong runner. He fit into that sort of attack very well. Then he goes to New England, where at the time they were running an Earhardt-Perkins system (similar to WCO In a lot of what they do but very different terminology). The Patriot offenses back then were heavily based on timing and rhythm style passing, not something that Newton was especially well suited for. So he washed out at New England, not because he had poor ability (his abilities had been on display here on a regular basis) but because he didn't fit what they wanted to do with their offense. I always go back to Jeff Garcia as one of the prime examples of this issue. Garcia in a WCO looked like a world beater. Put him in any other scheme though...yikes! So again, Young's issues here have nothing to do with any failure to mesh with Canales. Hell, is say Canales has actually done pretty well at adapting his system to who he has rather than trying to jam square pegs into round holes. Again, it doesn't take an elite level of football knowledge to get this. It's pretty basic. But if you're not even capable of understanding what the real problem is, how are you going to know you to find the right solution?

Okay, looks like you've failed the quiz, so here's the answers Joe Montana and Steve Bono were the same style player with similar skill sets. One was just better than the other. Brett Favre and Rex Grossman were also the same type of player. Again, one was demonstrably higher in ability than the other. Hell, Tom Brady and Teddy Bridgewater were even the same style of player. One has numerous Super Bowl rings and the other is coacing a high school team. What's the difference? Ability All of these examples show the distinction between style, skill set, and playing ability. If you still can't understand that after this many examples and damn near remedial level explanations, not much more I could tell you. Heck, you probably don't even have to know football to understand what I'm saying. It's just basic analysis. But then, as the saying goes, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you

@CRAWould it help if I put names to it? Late 80s, early 90s: Joe Montana and Steve Bono were both quarterbacks for the San Francisco 49ers. Montana was the starter, Bono was a backup. Why was Montana the starter and not Bono? Did they have different styles, or was it differing levels of ability?

Don't need to...or can't? This is a pretty basic question, Football 101 level, honestly. You're not even gonna try to answer it?

Nope Still missing it. Let's try this a different way... You have two quarterbacks from schools that ran the same kind of offense - maybe even two from the same school - on a given team (not necessarily the Panthers). One is designated the starter while the other is named the backup. Why?

Yeeeah...stats and rankings have zero to do with a discussion of scheme and skill set match. Maybe look up definitions of style vs ability and see if that helps. At this point, you've basically had three different people explain to you where you're wrong, but rather than addressing any of those statements, you're just resorting to straight deflection. You don't get it. Either that or you're acting like you don't get it so that you can avoid the discussion because it's not going well for you. (that wouldn't surprise me either) Sme result either way, I suppose.

We've been talking about Dave's offenses the entire time (For Jimmy is telling you the same things)

Yep. It certainly has influences, but ideally you grow into your own. (Walsh and Shanahan, for example)

The bolded portion highlights where you're going wrong. Wilson, Geno and Baker aren't "offenses", they're quarterbacks running an offense. Offenses have concepts. Quarterbacks have skill sets. Sometimes they match. Other times they don't. But even when concepts and skill set do match, that isn't a guarantee of success because you have to factor in ability and other things. Your suggestion that Bryce doesn't fit what Canales does is wrong. He fits just fine. It's his ability that's lacking.

No. What I'm actually wanting to do is discuss concepts that you don't seem to understand (and that's odd given that I just gave a very base level explanation of the ideas) You sound like you're trying to steer away from this discussion, which I suppose I get under the circumstances. KFD and For Jimmy get it...

About what we would have expected...

Valid, and throw in that what Wilson and Smith did is not out of the ordinary for a WCO

Yep. His OCs back in his Seattle days were guys like Darrell Bevell, Brian Schottenheimer and Shane Waldron.

I need to go back and review this and the other thread

You're not demonstrating a very good grasp of the offensive principles here. Coryell: combine power run game with deep downfield passing to keep the box from being stacked underneath WCO: pitch and catch / extended handoffs; throw short to skill players and let them get yards after catch; backs are mostly fast, shifty types but it's good to have a power runner for short yardage and goal line situations; occasional downfield chucks to back the defense off the line but they're not bread and butter

I've primarily looked at the offensive side of things, likely because that's where most of the discussion is centered. Given there's a pretty solid chance we move on from Evero next season, I probably should pay more attention to the other side of the ball.

Pretty much... Typical WCOs do take occasional deep shots but they're not as reliant on them as a traditional Coryell style would be. Reid and NcNabb back in Philly certainly took shots downfield (and NcNabb was capable) but it definitely wasn't Coryell style.

I'd leave out the stats but agree outside of that. I reference Newton here because there was a long running debate here about tying the team's win-loss record to him.

Bryce: Point guard, WCO distributor Canales: Walsh style WCO influences You have to learn to differentiate between playing style and ability. Joe Montana and Chad Pennington were similar style-wise But there's a huge disparity between their levels of ability and success.

Probably more like the last two than the last three (three seasons ago was Reich). The team is showing legitimate improvement under Canales, But the goal isn't to be better than you used to be. The goal is to be great. I'm not convinced we reach that goal with Bryce.

What if the next DC prefers a 4-3 scheme though?