Mr. Scot

I know he's been cagey in certain situations (I expect that) but I don't see him running a full on, phony "competition" like Fox did.

Giants won a Super Bowl with that formula.

I might agree. But as long as the coaches don't, then yes, we're "stuck"

That's what I was referencing in the comment about John Fox. Not a single one of us believed that Rodney Peete actually beat out anyone in a true competition. It was all just bullsh-t lip service from John Fox. Week 1 proved it... definitively. Mind you, I don't think Canales would necessarily go that route. He'd likely just say "Bryce is the starter" and leave it at that.

Know who had phenomenal, "best in the league" completion percentage some years back? David Carr The problem with the vast majority of football stats (even "Next Gen" stats) is that they tend to be inextricably entwined with someone else's performance. Completion percentage is affected by drops, bad routes, etc. Interceptions aren't always a quarterback's fault, but nobody else gets blamed for them. If a tackle gives up a sack, it might be because someone else missed their assignment on a given play. There's too many different possibilities, and unless you're willing to go back and watch a sh-tload of film, you're not going to understand everything that happened. That's why I just trust my eyes.

That I knew. I mistakenly thought he meant someone had brought him up in this thread.

Is refer you back to 2003 when John Fox said that Rodney Peete "won" the "open competition" for the starting role in Week 1...even though he only played like a single series in preseason.

Who suggested Lance?

He's with the Eagles. They traded three lower round picks for him back in August.

Well, as far as "weird technical arguments" you're still doing everything you can to justify the notion that you can somehow not credit an important part of the team with team wins. It's not a valid argument, and no amount of spinning or rationalizing is gonna make it into one.

Said Bryce is part of the wins and plays a key position. Not the same as saying he's the key to the wins. But also not denying he plays a role in them because...well, he did. Even if you limit his contributions to the game winning drives in the 4th quarter, those still count. And yes, he's improved. but saying that doesn't equate to saying he's good enough to put the franchise label on him. It's just a simple acknowledgement that he's better than he used to be (to what degree is debatable). As to his initial expectations, I'll just say stats aren't the only thing I don't care about. What he is matters way more than what he was expected to be. And what is he? He's what you referenced, a mid-tier quarterback. Not the "worst in the league" or "worst ever" as some claim. That's just hyperbole. Lots of teams have those. Very few teams have elite ones. And I wouldn't bet on next year's draft having a supply of those either. And again, stats. We used to have a number of folks who bandied about some of Delhomme's stats, Newton's stats, etc. to argue they weren't good. But lets look at a few of those... What metric do you prefer? Yards, perhaps? Well, if those are key then Jared Goff, Sam Darnold and Bo Nix are all doing better than Baker Mayfield right now. The second best quarterback in the league? Dak Prescott. And Young? Well, he's outpacing CJ Stroud, Lamar Jackson, Tua Tagavailoa and even Aaron Rodgers. Prefer touchdowns? Cool. On that front, Jared Goff is tied for third in the league with Drake Maye, leading Rodgers, Mayfield. Patrick Mahomes and Josh Allen among others. Bryce is 15th in the league here, just a single score shy of Rodgers, Mayfield, Sam Darnold, Daniel Jones and Josh Allen. Ahead of Tagavailoa, Trevor Lawrence, Caleb Williams, and Jackson. Interceptions? Holy hell, Bryce has fewer interceptions than Sam Darnold, Trevor Lawrence and, again... Josh Allen. Does that mean I can go out and post on X that Bryce has better ball security than Allen? But wait, are some of these stats... misleading? Or might hh+jjhthey be, just a little...out of context? Ya know, it seems like they kinda are. Weird, huh

Washington under Snyder had nothing but bad situations.

I don't know what his status is next year. I know he got better coaching from somebody other than Matt Rhule after he left us, but if I remember correctly his playoff performance last season was... less than stellar.

I'm neither fan nor hater (totally UNC neutral) But I do think Sam Howell has a quarterback skill set that fits quite well into a WCO type scheme like Canales runs. He wouldn't be high priced as a backup either. Put that together with what Linville mentioned and is say it becomes a very real possibility.

All of them?

Worked retail in college and they had me so the closing announcements. I've had voice training so I got a lot of "whoa" reactions afterward

That's been the Panthers regular MO in the past

I've said it before re: Dalton, if he's that good in a mentor role just bring him on to the coaching staff. As a player, he's done.

Same. Don't understand that at all.

Yeah, that's a bit "out there" for me

Not worried about "living anything down". I have bad takes. We all do I just about always argue for a three year threshold on head coaches, GMs and others (Matt Rhule being an exception) because things change and building a winner takes time. Now, if you wanna just toss anybody that doesn't lead you to a Super Bowl in their first season, you can certainly do that...but that's how you become the Browns, Raiders, Gruden, etc. Some fans will claim they disapprove of that approach, yet at the same time that's exactly how they navigate their fanhood. The trick is to automatically go into "he sucks" mode if he's not an overnight sensation. That way if he does end up failing, you can point back and brag about being right But for that to genuinely be true, you have to be able to point back to actual substantive statements. "He sucked and I knew it" doesn't qualify. Me? I don't care to brag about my good takes or deny my bad ones. In a public forum, what would be the point? There Is one piece of guidance I would suggest for you though... Attacking the source of an argument is usually a pretty good indicator that you're not capable of actually winning the debate with valid, substantive points and information. Is that where we're at? If you wanna say it isn't, then uou're gonna need to present an actual, intelligent argument to prove it. "He sucks", "he's the worst ever", "everybody can see I'm right" and so on...yeah sorry. Those don't meet the criteria.

Same slant as before, dude. Look, it doesn't matter what mental gymnastics you apply to the story. You cannot remove Bryce from being a part of why we won these games. He did his job. In some games better than others? Yes, but the end result still matters. The wins are team wins. The losses are team losses And Bryce plays a key role in the team. Like I said earlier, continue arguing that he should be replaced. I'm doing that as well. But denying reality doesn't help your argument. It actually weakens it.

Wrong. I said he needed more time. That was until it came out that he'd been undermining Reich. At that point, I said toss him.

No, but winning blunts and decreases any motivation the team might have to replace him.