Mr. Scot

Never was... Regardless of draft position or talent level, you still gotta have the right coaching. Good coaching can shape a lesser round or even an undrafted player into a solid starter. Poor coaching can tale a top overall pick and turn him into a massive bust. There's about a hundred other factors that go into making a great NFL quarterback of course, but if you don't start with good coaching you're already operating at a disadvantage.

Browns go QB again?

Young's performance in that game will matter, but I'm honestly more interested in what Canales does. He got hilariously outcoached in that game so I'm anxious to see how he responds in a rematch.

Edward Hyde sucks as a solo act

So basically, just admitting you've got nothing, here?

Dude broke our running percentage gag

Mr Scott, you say?

I'd agree

Wins and losses are a team effort. The team his rookie season just wasn't good, and there were a load of things going in behind the scenes that made things even worse. The past two seasons have shown better results. And again, the whole "in spite of Bryce" argument is just silly.

My significant other isn't 40 years younger than me

You can to some degree by looking at titles and job descriptions. Morgan dumped Cole Spencer. He was Firterer's head of college scouting when he was first hired but had been promoted to a larger personnel role (I wasn't a fan). Tilis has Samir Suleiman's old role plus some other duties. I don't know that he has any personnel input but he might be helpful in picking the people we bring aboard who do. But even if he doesn't, Morgan has a lot of prior connections with solid reputations that may be available this coming offseason. That includes Lake Dawson, the guy who interviewed for our GM job before Richardson handed it back to Marty Hurney. Might even include Joe Schoen depending on what happens in New York. We've also still got Scot McCloughan's son Cade as an area scout. McCloughan had a damn near unmatched eye for talent years back, but he basically drank himself out of the league. If he could come aboard in some capacity (and stay sober) I'd love it. And there's others like OC Brad Idzik's brother who's a former GM, Trent Kirchner from Seattle who got his start with the Panthers, and many more. I'm hoping to see us bring some people aboard this offseason. As front offices go, we're relatively small so there's room to grow.

I'd add you can't take YAC out of the equation. It's one of the core principles the WCO was built on.

Sam and Baker were back when Rhule had final say. I'm going off one of Gantt or Person's articles on their differences (I forget which). Don't forget Tilis.

Should and shouldn't are hypothetical.

That's partially why our front office ended up the way it did. Fitterer signed on to Tepper's heavily analytics based approach. Morgan prefers old school eyeball scouting. As far as "genes" our last few quarterbacks have had both the OMG and WTF genes. That's nothing new in Pantherland.bThe only difference was how far and how fast those throws went.

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.