Mr. Scot

1 minute ago, CRA said:

 

 

until you address simple realties, there is no reason to follow your distractions away from it and all your predictable bologna.  And I’m too old to fall for your baiting insults lol. 

24th ranked offense

25th ranked passing offense

26th comp %

Top 10 in bad throw %

*and there are a LOT of people helping Bryce out this year in the NFL sucking in 2025.  Because the production this year looks worse stacked up to last season. 

These are not the results of a QB that fits lol

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

2 hours ago, strato said:

That is really what I thought they took him to do.  
At least a few.5050 balls downfield.  

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.

3 hours ago, Khyber53 said:

This keeps coming up a lot:

Why does Canales give Bryce such a long leash? Why does he keep putting him out there.

There's one really important answer here. It doesn't cherry pick a game, it doesn't take into account draft position, or even height and weight.

The number one reason Dave Canales keeps starting Bryce Young is:

The QB bench.

Look at it. Look at it.

That is one dusty ass bench. The Red Rifle can no longer be reloaded. And there's literally no one else there. We've shuffled the practice squad guys a couple of times for QB prospects and they can't even claim a jersey.

That's management, not coaching. 

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?

2 hours ago, CRA said:

You are engaging in nothing but long winded semantics.   I could argue I fit Canales offense, disregard I’m horrific and can’t do anything at this level.

Bryce Young doesn’t fit if he can’t make the throws an offense requires/needs outside of outlier examples. 

the proof is in the pudding.  But given you just want to argue everyone is wrong and attempt to claim no position poorly….and that now all stats backing everyone’s positions are irrelevant…..you are just tiresome. 

Please declare yourself ultimate victor and feel free to ignore my posts.  Bryce Young doesn’t fit most traditional NFL offense’s because he lacks the tools and throws for them to operate at a standard that would please anyone outside of a small segment of the Panthers fanbase and his parents. 

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?

1 minute ago, CRA said:

the insane leash and the defense of him is about as unique as Bryce is himself.  One of one. 

170 yards, maybe a TD, maybe a turnover.  That's Bryce Young.  The good day variant. 

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?

12 minutes ago, CRA said:

I got zero interest in talking about other QBs and teams when we could just talk about the unicorn that is Bryce Young and his unproductive nature in our offense.   

24th ranked offense

25th ranked passing offense

26th comp %

Top 10 in bad throw %

that's not a fit.  If you want to say it is, I'm not following you down other roads. 

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? 

Just now, CRA said:

I don't need to follow you down your nonsense road when you can't get past this

Bryce doesn't fit fine  

24th ranked offense

25th ranked passing offense

Bryce also is bringing along w/ him a bottom tier comp % vs his peers, a high bad throws % vs his peers, etc. 

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?

4 minutes ago, CRA said:

yeah, pretty sure boss.....when things match and fit in the NFL.....the results then show it. 

and when they don't, well, the results show that as well. 

Bryce doesn't fit.  

*but I get why late season and wants to argue with everyone Mr. Scot has also turned into a please don't talk to me about stats guy as well.  Given, the stats that reflect offensive productivity work against all your present arguments. 

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?

39 minutes ago, CRA said:

Bryce doesn't fit fine lol. 

24th ranked offense

25th ranked passing offense

Bryce also is bringing along w/ him a bottom tier comp % vs his peers, a high bad throws % vs his peers, etc. 

In no world is that, fitting fine lol. 

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.

7 minutes ago, CRA said:

you want be to talk about broad schemes.   

I want to talk specifically about the offenses Dave Canales worked in.  Which is all Dave knows and it shows. 

If you don't want to talk about Dave's offenses? Cool.  Don't.  But that's all that really matters.  Dave Canales' brand of football in a convo about Dave Canales. 

We've been talking about Dave's offenses the entire time

(For Jimmy is telling you the same things)

23 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Exactly.  Just because you are part of the staff of a Head Coach doesn't make you an immediate replica of that coach once you branch out on your own.  

Yep. It certainly has influences, but ideally you grow into your own.

(Walsh and Shanahan, for example)

51 minutes ago, CRA said:

that's why I reference the entire specific tree Canales came up in and what made the offenses work at each point in time. 

You have 3 offenses.  Wilson, Geno and Baker.   

They all have shared the same traits that made them work.  All the offenses have been relatively uncreative (which Canales essentially conceded he wasn't bringing rocket science to Carolina) and have been dependent on having an aggressive QB downfield to essentially provide the balance to a predictable and boring offensive scheme. 

Deep dive was done into the passing game of all those dudes/offenses before the Bryce/Canales era ever kicked off.   Canales specific tree has always been dependent on the downfield ball at every stop.   It hasn't worked at any point without QB that naturally is aggressive downfield and helps bail the O out.   

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. 

1 hour ago, CRA said:

Yeah, I know you want to do your thing here. 

Please point out where in Canales’ journey before arriving here…..his offensive tree worked without the style QB pointed out? I’ll wait.  

You wanting to nitpicking broad offenses doesn’t change what I said.  We are specifically talking about the Canales tree/variant 

and Canales’ boring and unimaginative offense (his words too)…..needs a QB (just like everywhere else he has been) to put it over the the top and bail it outs 

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...

1 hour ago, strato said:

There is video somewhere of Tillis commenting on Wharton and knowing him in KC.  Probably on the team site in one of those blueprint things or the like.  

About what we would have expected...

56 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I think people look too heavily to where he was and not what he did in the one season he actually was an OC. 

Yes, Russell Wilson and Geno Smith were launching long bombs in Seattle but he was just a positional coach. Those weren't his offenses.

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

6 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

DC was only full an OC one year and it was with the Bucs on Baker's "bounce back year."  That year Baker posted his lowest average yards per attempt outside the the year he played here/LAR at 7.1.  This is with Evans and Godwin as his WRs too.  When DC left the very next year he went from 7.1 to 7.9.  DC does test the deep ball periodically but so far his offenses rely heavily on quick pass first reads.  He does try to run to setup the pass, but he is also too quick to abandon the run.  He is honestly still very green as a play caller much less one that is also a HC.

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

1 minute ago, CRA said:

Every offense Canales has grown up in or ran before being employed here has required a QB with an aggressive downfield nature to them to function properly.   There are no exceptions to that....people try to built one here.  That is not Bryce's style. 

and his bland and boring O here requires the same thing here and doesn't have it at the QB spot 

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 

9 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I don’t think scheme is an issue. We use nickel more than 3-4 and have featured 4 DL plenty of times. Gone are the days of a primary base defense IMO. 

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. 

5 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah, people have this big idea of Canales being some deep shot, big play offensive playcaller but I don't think he has had to dramatically adapt his offense for Bryce. Bryce just stinks and it's also a pretty middling offensive scheme.

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. 

9 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I think statistics, results and the eye test have been a very conclusive and whole picture of what a bad QB looks like.

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. 

13 minutes ago, CRA said:

What exactly are you claiming is Bryce's style then? 

and what are you claiming is the offensive style of the Canales tree? 

They are not a match.   I mean, his physical limitations influence what Bryce's style is

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. 

On 12/16/2025 at 4:50 PM, frankw said:

If that is ultimately the course of action the decision makers go with they will be doing so at their own peril. I'll just sit back and wait for it to end the same way it has the last 3 years.

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. 

On 12/16/2025 at 4:30 PM, ForJimmy said:

Looks like we have an out in Wharton's contract after next year.  Cap Hit is $19 million dead cap is $4.8.

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