tukafan21

Fine, remove his "worst" game from the equation then, he still has over a dozen other god awful games, but if you remove his "best" game, he doesn't have another one remotely close to it. And doing team averages really is pointless as the really low ones bring that down, it's about comparing him to other QB's. There were 19 QB's (who started at least 8 games) who averaged over 220 yards passing a game. And that doesn't include Josh Allen or Jalen Hurts. Who if you want to include some rushing TD stats, combined for 26 rushing TDs this year and almost 1,000 yards. Also, Allen would have averaged 233 ypg if he just didn't play week 18 instead of starting to keep his streak but not even attempt a pass before being benched. Over the last 10 games, Bryce averaged 210.4 yards passing per game. There were 22 QB's this year to average more yards per game than that, of which it doesn't include Hurts, Lawrence, or Maye, 3 players I'd trade Bryce for in a heartbeat (contracts aside of course as I wouldn't want Lawrence's or Hurt's contracts right now with the state of our roster)

This couldn't be more wrong Even if he keeps his upward trajectory, he's a LONG way away from being a clear cut franchise QB that would be stupid to trade away. People keep conflating "improvement" with "franchise QB" and they couldn't be further apart. And if he doesn't keep improving but plays equally to how he played these last 10 games, then no, he isn't going to play us into his replacement, he's going to play us into the 13th pick of the draft where we can't draft his replacement and we also still miss out on the other true elite talent. Like I said, NFL purgatory, it's the worst place a franchise can get stuck in, it's the Bengals of the Lewis/Dalton era.

Again, if Bryce's ceiling is as a Top 20-25 QB (which is right were I've said he will end up numerous times), we should be trading him for the best offer this season and going full rebuild, as I've said I wanted to do for a while now. If your QB is the 20-25th best QB in the NFL, you're in NFL purgatory. Never bad enough to have a Top 3-5 pick to get a new elite QB prospect and never good enough to actually be contenders. I want the Panthers to win games, but if the options are blowing it up and going full on rebuild or getting stuck in NFL purgatory, I'm going with the rebuild as it's the better chance at ever getting to and winning a SB. Today's NFL isn't the one where the Bucs and Ravens can win SB's with the likes of Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer as QBs. That type of game manager just isn't going to get it done unless you have the PERFECT roster built around them. And even if you do get lucky to put that roster around them, you probably only have a 1-2 year window to contend before you can't afford to keep that team together under the cap. Basically, the 49ers with Purdy, except Purdy is better than Bryce and Canales isn't Shannahan. And look at how much of a mess that team is going to be in a couple of years, they had their window to win with Purdy on a rookie deal, but that window might have already closed.

Statistically, Bryce had 191 yards on 55.9% completions with 1 TD, 1 INT, and a 69.6 passer rating in the game. You keep wanting to point to statistics to back up your claims of Bryce being good, but when you actually look at the statistics themselves, they don't show him to be a statistically successful passer. Again, if you want to defend Bryce and his improved play over the final 10 games, feel free to do it. But don't try and point to statistics to back that claim up, because the actual on paper statistics do anything but that.

Don't bring up Week 18 as it's just a single game, and show me these amazing stats he's put up besides that which we're conveniently ignoring? In those 9 games after being benched and before week 18 he had 126, 158, 171, 191, 203, 219, 224, 263, and 298 yards passing with 12 TDs and 6 INTs. In those 9 games he also only had 3 games over 61.5% completions. Even the 298 yard game was only his 6th best YPA game over those final 10 games of the season too, with a 56.5% completion, so it's not like he did it efficiently (and it was against the 4th worst pass defense in the league). I'm not even saying you can't say he showed significant improvement over these final 10 games, because he has and I've admitted as much numerous times. But trying to use stats as the proof isn't the way to go, as statistically he was still below average over those 10 games.

I actually think XL will get better and pan out in the end, but even when we drafted him, I thought his upside was a high end #2. And yes, I've made it very clear my beliefs of how good T-Mac will be. Obviously as an alum who watches every game, I see/know Arizona players better than really any other prospects. There's been a lot of Arizona football (and basketball) players that I was convinced would be all star talent's in the NFL/NBA, including guys that were drafted in the 1st round for football and in the lottery for basketball, and no, they didn't all pan out (I see you Antoine Cason, Ka'Deem Carey, Derrick Williams, and Stanley Johnson in particular). But out of all of them, there's only two that I was a million percent convinced that they would be legitimate all pro and potential HOF type of talents. Rób Gronkowski and T-Mac, that's it. And with Gronk, I was literally telling all my friends back home that he was going to be the next big NFL TE after his very first game as a freshman. And no, it's not being a slave to the moment and saying that. It's hard to explain, but it's just one of those, "you know it when you see it" and from day 1, watching T-Mac just felt different, he's going to be THAT guy.

Because we traded 2 firsts, 2 seconds, and our best offensive player to get him and he's now 1 season away from when franchise QB's get signed to contract extensions. We shouldn't be anointing him as a franchise QB after a couple small moments of positive things at this point in his career, he should be clearly showing that he's the guy, if he's going to be THE guy. 2 years into his career with 28 starts and he has only one 300 yard game, 17 games UNDER 200 yards, 26 passing TDs (yes, he has 6 rushing), and 19 INTs, and only 5 games with a QBR over 61. Yes, he had a BIG game in week 18, but before that, he wasn't lighting defenses up, he was playing serviceably against poor defenses. Showing "huge improvement" like you said isn't quite as impressive when that huge improvement was from looking like legitimately the biggest bust in draft history. In the 10 starts after his benching, the timeframe people are pointing to his turnaround, he had a grand total of 3 games where he had more than 224 yards passing, with 2 of them coming in OT against 2 of the worst pass defenses in the league this year. Not saying you don't ask a valid question, but the above is the valid response to it. While at the same time we can ask the question of.... Why do all the Bryce truthers put so much weight behind his Week 18 game and disregard the previous 27 starts he made? Matt Flynn went 31-44 for 480 yards, 6 TDs, and 1 INT in the final week of the season. One big game in the final week doesn't make for a franchise QB, but on here, people are taking that game as the definitive proof that we found our long term QB solution.

Probably the same with Johnson If T-Mac is there at 8, it means the players already drafted would most likely be Ward, Sanders, Hunter, Johnson, Carter, Graham, and an OT. Realistically outside of the OT's and QB's, I think there is a clear Top 5 players emerging from most of the mock drafts and big boards in Hunter, T-Mac, Johnson, Carter, Graham. If/when the Patriots figure out their LT problem in free agency with all that cap room, that also then likely opens them up to go BPA of a non OT as well. So what we really need to root for is that neither the Patriots or Jets are able to sign OT's in free agency and it all but ensures at least one, if not both, end up taking OT's and letting one of those other 5 players fall to us. If that doesn't happen, I'm trying to trade back to pick up as many extra picks possible and then target either Burden or whoever the best pass rushing prospect is at that point. But if we can't get one of those 5 non QB/OT players, I think getting the extra draft picks would be better than picking someone there at 8.

That's not the point to that post though. If people want to take or pass on T-Mac because of whatever he may or may not be, that's understandable. But if the reason they want to pass on him in the end is because XL is already on the roster and our top draft pick last year, then that's the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. The XL pick is a sunk cost, we can't change it, and he still has a lot of potential that he can reach. But he's just not the prospect that T-Mac is, even if you're someone who has some concerns with him, he's still THAT much better of a prospect than XL is that you can't make your decision on him because of XL's presence. Our WR room past this next season is XL and Coker, and even this next season we're only adding Thielen to the room as of right now. That is a bottom 5 WR room in the league right now, so passing on a guy with legit Top 5 WR potential because you have a guy who might be a high end #2 if he reaches his potential would just be asinine. It's also all moot anyways, unless he comes out and runs like a 4.6, he's not falling to 8

It's crazy that like 3 months ago he was looking like he would play his way into a sizable free agent contract this offseason, now he might be near untouchable

Passing on T-Mac because you think he duplicates XL's role would be like saying you don't want great pizza because you already have frozen pizza rolls First, T-Mac is anything but a plodding big man that people seem to think he is because of his sizes. Second, his ceiling is so much higher than XL's that it's not even funny, honestly his floor is probably XL's ceiling.

In his two years at Colorado, they were 0-6 vs ranked teams and only 2-9 vs power conference teams with above .500 records He's just not a great actual coach, he's a glorified cheerleader who is great at social media and generating buzz. I'm sorry, but if you have the Heisman winner who played both sides of the ball and a supposed Top 3 draft pick at QB, you really should have won more/bigger games than they did. Everything about these Colorado teams were smoke and mirrors and it's going to be very apparent in 5 years when we look back and Shedeur is already a backup QB and Hunter is only playing half the games a season because his body has taken a decade's worth of hits in half the time.

Sure, but they had the #2 pick and aren't in that division with those QB's and HC's

Dak to the Jets for Rodgers and #8. #8 and #12 (and whatever else they'd need to include) to the Browns to take Shedeur. Rodgers gets 1 season to make a SB run while he mentors Shedeur for the season and then Shedeur takes over in year 2. Honestly, it wouldn't be the worst scenario since I don't think Shedeur is going to be a great QB anyways, might as well give him a redshirt year learning from one of the best to ever do it. And if I'm the Jets, I'm definitely doing that as I think Dak is still a good QB who likely can handle the NY media and will allow you to contend for the playoffs right away. They're not finding a better QB solution this offseason than Dak would be.

The problem with it is if Glenn, a legitimate HC candidate, was praised for turning them down to interview because he knew they were just doing it for the rule because they wanted Vrabel. Then what are they supposed to do except bring in guys who know they aren't getting the job just to satisfy the rule so they can make their hire? Vrabel is as legitimate a HC candidate imaginable, he shouldn't have been fired by the Titans in the first place, and there is a clear connection between the two of them. I get the point of the rule, but at the same time, there are situations like this where the rule was going to make any interview a non legitimate one because everyone knew who they were hiring.

In what world are the Raiders the job that Ben Johnson has been waiting on? They have no QB and they're in a division with Mahomes/Reid, Herbert/Harbaugh, Nix/Payton, QB/HC combos. There really isn't anything attractive about that job right now

It's going to be very interesting to see where Darnold ends up next year. The teams who don't get their QB in the draft this year, might just decide to stick with whoever they have next year and say screw it, we're going for Manning. If you bring in Darnold, he's going to to be good enough to make sure you're not getting the #1 pick. So if you're the Raiders and you can't get one of the 2 QB's, do you just roll Aiden out there again next year instead of trying to go with someone like Darnold?

True, but I'm sure they could have added a spiking exception, not like they could add a screen one as it would be too ambiguous, hell, that play was technically meant to be a type of a screen play to Puka as is.

haha that's crazy I'm watching the Manningcast, so when they just switched over to showing people watching the game at that bar with the huge screen, I'm sure they told you what they were showing you on the main broadcast. But since I'm on the other, I legit thought hey were showing the view from a sideline box until they changed the screen to the end zone view, that place looks so cool and I really want to watch a game there sometime.

Too many screen passes that would create fumbles for, which no team is going to like the idea of and to vote in favor for to stop something like this happening. I can't remember the last time I've seen a play and just said it's not right that it should be called that way, think it's just going to be one of those one off weird things that there is no fix for.

100% agree, which is why my first post said I don't know how to feel about that one, haha. Not really sure what they even could do to change that in the future though. The play wasn't over, it absolutely was a pass attempt and there was a player in the area. There's no way to make a rule that says "if you're clearly being sacked, you can't flip the ball behind you at the feet of a receiver for an incompletion, it will be called intentional grounding in this specifically odd instance" For as dumb of a play as it was by Stafford, in a way it was also smart, he saw Puka and knew all he had to do was flick the ball at the ground to get an incompletion. The dumb part was trusting the refs to call it correctly, but beyond that, the only risk was accidentally throwing it backwards which he probably knew he wasn't going to do.

totally agree that it was beyond stupid, but the last thing it could have been was intentional grounding, it landed like a yard away from Puka's feet. If it was going to be an incorrect call in the end, I'd have been fine with it being called a fumble or a sack as "in the grasp" before it being called intentional grounding, and by the rules, it was actually an incomplete pass.

did they? or did the rule book? It was a stupid play, absolutely should have just ate the sack, but if you're going by the definitions of rules in the book, he made a pass attempt in the area of a WR, no matter how ridiculous it looked.

Oh they 100% can't call intentional grounding, from the back angle you can see it really wasn't all that far from Puka's feet, it was never going to be completed, but by definition, there clearly was a receiver in the area.

Honestly not sure what to think about that call. In the end, I do think it was the correct call by definition of the rule, because he absolutely did that on purpose and from the back angle, you can see he was trying to get it to Puka, even if it was never going to be completed. But that really shouldn't be allowed to be an incomplete pass, just everything about that should have been if not a fumble, a sack or something, just feels wrong to be an incomplete pass.