Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Scott Fitterer "best players will play"


NAS
 Share

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, stbugs said:

It’s just really funny how people want to assign anything bad to Rhule and good to Fitterer, regardless if they say the same things. It’s pretty comical and while Hurney did blow donkey balls, it was the same with him. While we had plenty of proof, he was still the dumping ground for everything.

Basically Fitt can talk in a microphone/in front of people and doesn’t come off poorly. 

 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

If you are in a situation where a FO is literally forcing players on a coach, it's time for someone to go.

Well yea he does need to go, Rhule still being here is inept but thats what the Panthers have been more often than not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, OldhamA said:

Good lord you people have a pathological hatred of Rhule.

he's worked hard to earn that.

not a bit of the hate is undeserved. he's f*cked up at every level so much he's had to be corrected at almost every turn. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OldhamA said:

Good lord you people have a pathological hatred of Rhule.

I mean it's a hatred so deeply rooted and hitherto unknown to the people of this area...

...but destined to take the place of the mudshark in your mythology 🤣...

Edited by SizzleBuzz
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Apparently in Rhules mind they were, or at least on that particular Sunday.  Hard to say as the starting 5 were never the same. 

Now we’re back to why people HATE Rhule.  He looks at that line last year and felt he nailed it.

Offseason additions are usually universally celebrated.  Fresh faces, new energy.  It all looks fun and exciting.

Trudging thru 18 weeks  looking like a new breed of horse turd each week won’t get you a lot of support.

 

Coaches that lose aren’t liked.

GMs have to miss on a few draft days and free agency periods to feel the heat.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, L-TownCat said:

Now we’re back to why people HATE Rhule.  He looks at that line last year and felt he nailed it.

Offseason additions are usually universally celebrated.  Fresh faces, new energy.  It all looks fun and exciting.

Trudging thru 18 weeks  looking like a new breed of horse turd each week won’t get you a lot of support.

Coaches that lose aren’t liked.

GMs have to miss on a few draft days and free agency periods to feel the heat.

Outside of his love for old Temple and Baylor guys (and the dumbass "short arms" thing) personnel hasn't been the primary issue.

The problem is that he still coaches like a college coach, and that just doesn't work at the pro level.

In order to believe that Rhule is going to be successful, you've gotta buy in to the idea that he can learn to be a pro coach.

For me, it's not just that I don't buy that idea. It's that I'm really not interested in employing a head coach who has to learn his job to the level that Rhule does.

Edited by Mr. Scot
  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SizzleBuzz said:

I mean it's a hatred so deeply rooted and hitherto unknown to the people of this area...

...but destined to take the place of the mudshark in your mythology 🤣...

yeah, this is really fan fiction by Matt Rhule's board family though. 

There is no deep hatred for Matt Rhule.  Matt Rhule was simply a comically bad NFL HC last year.  Comically bad.  We just say that.  It was what it was.  Generally, when someone is that bad they disappear.  Matt Rhule hasn't.  Therefore, it keeps getting mentioned.   You know, being he is the HC and all and has his finger print on literally everything going forward. 

Jimmy Clausen sucked horrifically as QB.  There was no real Clausen hatred.  He just couldn't play QB. I think Clausen actually gained more respect as a person throughout his bad career.   But if Clausen would have been our starting QB in 2011 it would have been spoken about a lot. 

 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Would Morgan or Beason have been HOFers' if injuries hadn't derailed their careers?  I was not a close watcher of the game when Morgan was in his prime but I thought Beason had a few seasons at close to Lukes' level of play.
    • Franchise QBs feast when things are rolling and the tide that raises boats when things are going sideways.  Bryce isn't that. He's a complimentary player, that's it.  When the defense and STs are on point, he plays loose and it shows.  When we are in a dog fight and things haven't gone our way, he struggles.  It's that simple. He's not a horrible QB, but he's not top tier either.  So the question begs, is this worthy of a second contract?  The answer should be no.  It definitely is my answer. Bryce will never be a QB that can produce wins largely on his arm.  That's a FRANCHISE QB, any other QB is simply a placeholder at the starter's position until that guy can be found.   At some point the excuses of lack of weapons will be a straw man.  Heck, it's nearly there now.  I mean if he doesn't look even better than last year will we blame it on the TE position?  'Well if Bryce only had a player like Kelce, Kittle or Gronk on this team...'  Are we really going to do that?  
    • When I arrived at college, I was 18, not too much younger than some of these draft picks.  It was not a huge school, but there were guys on the team who were 21, 22, 23....playing ahead of me.  I was seventh on the depth chart.  Those guys have been through a few seasons, were stronger, more knowledgeable.  I was a better raw player than some of them, but those other factors matter.  As I grew stronger, more familiar with the playbook, and learned what it was like to play in college, I gradually improved and with that, I rose up the depth chart.  It took most of my freshman year for the light to come on.  Had the coach thrown me into the starting lineup day 1, I would have probably failed.    And that was college.  So I agree with you based on my experience on a much lower level.  Frankly, I think that is why so many kids drafted to fill huge gaps bust.  The teams are desperate.  Anyone who looks to fill vacancies in the starting lineup through the draft is desperate.  You draft depth to develop.  For this reason, I say, "Let Walker start for a while."  Maybe Brazzell can be our WR 4.  Throw Hunter into a rotation and ask him to do one or two things.  Freeling needs some strength and he needs to work on run blocking.
×
×
  • Create New...