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!

     

Russell Okung on Dave Canales:


thunderraiden
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, strato said:

I think it is going to prove to be at least a good try if not a hit. I was a Wilks guy but with Morgan having an influence and Evero in the house I think we are in good defensive hands here. 

I really mainly wanted a strong leader for the head coach that feels secure enough to hire people that are maybe better at stuff than he is. 

Funny thing is he wants to do the same things Wilks wanted, run the ball to set up the pass. Wilks was hounded for that, it's a passing league bla bla but Dave is getting a pass for saying the same thing for now ...

Could have save time just giving Wilks a shot but oh well.

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

My thoughts are...

How do you think it would go asking Young to carry the team with his arm?

You do have to run the ball to succeed. 

Running game has long been touted as the best friend a young QB can get 

Canales came in saying this QB is one of 11 which doesn’t seem like a ringing endorsement of his passer potential. 

If if it isn’t any of that it is just a breaking down to total fundamental and hoping to build off of that, I guess. 

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

54 minutes ago, NCBlu said:

Funny thing is he wants to do the same things Wilks wanted, run the ball to set up the pass. Wilks was hounded for that, it's a passing league bla bla but Dave is getting a pass for saying the same thing for now ...

Could have save time just giving Wilks a shot but oh well.

I like Wilks but passing up on him appears to be the right call. He’s had short stints everywhere he’s been which makes one wonder. And he was basically Ron Rivera 2.0. 

Canales represents a refreshing change from what we’ve seen so far.

Edited by Prowler2k18
  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, strato said:

Canales came in saying this QB is one of 11 which doesn’t seem like a ringing endorsement of his passer potential. 

misconception of what the QB should be. no QB, especially a young/rookie QB, should be tasked with having to carry the team. you build the team so that the QB can just be a manager. that's the ideal and should be the standard. you build a team right and the QB should only ever be just one of 11.

cam fuggin spoiled us. he was a unicorn. we're not going to be getting a QB like that again. we need to all lower our expectations.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rayzor said:

misconception of what the QB should be. no QB, especially a young/rookie QB, should be tasked with having to carry the team. you build the team so that the QB can just be a manager. that's the ideal and should be the standard. you build a team right and the QB should only ever be just one of 11.

cam fuggin spoiled us. he was a unicorn. we're not going to be getting a QB like that again. we need to all lower our expectations.

May be not in year 1 but by year 2 they had better start doing some heavy lifting in the NFL. Plenty of QBs can't but those are also not the guys likely to get a championship so those teams need to keep swinging at QB until they find one. The guys winning rings can carry their teams that year. The days you speak of are long dead and gone or Purdy would have a ring. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Prowler2k18 said:

I like Wilks but passing up on him appears to be the right call. He’s had short stints everywhere he’s been which makes one wonder. And he was basically Ron Rivera 2.0. 

Canales represents a refreshing change from what we’ve seen so far.

It was as much about leader and having a captain or whatever. I believe being HC is just s different skill set than being a coordinator. 

If we have that now I’m good. 

9 minutes ago, rayzor said:

misconception of what the QB should be. no QB, especially a young/rookie QB, should be tasked with having to carry the team. you build the team so that the QB can just be a manager. that's the ideal and should be the standard. you build a team right and the QB should only ever be just one of 11.

cam fuggin spoiled us. he was a unicorn. we're not going to be getting a QB like that again. we need to all lower our expectations.

Respectively: 

Except you know there are QBs that exceed that. 

Not sure how much lower I can take those expectations.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, strato said:

It was as much about leader and having a captain or whatever. I believe being HC is just s different skill set than being a coordinator. 

If we have that now I’m good. 

Respectively: 

Except you know there are QBs that exceed that. 

Not sure how much lower I can take those expectations.

i don't mean lower expectations of bryce, i mean lower expectation of what the QB SHOULD have to be doing. 

Are there QBs who carry the team? yes.

How many of the starting QBs in the league can do that? 

Is that the standard? If it is, is that a realistic one?

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rayzor said:

i don't mean lower expectations of bryce, i mean lower expectation of what the QB SHOULD have to be doing. 

Are there QBs who carry the team? yes.

How many of the starting QBs in the league can do that? 

Is that the standard? If it is, is that a realistic one?

well, we have had 2 good QBs IMO in Carolina.  There leadership from the jump was pretty hard to not see.  And they were very different themselves. 

I don't think a QB has to carry a team.  I think good QBs to an extent have to be sort of the primary engine though.   Think you can go about that different ways.  I'd say Jake and Cam were both really tone setters.   There was an energy and fire to both of them that mattered (pre- Tommy Jone Jake at least). 

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

10 minutes ago, rayzor said:

i don't mean lower expectations of bryce, i mean lower expectation of what the QB SHOULD have to be doing. 

Are there QBs who carry the team? yes.

How many of the starting QBs in the league can do that? 

Is that the standard? If it is, is that a realistic one?

For the most part and there are certainly some exceptions but on the whole to win in the NFL it all goes through the qb.  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NCBlu said:

Funny thing is he wants to do the same things Wilks wanted, run the ball to set up the pass. Wilks was hounded for that, it's a passing league bla bla but Dave is getting a pass for saying the same thing for now ...

Could have save time just giving Wilks a shot but oh well.

Similar overall philosophy doesn’t mean similar results or skill. Wilks was a bad coach. He was so conservative he made Rivera look like his nickname wasn’t actually satirical. He was stuck in the past in more ways than just “run the ball”.  His style would be good for winning a few games against the bottom feeders but useless against mid to good teams. Sure, that would be an improvement over last year but I’d much rather suffer some bad years trying to find someone GOOD than suffering many years with someone just good enough to win a few games, not to mention keeping us out of QB contention in the draft. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CRA said:

well, we have had 2 good QBs IMO in Carolina.  There leadership from the jump was pretty hard to not see.  And they were very different themselves. 

I don't think a QB has to carry a team.  I think good QBs to an extent have to be sort of the primary engine though.   Think you can go about that different ways.  I'd say Jake and Cam were both really tone setters.   There was an energy and fire to both of them that mattered (pre- Tommy Jone Jake at least). 

true. you have to have someone set the tone and i think that's what jake and cam both did. the teams matched their personalities because that was the culture that they brought in.

i don't know that bryce has that kind of spirit...i mean he might, but for me that's probably been the biggest issue, he just doesn't have this dominant personality. it would be great if he did, but he might not need to.

what we saw in jake and cam, we might have in canales, and i think that's where things like what okung is saying is good news. looks like canales is a cultural tone setter like cam and jake were.

i think we like to see the QB be that guy, but he shouldn't have to be. that actually should be the coach.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

For the most part and there are certainly some exceptions but on the whole to win in the NFL it all goes through the qb.  

but he should just be able to do it just managing the offense. i know the concept of a game managing QB isn't what we want these days, but that's really all you need if you can get all the other pieces in place and coach and game call effectively. 

we want a superman. if things are done right, we don't need one. i would like for us to be able to win without one. 

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

    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
    • The defense has pulled that feat off this season though.  Multiple times. offense has not had a single good first half all season.  Only and good opening scripted drive paired with disappointing play.  defense has been the actual unit you can measure real and consistent improvement IMO.  Still holes and flaws to it that aren’t going away until new bodies get here but they really are the story of the season IMO
    • One thing about RB's and LB's is they are going to get hurt. It's inevitable. Having a fresh Chuba is not a bad thing.  My only criticism of this entire situation is that I wish our staff would adjust personnel to matchup a little better. I think Chuba is a lot better than Rico against the stacked boxes we've seen the last two weeks. They are very different backs with very different strengths, and I love them both. Rico is so good at identifying the hole early, and hitting it full speed early. He's much better at breaking the big run. Chuba is a much more patient back, and finds 3 yards when there's nothing there better than Rico.  It's in no way a criticism of either, but I think Chuba would have had more success than Rico the way the Saints and Falcons attacked us from a Defensive standpoint.  When you put 9 in the box, often times there is no hole to attack. 
×
×
  • Create New...