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!

     

What is the benefit to benching starters for the preseason?


hepcat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Y’all don’t think 17 games will be enough to evaluate Young? Not enough chance for him to establish his viability?

Or maybe you fear that losing those first two games is what causes us to miss the playoffs? 

I don’t have those worries.

Edited by strato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, strato said:

Y’all don’t think 17 games will be enough to evaluate Young? Not enough chance for him to establish his viability?

Or maybe you fear that losing those first two games is what causes us to miss the playoffs? 

I don’t have those worries.

He has already played 16 so 6 should be plenty on that end. It's more about everyone else else including the coaches. There is plenty to be concerned about at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, strato said:

Y’all don’t think 17 games will be enough to evaluate Young? Not enough chance for him to establish his viability?

Or maybe you fear that losing those first two games is what causes us to miss the playoffs? 

I don’t have those worries.

What I fear is the excuse that they didn't have enough time with the new system, coach, GM, players, etc. I fear trying to build a system around him that avoids the use of common sense. I fear we are trying to invest everything in a QB that didn't even rank in the top 32 last year. That is downright terrifying given our history under Tepper. 

If we end up with a top 3 pick, and I believe our chances are better than 90% we will, not taking every opportunity may very well lead us to passing on a QB should there be one worth taking, or taking a player to specifically help BY instead of taking the best player to help the team. 

But my greatest fear is that this owner and FO can't or won't admit that a mistake was made, if indeed it was, and it's time to move on. The more opportunities that are available to evaluate his performance, the better that evaluation has the potential to be. 

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WUnderhill said:

It’s funny how I just gave clear examples of actually most of the playoff teams last year not playing starters and this post immediately follows. To your first point, Justin Herbert hasn’t played a snap this preseason either with new coach, schemes, players, etc. Y’all really just need to stop acting like this is some Panthers-only, losing teams only, approach so we can have real conversations. And just lol imagining the posts we would have to endure here if Bryce Young had played this preseason to go 2/6 for 11 yards and a sack as Brock Purdy has.

Considering that the post that I responded to was before yours, I hadn't made it to yours, so no need to act like you were ignored. And note that I also said "some/all of their guys to varying degrees", meaning that different teams have different approaches all across the spectrum. 

Frankly, Carolina IS a losing team and until proven otherwise any approach that keeps the starters off the field is ripe for questioning given all of the turnover at the key positions. Yes, San Diego has had a lot of turnover as well, but Jim Harbaugh gets more credit for knowing what he's doing as an HC and how to evaluate a team than Dave Canales. Just the reality.

  • Beer 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

What I fear is the excuse that they didn't have enough time with the new system, coach, GM, players, etc. I fear trying to build a system around him that avoids the use of common sense. I fear we are trying to invest everything in a QB that didn't even rank in the top 32 last year. That is downright terrifying given our history under Tepper. 

If we end up with a top 3 pick, and I believe our chances are better than 90% we will, not taking every opportunity may very well lead us to passing on a QB should there be one worth taking, or taking a player to specifically help BY instead of taking the best player to help the team. 

But my greatest fear is that this owner and FO can't or won't admit that a mistake was made, if indeed it was, and it's time to move on. The more opportunities that are available to evaluate his performance, the better that evaluation has the potential to be. 

Yeah that is what influences me to wish boom or bust. No middle, slightly hopeful ground that prolongs a resolution. Fish or cut bait as they say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, strato said:

Y’all don’t think 17 games will be enough to evaluate Young? Not enough chance for him to establish his viability?

Or maybe you fear that losing those first two games is what causes us to miss the playoffs? 

I don’t have those worries.

Do you actually have 17? Canales is installing a brand new O scheme.  Our OC has never been an OC.  Featuring an brand new OL where everyone has someone brand new to their left or right (with a C that has never played C).....featuring a green raw QB already on his 2nd new scheme in the NFL. 

 I don't see how those are a legit 17.   Maybe he doesn't have the OL to run it.  

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, strato said:

Yeah that is what influences me to wish boom or bust. No middle, slightly hopeful ground that prolongs a resolution. Fish or cut bait as they say. 

I just hope the improvement feels stable and fun. I guess that will start with the coach. I feel like recovering from the Bryce trade will take a while. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CRA said:

Do you actually have 17? Canales is installing a brand new O scheme.  Our OC has never been an OC.  Featuring an brand new OL where everyone has someone brand new to their left or right.....featuring a green raw QB already on his 2nd new scheme in the NFL. 

Can you evaluate a young QB when you haven't even gotten your O off the ground yet? 

When they get reps in preseason it typically isn't enough to equate to one game.  So yeah they probably will start off slow (kind of figured they would regardless), but even with that 17 games should be enough assuming he is healthy.  That's less than one game of practice he will be missing. 

The counter to this argument is if we do play Young in preseason and he gets hurts and misses a chunk (if not all) of the season.  We would still not have a good evaluation on him.  Imagine if he comes back for the last couple games and plays better.  Do we roll with him again?

I think Canales wants his OL healthy before he inserts Bryce to start rolling out this offense.  I don't necessarily agree with it or not, but it makes a little sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injury prevention is the only thing that makes sense. There's no benefit in protecting Bryce's ego/"hiding how bad they are". None of that would matter once week 1 rolls around.  

I don't mind it one bit. Bryce getting injured before we get a full assement would ruin everything, that's not worth getting an early look. If the team sucks as much as feared a couple of a preseason snaps are not going to make the difference.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

When they get reps in preseason it typically isn't enough to equate to one game.  So yeah they probably will start off slow (kind of figured they would regardless), but even with that 17 games should be enough assuming he is healthy.  That's less than one game of practice he will be missing. 

The counter to this argument is if we do play Young in preseason and he gets hurts and misses a chunk (if not all) of the season.  We would still not have a good evaluation on him.  Imagine if he comes back for the last couple games and plays better.  Do we roll with him again?

I think Canales wants his OL healthy before he inserts Bryce to start rolling out this offense.  I don't necessarily agree with it or not, but it makes a little sense.

we don't even know if the OL can play well enough to see what the Bryce and playcalls can do yet.  Still worried about the C play imploding it all.  A couple drives in preseason would take care of certain questions marks instead of searching post week 1. 

I think Canales finds himself where Frank did personally.  His starting O just doesn't work yet to really been seen.  And given how green he and his OC are......they opt to keep it on the shelf vs token appearances.   To me, that makes the most sense.  Bryce is bad enough, it doesn't matter if the OL has a 2nd stringer in it at a spot.  There no chemistry that exists with these dudes to begin with. He needs reps.  He needs snaps from Corbett.  He needs to take some basic throws in the O.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CRA said:

we don't even know if the OL can play well enough to see what the Bryce and playcalls can do yet.  Still worried about the C play imploding it all.  A couple drives in preseason would take care of certain questions marks instead of searching post week 1. 

I think Canales finds himself where Frank did personally.  His starting O just doesn't work yet to really been seen.  And given how green he and his OC are......they opt to keep it on the shelf vs token appearances.   To me, that makes the most sense.  Bryce is bad enough, it doesn't matter if the OL has a 2nd stringer in it at a spot.  There no chemistry that exists with these dudes to begin with. He needs reps.  He needs snaps from Corbett.  He needs to take some basic throws in the O.  

I'd say it's way too early for that.  Even the backup OL looked better this past game than last year.  We paid out for 2 proven OGs and yeah C may need some work but Corbet can block if he can hike the ball correctly.  I'm just not buying the another 17 games may not be enough for Bryce.  If he looks as bad or worst after 33 games played that's it.  It's gets grey if Bryce gets injured or if Bryce looks better but to what degree.  He gets injured in preseason and we are sitting in the exact same situation next year.  Again I don't think the few extra reps in preseason will have this huge change of outcomes on the season.  We may start off slow sure, but I'm 90% sure that's happening regardless.  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KSpan said:

Considering that the post that I responded to was before yours, I hadn't made it to yours, so no need to act like you were ignored. And note that I also said "some/all of their guys to varying degrees", meaning that different teams have different approaches all across the spectrum. 

Frankly, Carolina IS a losing team and until proven otherwise any approach that keeps the starters off the field is ripe for questioning given all of the turnover at the key positions. Yes, San Diego has had a lot of turnover as well, but Jim Harbaugh gets more credit for knowing what he's doing as an HC and how to evaluate a team than Dave Canales. Just the reality.

I’ve been there I don’t always read full threads before I reply either, just making an observation on the pervasiveness of the narrative. Successful teams don’t all follow the same formula and you don’t have to look hard at all to see plenty who aren’t playing any or many starters just like us, so I think it’s time to stop talking about the approach in terms of “successful teams do this and we’re doing the opposite” because we are actually more in line with what a majority of last years playoff teams seem to be doing and KC seems to be an outlier. To your point that they play “some starters to varying degrees”, well, the Panthers have played some starters as well. Do I think it would be beneficial to play more of our starters more minutes? Sure. But I acknowledge that is just based on my feelings and I don’t know everything that went into the decisions of who played and who didn’t. Like if they felt certain starting OL shouldn’t be playing for whatever reason, maybe there’s some soreness we don’t know about or whatever, yeah I don’t want any QB that we would be relying upon in the regular season taking snaps behind our practice squad level backups.

  • Beer 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

    • In before: "XL sucks, there is no hope." "As long as we have Bryce, none of this matters." My response: "It's X, not XL...we're not discussing apparel sizes, or we'd have to consider XS."  
    • Alain Pierre provides some food for thought on Last Word On Sports regarding Xavier Legette, and his article, though specifically on X, kind of puts me in the mind of QBs being overdrafted and put into situations that they're not prepared for, some ultimately failing due to drafting missteps by front offices who don't necessarily view prospective players within the contextual importance that situations demand.  At this point, Legette looks like a failure in reference to expectations, of not only what a consistently productive NFL receiver looks like, but a first round pick (which he obviously should never have been). But the story on X isn't necessarily completely over. Damn. I seem to be experiencing deja vu...It wasn't X's fault that he was overdrafted, that was a choice by an FO that obviously downplayed actual realized skill vs outstanding measurables and upside. Sure, the FO was impressed by X's one-year feats during his senior season at South Carolina, but it was the NFL god, RAS (a.k.a. Raw Athletic Score), that had Dave Canales's and Dan Morgan's jaws dropping in amazement at the sight of X running around in underwear at the Combine...   "At 6-foot-3 and over 220 pounds, Legette brought rare athletic upside to the position. His breakout season at South Carolina showed flashes of dominance that NFL teams dream of. Projecting forward, many scouts compared his physical profile to D.K. Metcalf, and the Panthers clearly believed they could develop him into a true wide receiver 1 over time. The issue was never his talent. The issue was the timeline. Just a few picks later, the Chargers selected Ladd McConkey, a receiver who may have lacked Xavier Legette’s physical ceiling but entered the league far more technically refined. McConkey immediately showed advanced route discipline, leverage awareness, good pacing, and separation ability.  Bryce Young’s game has always depended on timing and anticipation. His best football at Alabama came with receivers capable of winning through precision rather than pure athleticism. Jameson Williams and John Metchie III were excellent route runners and were able to get drafted in 2022. McConkey naturally fit that style of play. Legette, meanwhile, needed significant development in the exact areas where Bryce Young needed help. The Panthers drafted traits when Bryce Young needed reliability."   Yes, the FO was guilty. The good thing is that the execs appear to be improving. Some of that may be attributed to the hiring of Eric Eager (who was hired right after the Xavier Legette draft). Eager seems to have helped the Panthers FO fine-tune their analytical progress, and, at least on paper, they acquired players with a lot of value during the last draft in regards to actually (what I'll refer to as) "underdrafting" talent relative to their position with value already built in.  Look at Chris Brazzell: He may be more of the quintessential project receiver who was arguably more or less just as raw as Legette was when he was drafted, and with a relatively high RAS as well. The notable difference is value, as Brazzell was a round three pick and Legette was a first rounder.    "Unlike the Xavier Legette situation, Carolina’s environment for Brazzell is completely different. "The Panthers are not asking a raw receiver prospect to stabilize this offense for Bryce Young. "Brazzell enters a much healthier developmental situation with far less pressure. With Tetairoa McMillan established as the primary target and Jalen Coker continuing to settle as the number 2 option...Xavier Legette, Metchie III, and Jimmy Horn Jr. are also still in this rotation, fighting for reps. "It gives Carolina something they failed to give Legette when they drafted him: A developmental runway. "Xavier Legette entered the league with expectations attached to a first-round pick and an offense desperate for answers. Brazzell enters a room where he can spend a year working on his route running, learning the playbook, and earning snaps gradually rather than being asked to become part of Bryce Young’s solution immediately. "And truthfully, Brazzell needs that time coming out of college. Despite his elite physical tools, many evaluators have several concerns about his overall polish as a receiver. "His route tree at Tennessee was viewed as fairly limited due to the type of offense that they run. The receivers are expected to run a lot of choice routes, which are dictated by the placement of the defenders. It doesn’t require technical route-running and an understanding of the playbook needed at the NFL level...   "Context changes significantly when expectations change. "The Panthers are not depending on Brazzell to save the offense. They can allow him to develop slowly, expand his route tree, improve his technical refinement, and learn behind a much more stable receiver room... "Traits become much easier to bet on when patience is built into the plan."   It's all about understanding your situation. I don't agree that it's an inherently difficult choice like the author is suggesting in the following excerpt. At the very least, I think that it should be easier as long as all parties involved stay levelheaded and true to their process.    "That is what makes these draft decisions so difficult. "Every front office believes it can find the next Metcalf, Owens, or Marshall. Sometimes they do. More often, they are betting on a development path that may take years to complete. "The challenge is understanding what your offense needs right now. "If a team has patience, stability, and a quarterback capable of carrying the offense while a receiver develops, betting on traits can make sense. But if a young quarterback needs immediate help, there is a strong argument for prioritizing the receiver who already knows how to separate, create throwing , and earn trust from day one. "That’s why the Xavier Legette-Ladd McConkey debate remains so fascinating. "It was never really a discussion about talent. It was a discussion about timing."   For me, Ladd McConkey was talented enough in his own right, that the gap--the upside--was never as big as people are suggesting between not only McConkey and Legette, but McConkey and other receivers drafted in the first round during that draft. The technique divide between Ladd and X was pretty stark though, as was the roughly 35 pounds, but the speed was identical, the maybe 1½ height difference isn't huge (6' and 6'1"), and it may surprise some that Ladd's RAS (9.34) was also enough to put him in the top 10 percent of receivers since 1987. There is an argument that he would've been a better pick for Bryce and the Panthers, regardless of timeline and talent. But, I still appreciate the thesis (if you will) of the article, as it still provides some hope--perhaps a glimmer at this point, that X's RAS may finally translate to the NFL given more time, but, perhaps more importantly, it explains how Dan Morgan and company are showing improvement, even if it appears somewhat understated. My hope is that continued improvement is palpable by this time next year. https://lastwordonsports.com/nfl/2026/05/30/xavier-legette-draft-lessons/#google_vignette        
    • Won’t stop until people stop buying overpriced poo.
×
×
  • Create New...