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!

     

Canales


Kentucky Panther
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Kentucky Panther said:

Let’s stop ripping this dude and give him some credit. Already passed last years win total with arguably a worse roster. Hes gotten better as the year has gone on (crazy for a rookie coach, I know) and our second year QB is looking better than he ever has. 
 

I still think we need to find another quarterback next season for obvious reasons, but at the very least Dave should have some momentum going in to year two. 

Give Frank Reich this OL and he probably pushing .500 last year 

Canales needs to hire an OC.  Focus on being a HC.  He isn’t a good playcaller and has no resume to be pulling double duty like this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CRA said:

Give Frank Reich this OL and he probably pushing .500 last year 

Canales needs to hire an OC.  Focus on being a HC.  He isn’t a good playcaller and has no resume to be pulling double duty like this. 

Give Frank Reich this OL and you're 1-9. I like Frank but he's cooked.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joe Bear said:

Give Frank Reich this OL and you're 1-9. I like Frank but he's cooked.

Nah.  The difference between 2023s OL and 2024s OL is gigantic.  If Frank has this OL last year…Frank would have been the HC this year.  

Frank couldn’t make it work with Bryce Young and horrific OL play.   Canales has Bryce basically same with really good OL play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

His time management and play calling is atrocious 

You're asking him to call a perfect game with the talent he has at his disposal. 

It's just not going to happen, especially for a rookie HC. 

He's been promising so far - let's see how he develops. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, CarolinaRideorDie said:

Some of his play calling has been questionable, like not give Chubba the ball more when he is dominating. But definitely something to build on. 

Not counting the three in OT, I thought Chuba had about the perfect number of carries (25).  At some point, he needs more help from the rest of the offense (passing and another running back).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh it seems like he’s done a decent job building a locker room culture with a bad team, which isn’t easy to do. He also shows that he can dial up great drives/play design. But damn, the playing not to lose in the 4th quarter was tough to watch.

I was glad to see that we stuck to the run but it’s not bad to throw in a play action when everyone on the field thinks you are trying to run the clock out.

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

    • You could say that-- but if we don't need a starting OT this year, why would you draft a flawed one that is not going to play? (We are coming from different underlying assumptions and perspectives--I see your argument and don't disagree with the premise) Your thinking is based on the assumption that an OT for the future is more important than immediate needs at other positions, or that we can meet other needs in later rounds even if we take the OT in round 1.  I do not think there is but 1 OT worthy of a first-round grade---they are mocked based on need and demand--if we do not have a need for a starter right now, a team at 18 may grab a T that is the 33rd best player--worth it if you have no starting T, but not if you have a starter.  So just because they are mocked around the middle of the first it does not mean that the players are good values--teams get desperate.  QBs are a great example.  Simpson may be worth it in round 1 for the Cardinals, but not the Jets, because they have Geno Smith.  Sure, they will need a QB by next year, but taking Simpson is a reach. I do not see our need, with 2 starters (Walker and Moton) and another possibly returning by the end of the season enough to justify ranking OT over positions like Safety, Will LB--I do not think we replaced A Shawn Robinson (We gonna put a NT out there?  Wharton (280lbs)?  So do we reach in round 1 for a player who may not play much or do we get a Will LB that can cover?  A deep free safety?  A quality center? A playmaking TE?  A DT to replace Robinson?  A wide receiver to balance the secondary?  Long term, if the right player was there, you would be right.  Short term, OT is a luxury at this point, in my view.  
    • Put Huey P Newton on the helmet. With his AK. 
    • We arent switching. Evero is 3-4 to the core. Given how 3-4 has been a noticeable characteristic of top defenses recently and we have drafted and signed players fir it  I dont know why anyone would think that's a good idea 
×
×
  • Create New...