Observer Projections / *Updated Panthers Waiver Additions

[CRA]

11 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

You make little sense trying to argue a point which isn't germaine.  If it was a round hole versus square peg that has changed. It no longer applies. So no you aren't in the present or you would acknowledge the change to where they are on the same page. As for the luke Kueckly  agreement you finally hit one. Meanwhile not only did I tout Kueckly but others like Cam, CMC, among others when many on this board were critics.

you can't turn Teddy Bridgwater into a gunslinger just because that's what you want.   It's DNA and tools.  It's pretty simple.   You can try to make the best of what you have though.  Trying to make it work, doesn't change what Teddy naturally is.  Remember, folks argued that silly one too.  But it's the same logic here.  It's like saying, you know what Jake.....let's no longer gamble.  That's over.  We are just taking the safe checkdown.  Get it out nice and quick.  Sure, it might work here or there. But eventually he gonna see 89 in triple coverage downfield and say fug it.   

round pegs are round pegs.  round holes are round holes.  we have seen people trying to force them forever......but the saying exist for a reason.  They generally are what they are.  

the Luke comment was just a fun nod and trying to wrap this up friendly, I was trying to largely let you off the hook on all of your very stern lectures of the Tepper era we are in.....and how horribly wrong you have been there about what was coming.  Guess you got the goldfish thing going on with all those.  I would too.  

[panthers55]

6 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

But Frank had the option to choose his personnel. He wouldn't have to adapt his scheme for Stroud nearly as much as Young. It makes no sense to draft a player then have to redesign everything you do when your boss  isn't known for patience in delivering results. Plus his demeanor changed after the draft. He lost interest. Frank wasn't my choice for HC, Ryans was. It's all really irrelevant at this point, Bryce is our QB and if hope he's successful. 

I wanted Stroud as well because Reich only wanted folks who fit his scheme and he isn't a good enough coach to adapt to his players. Canales didn't have that choice and was hired knowing that his job was developing Bryce. To his credit he was able to embrace the challenge and make the necessary changes.

[panthers55]

21 minutes ago, CRA said:

you can't turn Teddy Bridgwater into a gunslinger just because that's what you want.   It's DNA and tools.  It's pretty simple.   You can try to make the best of what you have though.  Trying to make it work, doesn't change what Teddy naturally is.  Remember, folks argued that silly one too.  But it's the same logic here.  It's like saying, you know what Jake.....let's no longer gamble.  That's over.  We are just taking the safe checkdown.  Get it out nice and quick.  Sure, it might work here or there. But eventually he gonna see 89 in triple coverage downfield and say fug it.   

round pegs are round pegs.  round holes are round holes.  we have seen people trying to force them forever......but the saying exist for a reason.  They generally are what they are.  

the Luke comment was just a fun nod and trying to wrap this up friendly, I was trying to largely let you off the hook on all of your very stern lectures of the Tepper era we are in.....and how horribly wrong you have been there about what was coming.  Guess you got the goldfish thing going on with all those.  I would too.  

Don't think your comparisons are germaine. Teddy and Bryce are nothing alike.

And no I am not always right  or  wrong but the difference is I let the experts inform me and follow those who do know. And after all the constant wrong takes you go on and on about just like this one, I don't feel like we are kindred souls or like minded. I will be glad to compare my takes versus yours anytime.  And have no clue what you are talking about regarding stern lectures. But I can see around here if you take a constant negative approach to everything you get a lot of support and given our track record you may be right about some things. I don't live my life that way nor do I constant like to complain like you. 

[CRA]

31 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Don't think your comparisons are germaine. Teddy and Bryce are nothing alike.

 

I mean, I would assume....you are intentionally missing the point. 

The point of bringing up Teddy was merely to bring up a very recent example......of trying to wish a QB who clearly is a specific type of QB...into something different.  Which fans did that here as well.   Teddy was a risk adverse, checkdown QB.  But if that was brought up when folks wanted him to be something different, they would attack you for saying such. 

It's ALSO why I brought up Jake as well in the same post.   You might want Jake to be less risk adverse.....it might work occasionally.....but Jake would always be Jake at the end of the day.   

If your QB is a round peg, and you want/need him to be a square peg.....  that's a largely a waste of time.  If your offense needs a square peg QB, you should get a square peg QB. 

I have no interest in rehashing how loud and wrong you were about the Frank Reich and Matt Rhule seasons at this exact point in time in those seasons....and your high horse approach of how dare folks question the powers that be entering those years.   Be a goldfish. 

I have enjoyed our annual preseason disagreement.  As always.  

[panthers55]

1 minute ago, CRA said:

I mean, I would assume....you are intentionally missing the point. 

The point of bringing up Teddy was merely to bring up a very recent example......of trying to wish a QB who clearly is a specific type of QB...into something different.  Which fans did that here as well.   Teddy was a risk adverse, checkdown QB.  But if that was brought up when folks wanted him to be something different, they would attack you for saying such. 

It's ALSO why I brought up Jake as well in the same post.   You might want Jake to be less risk adverse.....it might work occasionally.....but Jake would always be Jake at the end of the day.   

If your QB is a round peg, and you want/need him to be a square peg.....  that's a largely a waste of time.  If your offense needs a square peg QB, you should get a square peg QB. 

One thing I will say is you always have to get in the last word and keep repeating yourself as if that makes you right. Since Bryce and Canales are on the same page and this pffensive scheme us designed for Bryce uour round peg argument is off base as well. But don't let that stop you since it hasn't in the past. Unless you can say something new or use facts and expert opinions to back up your comments as I have, I am done.  You clearly have nothing to add to the conversation but the same circular comments which are simply your unsupported opinions. I don't have time to waste going back and forth. Carry on.

[Tr3ach]

3 hours ago, panthers55 said:

That is irrelevant since Canales has adapted his style to Bryce. Here is an article which explains it. Again try to keep up and live in the present.

https://www.readoptional.com/p/was-bryce-youngs-leap-for-real

I think this is kind of puff because he is clearly focused on bringing in receivers that fit his old style.