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!

     

Observer Projections / *Updated Panthers Waiver Additions


Icege
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tr3ach said:

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

His style of downfield throwing is Bryce's style as well now. We have several downfield threats who are good with contested balls or getting wide open. That makes it easier for Bryce to toss it up and have the receivers go up and get it. Kind of like what Delhomme had with Steve Smith.  Bryce was huge under pressure and with the deep ball at the end of last year. They worked offseason to bring in guys to help Bryce with receivers and running backs. XL and TMac were brought in to help Bryce with the scheme Canales is going to use. There is no new or old scheme anymore. Just the scheme we are using this year.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tr3ach said:

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

Canales is 100% drafting dudes for on O that fits what his passers did in Tampa and Seattle. 

Bryce Young just doesn’t push the ball downfield.  Baker, Geno and Russell were all above league in pushing the ball downfield with big shots. All were above league average in yards per attempt with Canales. 

Bryce was 34th last yards per attempt last year. And that’s why even when the “good” Bryce existed the Panthers pass O was still pedestrian overall. The volume isn’t there.  And Canales’ O is too bland for the deep shots to not offset that.  And Bryce’s bad throw % in this O is just way too high given the scheme is already built on lower % throws. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CRA said:

Canales is 100% drafting dudes for on O that fits what his passers did in Tampa and Seattle. 

Bryce Young just doesn’t push the ball downfield.  Baker, Geno and Russell were all above league in pushing the ball downfield with big shots. All were above league average in yards per attempt with Canales. 

Bryce was 34th last yards per attempt last year. And that’s why even when the “good” Bryce existed the Panthers pass O was still pedestrian overall. The volume isn’t there.  And Canales’ O is too bland for the deep shots to not offset that.  And Bryce’s bad throw % in this O is just way too high given the scheme is already built on lower % throws. 

Sounds like we need to ship out Young then. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

His style of downfield throwing is Bryce's style as well now. We have several downfield threats who are good with contested balls or getting wide open. That makes it easier for Bryce to toss it up and have the receivers go up and get it. Kind of like what Delhomme had with Steve Smith.  Bryce was huge under pressure and with the deep ball at the end of last year. They worked offseason to bring in guys to help Bryce with receivers and running backs. XL and TMac were brought in to help Bryce with the scheme Canales is going to use. There is no new or old scheme anymore. Just the scheme we are using this year.

Yea it just doesnt work well in the modern defense with 2 deep safeties all the time.

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 sure 19 is too high for Rodriguez anymore.  He looks to be moving up boards, but it could be smokescreens.  
    • I see XL this way---great athlete.  Good person.  When we drafted him, we knew he was raw.  One year of WR in college (starting) and in HS, he was a QB, I believe. We knew we would need patience with him.  I think year 3 will be make or break.  He is older, and I think that people with his athletic ability have always been better than those with less---but those with less can become more successful.  Why is that?  in my view, it is mental. XL can learn the mechanics and nuances of playing WR if he becomes focused on it and works at it.  I had the opportunity to talk to Armanti Edwards one day after OTAs (great guy) and he discussed how overwhelming it was.  He seemed shocked.  At that time, I knew that Fox hated the pick (I heard him mock Armanti to another coach when he saw Edwards drop a punt from a jugs machine--then I saw Armanti look back at Fox as if to suggest that he was feeling the pressure to please the coach. We forget that these are kids in their early 20s.  At the time, Fox was a lame duck.  Remember when he had Clausen as the #3 QB and was forced to move him up the ladder?  I liked Fox, but I think the climate and culture was influenced by the politics.  Currently, I see another Wr from SC who is struggling, but he is ina  very nurturing, positive culture. Let's see what happens with XL.  I am frustrated too---but XL was a second round talent who was raw and we traded up to get him.  He had 500 yards as a rookie--lets call 2025 a sophomore slump and see if we can't get at least 50 yards per game out of him.  If not, cut bait.
    • Sadiq feels like a lazy comp.  Sure he would be a big improvement over what we have but at a position we don't and maybe can't (midget qb) utilize.  I hope the staff puts together a list of players you automatically take at 19 (Freeling, Lemon, Downs, Faulk) and if none are there, trade back to look at (Thieneman, McNeil-Warren, Proctor, Lomu, Allen, Iheanachor, Banks, Woods).  I get the people that think an OT would be a waste because we temporarily patched that hole, and ILB and safety are a waste because that is high to take those particular positions, but by trading back we get extra picks to fill every need.  A draft that has an OT, S, ILB, slot WR, and C would really put us in a good position moving forward if we get an extra first three rounds additional pick.   
×
×
  • Create New...