2025 season

[Hoenheim]

Yea it may not be "fair" but QBs are ultimately judged by how successful they are.  Bryce definitely needs to have a winning season/playoff season within his first 4 years to be considered worth paying top dollar to and keeping for another 3 or 4 years. 

That's also what the entire coaching staff is gking to be held to. Not having a winning season with 4 years of Bryce/3 years of Canales simply won't be good enough,  and I think Tepper would hit the reset button on everything if we arent in the playoffs or have a winning season by the end of the 2026 season. 

Personally I'll become a Bryce Believer if he can consistently perform well this year and we get 8 or 9 + wins, is what im looking for. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Hoenheim

[Navy_football]

BY needs to be more consistent and continue to make big plays in big moments. Like take over a couple of series a game, particularly at the end. If he can't become that, then they should be looking for his replacement. 

You can not blame a QB for losses with the worst oline/receiver/coaching combination this team has ever had - in his rookie season at that. And then a below average receiving group to go with the worst defense in NFL history his second season. I don't understand. QBs aren't one man teams. It takes a team to win games. 11 on offense, 11 on defense, 11 on special teams, an OC, a DC and a HC. Let's have more than one play of 25+ yards of YAC in a season before condemning the QB for not breaking 300 yards passing a game. Perfectly acceptable to have high expectations but let's not be completely unrealistic.

[CRA]

3 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

BY needs to be more consistent and continue to make big plays in big moments. Like take over a couple of series a game, particularly at the end. If he can't become that, then they should be looking for his replacement. 

You can not blame a QB for losses with the worst oline/receiver/coaching combination this team has ever had - in his rookie season at that. And then a below average receiving group to go with the worst defense in NFL history his second season. I don't understand. QBs aren't one man teams. It takes a team to win games. 11 on offense, 11 on defense, 11 on special teams, an OC, a DC and a HC. Let's have more than one play of 25+ yards of YAC in a season before condemning the QB for not breaking 300 yards passing a game. Perfectly acceptable to have high expectations but let's not be completely unrealistic.

How about 2 legit good games in a row? I still think his post season benching is romanticized and overstated….

I mean his turnaround was amazing.  But that had more to do with how bad he was than how good he actually became.  
 

 

[Navy_football]

8 minutes ago, CRA said:

How about 2 legit good games in a row? I still think his post season benching is romanticized and overstated….

I mean his turnaround was amazing.  But that had more to do with how bad he was than how good he actually became.  
 

 

Agree. Be more consistent. But he did have pretty good games consecutively against the Chiefs and Bucs. And not bad against a very good Eagles defense the next game. Good enough to win but...

[Icege]

3 hours ago, UnluckyforSome said:

"There is no justification for a top overall pick to not be better than half of the other players at their position." is a fundamentally different statement than pointing out there is nuance in not simply comparing top overall pick in the draft to a previous year's top overall pick in the draft. It is not the pivot you might be seeing it as.

I don't know what else to tell you on this, and I realize you are maybe getting caught up on the basic meaning of the word. I don't think there is much more to say about it really.

Assuming you're genuinely confused and not feigning ignorance, it's worth reviewing those last two sentences that were originally quoted:

Quote

"There is no justification for a top overall pick to not be better than half of the other players at their position.

So, there is a bit of nuance that shouldn't just be ignored, and any lowering of expectations of a top overall pick entering their 3rd year should not be entertained." 

In one breath, there is a declaration that there is "no justification".

In the next, "there is a bit of nuance that shouldn't just be ignored."

And then ended with, "should not be entertained."

It reads like a contradictory "no excuses" sandwich that suggests that there is nuance because we're supposed to just look at the other players at their position when that's already being done? Then there's the contradiction of suggesting that nuance "shouldn't just be ignored" being followed by suggesting that nuance "should not be entertained."

Hopefully that helps with us understanding one another better.