Okay gentlemen, REAL talk...

[mrcompletely11]

2 minutes ago, TLGPanthersFan said:

Still is winning does not hide the fact that our offense would be better if Bryce was not our QB. 

you are arguing with the same dude that until the bitter end argued that Fitterer was a good gm keep that in mind

[SmokinwithWilly]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

See above...

We won. But why did we win? Did we win because Bryce led a commanding offense all day? Or, did we win because of 3 extremely well timed turnovers that resulted in a huge swing in points? I'm going with the latter. Bryce did his part, but he did not dominate this game the way you are trying to make it sound. 

We beat the Rams on this given Sunday. 

He beat a 4-8 Atlanta team. Put up his best game statistically against them aided by 250 YAC. Wouldn't exactly call that a great team, even though they had the best passing D at that time. 

We beat GB. He was forgettable and the defense held GB to 13 points with 6 trips into the red zone

We beat the Jets. Very good team? 13 points. Offensive juggernaut performance there

Dallas and Miami - Rico does something not seen in the NFL in 14 years. 500 yards of offense by a RB. Our offense ran through him. More rushing yards than passing. Bryce was riding his coat tails against the 2 worst defenses in the NFL. 

1st ATL win 30-0 - Again, forgettable Bryce performance. Defense destroyed Penix and he imploded. 

We won't agree on this at all. We've beaten the Rams with 3 key defensive turnovers resulting in a huge point swing on Stafford's worst performance of the year and GB with our defense making huge defensive stands in the red zone in really bad weather. 

Nothing he's done I wouldn't expect from a mid level starting QB in the NFL. But remember. The highs got higher last year and then he went swimming in the sewer to start this year. Insert another mid tier QB behind this line with our RBs and our record is the same if not better. 

 

[Mr. Scot]

37 minutes ago, TLGPanthersFan said:

Still is winning does not hide the fact that our offense would be better if Bryce was not our QB. 

No, but winning blunts and decreases any motivation the team might have to replace him.

Edited 45 minutes ago by Mr. Scot

[Mr. Scot]

36 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

you are arguing with the same dude that until the bitter end argued that Fitterer was a good gm keep that in mind

Wrong. I said he needed more time.

That was until it came out that he'd been undermining Reich. At that point, I said toss him. 

[mrcompletely11]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Wrong. I said he needed more time.

That was until it came out that he'd been undermining Reich. At that point, I said toss him. 

Sure you did buddy, you are never going to live that down arguing with folks that Fitterer was a good gm.  I mean that was your shtick for a good year when it was plain as day he fuging sucked.  Time or not he fuging sucked and it still shows to this day 

 

and you are really going to say with a straight face you didnt defend him at every turn?  come on man just own it, we have the receipts you know

Edited 41 minutes ago by mrcompletely11

[SmokinwithWilly]

 

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

No, but winning does not increase the team's motivation to replace him. Just the opposite in fact... 

Been in competitive sports all my life. Not been my experience ever. 

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, SmokinwithWilly said:

 

Been in competitive sports all my life. Not been my experience ever. 

KC was winning as well and they were still like "fug this, he sucks get a replacement stat"

[Mr. Scot]

32 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

We won. But why did we win? Did we win because Bryce led a commanding offense all day? Or, did we win because of 3 extremely well timed turnovers that resulted in a huge swing in points? I'm going with the latter. Bryce did his part, but he did not dominate this game the way you are trying to make it sound. 

We beat the Rams on this given Sunday. 

He beat a 4-8 Atlanta team. Put up his best game statistically against them aided by 250 YAC. Wouldn't exactly call that a great team, even though they had the best passing D at that time. 

We beat GB. He was forgettable and the defense held GB to 13 points with 6 trips into the red zone

We beat the Jets. Very good team? 13 points. Offensive juggernaut performance there

Dallas and Miami - Rico does something not seen in the NFL in 14 years. 500 yards of offense by a RB. Our offense ran through him. More rushing yards than passing. Bryce was riding his coat tails against the 2 worst defenses in the NFL. 

1st ATL win 30-0 - Again, forgettable Bryce performance. Defense destroyed Penix and he imploded. 

We won't agree on this at all. We've beaten the Rams with 3 key defensive turnovers resulting in a huge point swing on Stafford's worst performance of the year and GB with our defense making huge defensive stands in the red zone in really bad weather. 

Nothing he's done I wouldn't expect from a mid level starting QB in the NFL. But remember. The highs got higher last year and then he went swimming in the sewer to start this year. Insert another mid tier QB behind this line with our RBs and our record is the same if not better. 

Same slant as before, dude.

Look, it doesn't matter what mental gymnastics you apply to the story. You cannot remove Bryce from being a part of why we won these games.

He did his job. In some games better than others? Yes, but the end result still matters.

The wins are team wins.

The losses are team losses 

And Bryce plays a key role in the team.

Like I said earlier, continue arguing that he should be replaced. I'm doing that as well. 

But denying reality doesn't help your argument. It actually weakens it. 

[Mr. Scot]

5 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Sure you did buddy, you are never going to live that down arguing with folks that Fitterer was a good gm.  I mean that was your shtick for a good year when it was plain as day he fuging sucked.  Time or not he fuging sucked and it still shows to this day 

and you are really going to say with a straight face you didnt defend him at every turn?  come on man just own it, we have the receipts you know

Not worried about "living anything down". I have bad takes. We all do

I just about always argue for a three year threshold on head coaches, GMs and others (Matt Rhule being an exception) because things change and building a winner takes time.

Now, if you wanna just toss anybody that doesn't lead you to a Super Bowl in their first season, you can certainly do that...but that's how you become the Browns, Raiders, Gruden, etc.

Some fans will claim they disapprove of that approach, yet at the same time that's exactly how they navigate their fanhood.

The trick is to automatically go into "he sucks" mode if he's not an overnight sensation. That way if he does end up failing, you can point back and brag about being right

But for that to genuinely be true, you have to be able to point back to actual substantive statements.

"He sucked and I knew it" doesn't qualify.

Me? I don't care to brag about my good takes or deny my bad ones. In a public forum, what would be the point?

There Is one piece of guidance I would suggest for you though...

Attacking the source of an argument is usually a pretty good indicator that you're not capable of actually winning the debate with valid, substantive points and information. 

Is that where we're at?

If you wanna say it isn't, then uou're gonna need to present an actual, intelligent argument to prove it. 

"He sucks", "he's the worst ever", "everybody can see I'm right" and so on...yeah sorry. Those don't meet the criteria.