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 2 hours 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 2 hours 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. 

[SmokinwithWilly]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

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. 

I'm not denying any reality. I've been watching it for 3 years. You've been arguing that he is significantly improving beating the top teams in the NFL. I'm arguing he isn't. He may be part of the wins but his part is not significant in those wins. Who are these top teams that he is leading the way, putting the entire team on his shoulders and carrying them to victory when no one else can? Where are these dominant performances against Super Bowl contenders that leave no question Bryce is the franchise QB we traded a fortune to get at #1? 

He hasn't done anything that any other mid tier QB isn't already doing. He was brought into this league expected to start at a 7. That is what he needed to be to be a legitimate day 1 starter for any serious NFL team. He started at a 1. He's improved to a 6 on a really good day, a 9 on his outlier ATL game, a 3 on most days, and a 0/1 on his worst. He's still below where he needs to be. It doesn't matter that he's improved. His improvement may look significant overall to you because he started as the worst in NFL history, but even so, his improvement still leaves him worse than your average NFL QB.

I'm not doing any mental gymnastics. You're making the argument that Bryce is key to us winning these games. I don't think he is. I think you replace him with 20 other QBs and the outcome is the same or better. Judging by the statistics you openly don't use or believe in, Bryce is in the bottom 3rd of the NFL as a QB. The eye test for this year says he is the bottom 3rd in the NFL. You yourself say he should be replaced. But I'm the one doing gymnastics? 

[CRA]

1 hour ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

 

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

Andy Reid couldn't wait to get rid of Alex Smith (win every season KC Smith) and his checkdown, not making the throws downfield self. 

the goal isn't to technically log a winning season.  It's to craft a team that can be the best in the NFL (without catching a fluke season to make it happen).  KC was never going to be the best team in the NFL with Alex Smith (even if they won a Super Bowl off luck)

[CRA]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

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. 

yeah, but this is just some weird technical argument being randomly pulled for Bryce Young.   No one in real time was wanting to make sure Philly Brown and Mike Remmers were probably credited.  They were called weak links that we overcame and still succeeded with on that magical run. 

this bad technical defense had you saying Rex Grossman deserved the credit for taking the Bears to the Super Bowl when we all know the world was amazed they pulled off such a feat with a bad QB. 

Bryce Young does play a key position on the team, and it is amazing the Panthers have been able to win what they have despite such weak QB play. 

it hard to win WITH Bryce Young playing a key role on this team.   Panthers deserve credit for pulling that off.  It's not something people should want to do going forward because lady luck can only do so much and come and goes.   

 

 

[Mr. Scot]

1 hour ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

I'm not denying any reality. I've been watching it for 3 years. You've been arguing that he is significantly improving beating the top teams in the NFL. I'm arguing he isn't. He may be part of the wins but his part is not significant in those wins. Who are these top teams that he is leading the way, putting the entire team on his shoulders and carrying them to victory when no one else can? Where are these dominant performances against Super Bowl contenders that leave no question Bryce is the franchise QB we traded a fortune to get at #1? 

He hasn't done anything that any other mid tier QB isn't already doing. He was brought into this league expected to start at a 7. That is what he needed to be to be a legitimate day 1 starter for any serious NFL team. He started at a 1. He's improved to a 6 on a really good day, a 9 on his outlier ATL game, a 3 on most days, and a 0/1 on his worst. He's still below where he needs to be. It doesn't matter that he's improved. His improvement may look significant overall to you because he started as the worst in NFL history, but even so, his improvement still leaves him worse than your average NFL QB.

I'm not doing any mental gymnastics. You're making the argument that Bryce is key to us winning these games. I don't think he is. I think you replace him with 20 other QBs and the outcome is the same or better. Judging by the statistics you openly don't use or believe in, Bryce is in the bottom 3rd of the NFL as a QB. The eye test for this year says he is the bottom 3rd in the NFL. You yourself say he should be replaced. But I'm the one doing gymnastics? 

Said Bryce is part of the wins and plays a key position. Not the same as saying he's the key to the wins.

But also not denying he plays a role in them because...well, he did. Even if you limit his contributions to the  game winning drives in the 4th quarter, those still count.

And yes, he's improved. but saying that doesn't equate to saying he's good enough to put the franchise label on him. It's just a simple acknowledgement that he's better than he used to be (to what degree is debatable).

As to his initial expectations, I'll just say stats aren't the only thing I don't care about. What he is matters way more than what he was expected to be.

And what is he? He's what you referenced, a mid-tier quarterback. Not the "worst in the league" or "worst ever" as some claim. That's just hyperbole. 

Lots of teams have those. Very few teams have elite ones. And I wouldn't bet on next year's draft having a supply of those either.

And again, stats. We used to have a number of folks who bandied about some of Delhomme's stats, Newton's stats, etc. to argue they weren't good. But lets look at a few of those...

What metric do you prefer?

Yards, perhaps? Well, if those are key then Jared Goff, Sam Darnold and Bo Nix are all doing better than Baker Mayfield right now.  The second best quarterback in the league? Dak Prescott. And Young? Well, he's outpacing CJ Stroud, Lamar Jackson, Tua Tagavailoa and even Aaron Rodgers.

Prefer touchdowns? Cool. On that front, Jared Goff is tied for third in the league with Drake Maye, leading Rodgers, Mayfield. Patrick Mahomes and Josh Allen among others. Bryce is 15th in the league here, just a single score shy of Rodgers, Mayfield, Sam Darnold, Daniel Jones and Josh Allen.  Ahead of Tagavailoa, Trevor Lawrence, Caleb Williams, and Jackson.

Interceptions? Holy hell, Bryce has fewer interceptions than Sam Darnold, Trevor Lawrence and, again... Josh Allen. Does that mean I can go out and post on X that Bryce has better ball security than Allen?

But wait, are some of these stats... misleading?

Or might hh+jjhthey be, just a little...out of context?

Ya know, it seems like they kinda are.

Weird, huh

Edited 42 minutes ago by Mr. Scot

[Mr. Scot]

47 minutes ago, CRA said:

yeah, but this is just some weird technical argument being randomly pulled for Bryce Young.   No one in real time was wanting to make sure Philly Brown and Mike Remmers were probably credited.  They were called weak links that we overcame and still succeeded with on that magical run. 

this bad technical defense had you saying Rex Grossman deserved the credit for taking the Bears to the Super Bowl when we all know the world was amazed they pulled off such a feat with a bad QB. 

Bryce Young does play a key position on the team, and it is amazing the Panthers have been able to win what they have despite such weak QB play. 

it hard to win WITH Bryce Young playing a key role on this team.   Panthers deserve credit for pulling that off.  It's not something people should want to do going forward because lady luck can only do so much and come and goes.  

Well, as far as "weird technical arguments" you're still doing everything you can to justify the notion that you can somehow not credit an important part of the team with team wins.

It's not a valid argument, and no amount of spinning or rationalizing is gonna make it into one.