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!

     

If you can only fire ONE person before 2026....


kungfoodude
 Share

Who do you get rid of?  

102 members have voted

  1. 1. Who do you get rid of?

    • Bryce Young
    • Dave Canales
    • Ejiro Evero
    • Other(specify in comments)


Recommended Posts

...and David Tepper isn't allowed(we all know this would be a 70+% result), whom would it be?

Think hard, this does mean you have to keep the rest. Also, give your logic.

Edit: I know Evero is technically not under contract. This is a thought experiment to see where people's rage is most directed.

Edited by kungfoodude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, csx said:

Firing doesn't mean upgrade.

 

If the question is upgrade then Bryce Young. That would make the job more appealing to fire Canales in the future 😆 

Oh definitely not under Tepper but we could technically get worse at QB and DC too. Or even GM, etc.

I am asking which factor would you personally change first.

My logic is HC because if you give them more actual control then two of those other factors are likely to change anyway.

Canales is a fairly limp dick head coach from what I have seen. Basically a youth pastory, buddy boss type. 90% style to 10% substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, csx said:

Firing Canales now makes improving there even more unlikley to get an improvement than it was before him. IMO.

I don't know that it really matters THAT much about the timeline. I think we may have already cemented ourselves as a bottom 2-3 spot for head coaching candidates, if not securely last.

But that logic can be applied across the board to all these moves. We aren't very likely to improve at QB if we get rid of Bryce. I mean....these guys all picked Bryce. How the hell would they know what a good NFL QB looks like?

As for defensive coordinator, who in their right mind would come to work under Dave Canales and in this situation? It is likely to be someone Dave knows personally and probably making way too big of a leap up the ranks to take a job they aren't qualified for.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paa Langfart said:

I am going to go out on a limb and say that this team will Never win a playoff game with BY as the quarterback.

Well, people credit(ridiculously) that Baker's time here spurred some sort of career turnaround(also ludicrous).

Maybe we put Bryce as scout team DE for the remainder of the season and see what happens?

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll go other and hope Tepper fires himself into the sun...

Edit: Just saw your top post, I will go DC then. We all know we will move on from Bryce, but even if we had the best offensive talent in the league, DC would still manage to call ass plays and have us averaging like 17 points a game

Edited by PleaseCutStewart
  • Beer 1
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

    • Top 25 performance based pay in #NFL #Panthers DB Nick Scott made an extra $1.26 million from last year’s campaign, because of the NFL’s Performance-Based Pay program, the league announced today. It was the fourth-highest payout from the program. https://x.com/mike_e_kaye/status/2033598538848862446?s=46
    • BPA!!! Wouldn't life be great if it were that simple?  Need??? To some degree.  I realize that we like life simple:  Instant oatmeal.  self-stick envelopes.  I get it.  BPA people:  Go back and look at teams' needs in prior drafts--even when they scream BPA!, they end up drafting for need.  I guess you should say, "BPA4U" (Best Player Available for Us).  There are many variables. You should know the skill sets for your system.  You should understand your locker room and gauge character.  In my view, another consideration should play into your decision of how you rate a player to be the "best" and the cost of meeting your overall needs.  All needs are not equal.  The talent pool drops off and dries up at different points for different positions.  Each draft is unique.  We have inflation for some positions in free agency, yet the rookie pay scale is based on a formula that is not determined by position or player evaluations:  The 1st overall pick receives the highest salary, with each subsequent pick earning less, regardless of position.  Therefore, if you have seven needs, and three are at positions that pay veterans a ton of money--you should draft those players over those who play positions that would not save you much money.  You have to consider the savings and what that means to the cap as a whole--not just focus on BPA or need. These numbers are based on the average salary of all players and then only the starters by position: Now take a look at what the players make based on the position they are drafted: Sorry they did this in pink.  So let's say the Jets think Sadiq is the BPA on their board with the second pick.  He meets their biggest need, aside from QB, but there are no QBs close to checking the BPA box.  Are you going to pay a rookie TE $13m per year for 4 years ($52m guaranteed)?  According to the chart above, a STARTING TE costs half that.  So Need and BPA are not the only factors (this was an example only). It makes more sense to draft, especially in the first round, a QB, edge, WR, OT, or DT if they are one of your needs and one of the BPAs.  At worst you are getting close to market value if they start.   Looking at the Panthers needs, expected BPAs at #19, and cost vs. what a starting-level free agent makes, we are spending about $5m per year.  Many of us want to draft a S there--if the rookie starts, we'd save about $1.7m per year.  The difference would add a bottom-of-the-roster depth player.  If we drafted a LB, for example, the difference is $1.4m.   I see our needs (right now) as follows:  S, ILB Will, OT, C, TE, and DT.  Of those needs, a veteran starter at OT or DT would save us the most.  For example, an OT veteran who starts averages $13m.  We'd get the player for 4 years (not including the 5th year option for this) and we'd save $8m per year.  To be honest, Walker is an average OT and we got him for a bargain at $10m.  So if we draft an OT, we not only have a starter for next year (regardless of Ickey), we have 2 starting-level LTs on the roster NOW for $15m.  If the OT we draft works out and we do not re-sign Walker, we save $8m x 3 years--$24m.  So the BPA model might be the code you live or die by, but I ask it this way:  Would you rather have a Safety and $1.4m in cap room savings or an OT and $8m per year cap savings?  Both are needs.  Both would be rated in the middle of the draft's first round. The OT and the $8m in savings would get you a starting OT AND the $8m would get you a starting free agency safety, if you think about it. If you step back and see the big picture, use the rookie scale to your advantage, you can improve your roster beyond merely taking the BPA, whatever that means. Looking at the Panther's draft, if they draft OT in round 1, DT in round 2, and both start, they could save about $16m of cap space per year when compared to what average veteran free agents would cost.  LB, C, TE, and S can come later, if you follow this blueprint.   I am not saying that I would draft based solely on this concept, but I am saying that it would be a variable--a big one.   
    • nick just got a bonus-    extra 1,262,216, dang that's a nice bag...
×
×
  • Create New...