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

I'm firing DC, though I think it actually makes the job less attractive. He's not prepared to be a HC and it's showed. A new HC is not going to be tied automatically to BY. He's going to want to bring in some level of competition in the QB room because anyone who has ever watched football knows our QB room is lacking. If he doesn't, that tells a more interesting tale of who's really calling the shots. 

Dave hasn't been decisive enough in game and that leadership council BS has trust fall vibes. Our offense has been pathetically stale and vanilla. Our run game while good has made no sense based on who has been playing best. Our defense is improved but they can't be expected to hold opposing teams to below 17 a game because our offense can't score consistently. 

We've beaten some teams we shouldn't have beaten, specifically GB and the Rams, and I think our record doesn’t accurately reflect where the team and the coaching really is. We've fallen flat against a geriatric rookie QB leading a 2-10 NO team and got our ass handed to us TWICE. We're unprepared for the biggest games. 

This is what happens though when real coaching candidates turn down interviews because your owner is a narcissistic butthole. You get someone no one else bothered to call and you get the results everyone else would have expected if they had. 

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, strato said:

He could luck into a QB and his meddling would have much less impact. The team gets good he doesn’t feel the need to meddle as much. 
 

Only way it can work with him. 
 

We got really unlucky. How many drafts will there ever be where a midget is there for him to fall in love with? And would he do it again after this anyway? 
If we’d have been lucky enough to not do this with Bryce in play, the odds of lucking into the right choice between two players with all the attributes jumps to 50% (Bryce was zero). 

I don't think a great QB will ever be able to overcome a bad owner/ownership. It permeates too much of the organization and creates scenarios where it is very difficult to ever succeed for any length of time.

In fairness to that draft, two of the top 3 guys in this "strong" draft were huge busts and Bryce wasn't even the biggest one. Perhaps, ultimately, we just made that trade up in the wrong draft, as well.

Compare it to the next draft that has seen so much success and wouldn't have even required any sort of trade ups.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly believe this team would be 9-5 (maybe even 10-4) right now with a decent QB. I wanna see Canales with his handpicked QB before writing him off. 

Canales still has room to grow. Ejiro has literally won us games this year with his defensive gameplan with damn near no playmakers besides Brown. So that leaves one person..........get that little ass QB outta Carolina. 

  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Castavar said:

I truly believe this team would be 9-5 (maybe even 10-4) right now with a decent QB. I wanna see Canales with his handpicked QB before writing him off. 

Canales still has room to grow. Ejiro has literally won us games this year with his defensive gameplan with damn near no playmakers besides Brown. So that leaves one person..........get that little ass QB outta Carolina. 

Honestly, I think Canales has almost regressed as a playcaller, if anything. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

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.

lol...can't disagree with that rather elegant discription.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Basbear said:

Im firing the BFF Brad Idzik. Bring in a true OC that's a X and O master, bonus it allows Dave to focus on HC while the new OC calls plays and bring a different mindset/ideas. 

We've seen the D collapse plenty of times...Head coach should be in the DC's face saying wtf. Instead...hes still looking into the play sheet. He seems to care little about defense. Bet Vrabl would have these boys playin.

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Basbear said:

Im firing the BFF Brad Idzik. Bring in a true OC that's a X and O master, bonus it allows Dave to focus on HC while the new OC calls plays and bring a different mindset/ideas. 

I mean that dude is a nothing factor. Canales will never give up playcaling, IMO. Another on the laundry list of reasons to fire him. He is a bottom 10% tier offensive playcaller. 

If he wasn't interested in getting an actual offensive playcaller in here(spoiler alert, he won't be) all the more reason to move on.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johnstonny said:

The half pint pinto has to go for me. His ceiling is low and hes already hit it...not good enough.

Followed by Evero and Canales... No situational awareness.... Still think DC is hamstrung with Bryce. Evero...just wow... bad.

.

He's not hamstrung by Young. He's hamstrung by his own intelligence or lack thereof. 

  • Pie 2
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Honestly, I think Canales has almost regressed as a playcaller, if anything. 

And I am thinking it is because he has an impossible job with putting enough plays together in a playbook to beat NFL defenses with his little college QB that can’t see unless we split the field in half so he can get out to one side or the other. 
 

If we just had typical largely unimaginative play action passing game with actual deep capability for him to call plays off of, and someone capable running it, it would be better than what we have. 
I amnot married to him but we only get one. I see more success with him and another QB than this QB and another HC/new offense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryce.  We have seen him w/ 2 coaches.  The flaws will forever be the flaws.  The ceiling will forever be the ceiling.  Limitations will forever be the limitations.   Give Canales 1 season w/ a downfield thrower.  I mean, I don't like Dave and his style but that's the only thing that makes sense IMO big picture.  We know what Bryce is.  What know what Evero is.  See a single season of Dave w/ a QB that fits his scheme. 

Heck we would likely be a double digit win team with just some nobody like Shough.  

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...