Someone's not gonna be happy

[cranky]

4 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Bold strategy Cotton.  But seriously sometimes the devil you know is a completely non viable option.  There's almost 0 risk going with a different option.

If we don't bring in someone else next year I think there's a very high likelihood the team regresses and the house gets cleaned.  So its kind of a big deal to the guys running the show right now, whether they realize it or not.

We got incredibly fortunate to win 8 games, as we got a lot of bounces this season.  Typically the luck index bounces the other way the following season.  We'll need more than luck to make it back to the playoffs next year.

We also had bounces go against us. In the Tampa game alone there were 4 bad calls - 2 that directly affected points on the board. Our oline has been beat up most of the season and we started the season with a rookie and a no2 receiver who has only caught 54% of his passes and has had the most penalities on the offense. 

I agree that typically winning a lot of close games one season leads to losses the next but this is a young offense (no pun intended) that's had to learn to work together. As long as Tmac and Coker both stay healthy and the Oline can get healthy, they will be better next year. 

[mrcompletely11]

9 minutes ago, cranky said:

No, but needless to say I do not disagree with him.

We know

[cranky]

8 minutes ago, strato said:

Yeah, it reads as if you could be the author. 

Thank you

[PNW_PantherMan]

1 minute ago, cranky said:

We also had bounces go against us. In the Tampa game alone there were 4 bad calls - 2 that directly affected points on the board. Our oline has been beat up most of the season and we started the season with a rookie and a no2 receiver who has only caught 54% of his passes and has had the most penalities on the offense. 

I agree that typically winning a lot of close games one season leads to losses the next but this is a young offense (no pun intended) that's had to learn to work together. As long as Tmac and Coker both stay healthy and the Oline can get healthy, they will be better next year. 

Its not about close games.  It's about how they were won.  Late calls by officials.  Outlier performances by opponents.  These things typically regress to the mean over time.  There is a baseline level of performance for a team, and that gets shifted up or down by luck essentially.  That includes injuries, calls from referees, lucky turnovers, etc.

When a team gets lucky they usually don't get lucky the following year.  This is why its basically a curse to lose the Super Bowl.

[strato]

38 minutes ago, CRA said:

No one is suggesting going all out to get a QB.  You can get a cheap QB that raises the ceiling of our O to be a bridge......while you wait to actually go address the QB. 

Bryce is a bridge QB.  That's the tier QB he is.  A body a team would have as they wait to make a move for QB.  Folks just want a better bridge QB that makes the O more threatening until we go make a move for QB

This is where I am. Pretty much. I want an alternative to that 5th year money. And two year commitment that leads us down the multi year extension path. 

We could do what Reich did in Indy after Luck deserted for that matter, until we find a guy, without losing anything on the field. 
And find a guy… to develop. Find two guys.
Just reset this thing and let’s not double down on a mediocre low floor future. 
 

I think signing Bryce to an extension would be no better than that and far more expensive. 

[strato]

3 minutes ago, cranky said:

Thank you

If you want to take it that way, feel free. Just kidding you, you know what I think of it. 

[mav1234]

4 minutes ago, cranky said:

We also had bounces go against us. In the Tampa game alone there were 4 bad calls - 2 that directly affected points on the board. Our oline has been beat up most of the season and we started the season with a rookie and a no2 receiver who has only caught 54% of his passes and has had the most penalities on the offense. 

I agree that typically winning a lot of close games one season leads to losses the next but this is a young offense (no pun intended) that's had to learn to work together. As long as Tmac and Coker both stay healthy and the Oline can get healthy, they will be better next year. 

Has TMac not been healthy? And in Cokers ten games we have like a below .500 record. 

The reality is if Young doesn't grow, this team will be at best where it is again. It's extremely hard to win with a QB that is producing so little.

[kungfoodude]

10 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

That's an overly optimistic take. Particularly because of the limited action part. To say you'd take that guy over any 3 years starter in the NFL is a tough one. The devil you know is better than the one you don't. We have no idea who Malik Willis is or will be because he hasn't played enough. 

It's not optimistic at all. He has an unquestionably higher ceiling than Bryce. He played better than Bryce in his EXTREMELY limited action. That doesn't mean he is will be signficantly better than Bryce nor does that mean he should be a guy you put all your eggs in his basket.

But if you want a valid option to replace Bryce when he fails in 2026, he is a very, very valid option.

The one thing you cam say for Willis in the limited action is that from his time in Tennessee until now, you see consistent improvement. That isn't something you see with Bryce.

14 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

This is why I like taking another QB super late if you do take a QB really early.  It worked out when Washington took Kirk Cousins after RG3.  And recently when Purdy was taken with Lance.  A 6th or 7th round pick that doesn't make the team isn't gonna kill you.  But if you get a low end starter guy out of that its pretty valuable.  And it lets you move on if the original pick is a disaster for whatever reason.

I made a QB Success Metric and one thing that stood out from the data was how many 6th and 7th round "shots in the dark" that teams took. That was very eye opening. I don't think we do that enough. Frankly, unless we are happy with our #2 and/or #3 QB, that should be something we do at LEAST once every other season.

13 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

Plus a couple of stand up LBs, and a couple of offensive guys that make defenders miss in the open field (WR, RB or TE), a real Nickel and a true FS type that can cover. Other than that, we're pretty good. 

And all the depth that we lack almost across the entire roster. Now you see why I say the roster is so bad? 

12 minutes ago, cranky said:

No, but needless to say I do not disagree with him.

So you think we should extend him?

12 minutes ago, coffee said:

Since Tepper, we've tried every way imaginable to get a make-shift QB and hope he turns out OK.  I want off that merry-go-round.

At this point, I'd rather just keep building a better team around the QB.  We are certainly not there yet, but making nice strides.  If that makes Bryce passable, we go with him.  If not, we'd have made this team appealing to a proven QB that's fed up with their current team.  Either way, yes, pick up the option.

That's fine in theory but while we played whack a mole at QB, the entire roster kept getting worse and so did the QB. Just because the roster is bad doesn't mean you just give up with a bad QB.

12 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

Not bold at all. Actually very conservative. Malik could become worse than Bryce on his worst days for all we know. Picking him up as a backup with backup money and expectations is fine (with an opportunity to win the position), but penciling him in as the starter over BY is probably not prudent. 

I would hope no one here is advocating for throwing a giant bag of money at Malik Willis or really a chunk of these options. That has no value at all.

[mrcompletely11]

4 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Its not about close games.  It's about how they were won.  Late calls by officials.  Outlier performances by opponents.  These things typically regress to the mean over time.  There is a baseline level of performance for a team, and that gets shifted up or down by luck essentially.  That includes injuries, calls from referees, lucky turnovers, etc.

When a team gets lucky they usually don't get lucky the following year.  This is why its basically a curse to lose the Super Bowl.

7-3 in 1 score games is not sustainable.  Like at all.  Canales needs to figure this poo out stat

[PNW_PantherMan]

Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

7-3 in 1 score games is not sustainable.  Like at all.  Canales needs to figure this poo out stat

With a -70 point differential.

[mrcompletely11]

2 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

With a -70 point differential.

We could have easily been a 5 win team.   Margins are tight in the nfl

[kungfoodude]

7 minutes ago, cranky said:

We also had bounces go against us. In the Tampa game alone there were 4 bad calls - 2 that directly affected points on the board. Our oline has been beat up most of the season and we started the season with a rookie and a no2 receiver who has only caught 54% of his passes and has had the most penalities on the offense. 

I agree that typically winning a lot of close games one season leads to losses the next but this is a young offense (no pun intended) that's had to learn to work together. As long as Tmac and Coker both stay healthy and the Oline can get healthy, they will be better next year. 

We went 7-3 in one score games. It's not very likely we will be able to be that lucky in those sort of matchups. Possible but not likely.

It's impossible to make much of a prediction for next season at this juncture but it wouldn't be a shock to see a step backwards depending on the outcome of the offseason. Also, that schedule projection is tough.

6 minutes ago, strato said:

This is where I am. Pretty much. I want an alternative to that 5th year money. And two year commitment that leads us down the multi year extension path. 

We could do what Reich did in Indy after Luck deserted for that matter, until we find a guy, without losing anything on the field. 
And find a guy… to develop. Find two guys.
Just reset this thing and let’s not double down on a mediocre low floor future. 
 

I think signing Bryce to an extension would be no better than that and far more expensive. 

The "no better options" for a $26.5 mil price tag is wild to me. Even in 2027 that is likely to be top 20-25 money at QB. Why in the world would anyone want to pay that for a backup caliber QB???

 

[ThPantherFan]

2 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

There are better short term options available than Bryce, however. He is also a short term player.

Agreed.  I'm not sold on Bryce.

[bythenbrs]

59 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

Right. but no extension for Bryce yet. 5th year option? Sure. I think Bryce's camp will agree they aren't in the best place to demand an extension or top dollar. 

This is where we’ll find out if Tillis is his own man or Tepper’s sock puppet…