MasterAwesome

And as our resident deep pass expert, what’d you think about this throw?

Huddle: “we’ve got the weakest roster in the NFL” Also Huddle when we cut our 9th string RB: “WTF!!!!”

Sirianni is the idiot for resting his starters in both games already. No wonder the Eagles have sucked since he took over.

Word.

Almost like I’m giving my opinion…that tends to be what you’re giving when you start something off with “I think”. Bro, you trying to hinder my dialogue?? Attacking my opinion during a criticism about allowing differences of opinion is next level irony.

“Let’s define our positions so we can move on” - then you proceed to define my position for me, in the most absurd and cartoonish way possible. I think everyone understands my position except you for some reason. You already misstate my position in the first six words (hint: I don’t think there’s a “correct” call one way or the other) and then from there you venture into some weird fanfic territory. You don’t come across as someone wanting to have a productive discussion, which is something I appreciate about someone like @strato who I’m sure agrees with you on 95% of your opinions but can engage with the substance instead of the weird performative posturing.

I think those people complaining about playing vs. resting starters stems from a combination of two things: 1) impatience and desire from a fan standpoint to watch our guys play. This one I understand and relate with - I’ve been without real Panthers football for 7 months and would much rather see the starters out there and I’m super curious to see how they look in a game situation. 2) simply sheer resentment for the team. I get it and I can understand why fans are resentful after how awful we’ve been. But resentment leads to irrational behavior. You ever experience a growing resentment towards someone? All of a sudden the way they breathe, the way they walk, a simple question they ask you, just occupying the same space can be extremely irritating. It’s not a rational emotion to be triggered by anything and everything someone does. That’s what it comes across as, when some of you attack everything no matter how trivial it is. Yes I agree we’re awful, so that seems like more the reason to save our energy complaining about things that matter…?

Even though this has absolutely nothing to do with my argument, I’ll play this game with you. We’re not supposed to compare ourselves to good teams, so how about we compare two good teams to each other? Sean McVay has won a Super Bowl and been to the playoffs 5 of his 7 seasons - he’s a hell of a lot more accomplished than DeMeco Ryans. He doesn’t play his starters in preseason. So what conclusion am I to draw from that? Is McVay therefore correct and DeMeco is wrong? See how dumb and pointless this argument is?

Yeah exactly, I was gonna mention that too but I was already venturing into tl/dr territory. People have no problem comparing us to good teams when it serves their point. But when it detracts from their point, it’s “we shouldn’t be comparing ourselves to those teams”. Frank himself even specifically pointed out Demeco Ryans thinking playing starters was a good idea, clearly to make a point that that’s something good/smart teams do. But when it’s something good and bad teams do in a roughly even split, then it seems like it’s a pretty poor indicator of successful philosophy and rather just a function of personal coach preference.

I don't know what you expect here. You guys argue things like "no successful team/player does ______" and when you're presented with an example of so-and-so successful team/player doing that very thing, then you say "oh are you seriously comparing us to that successful team??". Yes, that's the point...? All we have to go off of so far is Week 1 of preseason (we don't know yet what Canales is planning for weeks 2 & 3). And there were several other teams who rested all/most starters in the first game: Rams, Ravens, Dolphins, Giants, Lions, Eagles, Jets, Buccs, 49ers, Cardinals, Cowboys. There are some really good teams in there, but I know we're not supposed to ever draw any comparisons no matter how minor to the good teams, so I've bolded the meh teams whose comparisons you will hopefully accept. The point is that good and bad teams rest their starters in the preseason - that has very little correlation one way or the other. Yes I understand and even agree that we might have particular incentive to play starters based off of last season's struggles and having a lot of new additions this year (roster and coaching staff alike), but I'm just pushing back on the notion that resting starters is some unheard of thing that is unique to us (i.e. we're the "only team that thinks preseason is useless").

That is a sizzling hot take if you've seen this video.

It's a shame that Jaycee Horn has been riddled with injuries cause he really could be a superstar fan favorite if he can just stay on the field. He's really the full package: talent, charisma, leadership.

If you're super impressed by those really decisive 5-yard throws, then just keep the same energy if Bryce is dinking and dunking all season long (knock on wood).

Congrats on the inconsistency.

Were you one of those people who didn't want CJ Stroud cause he went to Ohio State? Cause that sounds awfully similar to those "who was the last Ohio State qb that was successful" arguments.

Well I purposely left out UDFAs because we did technically sign an UDFA QB in Plummer lol so I thought the whole argument was specifically about drafting late round QBs.

I just googled "Top 10 back up QBs" and the first article has him at #7, and the next two have him at #1, albeit those two were from last year. I don't think he did anything to hurt his standing from last year to this year, but regardless, that's why I'm giving plenty of cushion to say he's simply "borderline top 10". IMO he's pretty comfortably in the top 10 and I'd be curious if you can present me with a list of 10-12 back-up QBs you think are better than him. And when I say "Top 10", I don't mean back-up QBs who I would want to have...like I'd obviously rather have a rookie Drake Maye or Michael Penix Jr. over a 36-year-old Andy Dalton, but I'm using the criteria of competency to step in right now. Maybe we're looking at it differently though. Of course things are different from last year to this year. Last year he was a rookie in a bad enough situation to at least somewhat plausibly excuse his poor performance; this year I think his leash is a lot shorter and that he has to show that he's the guy or he's out. And to be clear, I don't even think Dalton is a huge threat to Bryce Young this year because I think the team wants to give him this season to once-and-for-all either prove he's our guy or hopefully get us the 1st overall pick next year. I thought most of the board agreed that he should get this season. I'm just saying I think a late-round raw developmental QB sure as hell ain't gonna be the one to challenge Bryce considering I already believe Dalton won't. I've never heard this much chatter devoted to the QB3 position; certainly not for a team in as bad of shape as ours. Yes I understand the appeal of having a drafted developmental QB on the roster but I think the appeal stems from some idealized *absolutely best-case-scenario* of like one dimension in the multiverse where that QB becomes our franchise QB and ignoring the million other dimensions where that QB fizzles out before his career even began. But I know we're just ultimately just gonna circle back to last week's discussion we already had so we don't have to go down this road again.

Fair enough. I had pretty much this exact same discussion a few days ago about taking a chance at a late-round QB and my argument boils down to there being essentially zero examples of late-round (5th-7th) franchise QBs outside of obviously Tom Brady. You're having to go back to like the late 90s/early 00s for fringe franchise guys like Marc Bulger, Matt Hasselbeck, and Ryan Fitzpatrick if I remember correctly (I did the research last week lol). I do understand the argument about shooting your shot though, even if history doesn't bode well for those QBs panning out to anything more than back-ups. We'll maybe see if Sam Howell amounts to anything and some would argue that Brock Purdy is a franchise QB (or trending towards it) - those guys maybe have the closest chance to buck that trend IMO. I'll have to see Milton and Rattler in real action before I'd be willing to add them to that list.

My point is that I just don't see any world where a raw developmental QB like Spencer Rattler or Joe Milton beats out Andy Dalton as the QB2 this year. Andy is like the prototypical vet back-up QB that a team would want to step in if the starter gets injured or benched. I don't think any team in the league would skip over the consistent experienced vet for the exciting but unpredictable raw late-round rookie. No amount of fan sentiment would have changed that IMO. So unless you disagree with the above, then we're talking about long-term prospects with a QB like Milton/Rattler. I would argue that they would be virtually zero threat to Bryce this season, but potentially next season or the season after. In which case it doesn't matter because I don't think the team is tied to Bryce after this season if he ends up sucking, so why would they care about a Milton/Rattler threatening his spot after this year? If Bryce shows he ain't it this year, then I'm willing to bet the team will either outright cut him, or draft his replacement and relegate him to the bench.

This narrative about not wanting to "challenge Bryce" and cause problems might have more credibility if we didn't have a borderline top-10 QB2 on the roster. You guys keep talking about the FO not wanting to invest in a QB3 in order to coddle Bryce but that ain't how the hierarchy works lol QB3s don't threaten QB1s. Dalton is plenty enough threat to Bryce; unless you're brand new to the Huddle then you should know that there were absolutely people rooting for him to enter the game over Bryce last season...and Bryce's leash is even shorter this year.

He was here last year. And I'm not sure why you think it's impossible for a young player to grow (*insert Bryce Young short joke*) even within a single offseason from minicamp -> OTAs -> training camp. Like that's the whole point of the offseason?

Now that's my kind of compliment sandwich.

I don't mind all the typing (I've been passing the time at work), I thought we were having a good productive discussion - if for nothing else, it was for @ForJimmy's entertainment so we could finally teach him a thing or two about football. But no worries, I'm heading out of work anyways and I don't spend my weekends on the Huddle so this is my last reply regardless.

You know who else flashed a lot? Justin Fields, on his way to a 10-28 record as he was shipped off for a 6th round pick. Like I already said, it was an encouraging first preseason game for Milton. I just hear over and over and over from this board about "flashes" this and "flashes" that and it seems like that word is used to connotate exciting/wow plays, which I understand because this is supposed to be entertainment at the end of the day. I also understand the frustration because Bryce gave us neither winning nor excitement last year. I just think the whole "flashes" thing is so overplayed because obviously elite physical traits are going to naturally yield more flashes, and Milton is quick with a big arm. I also think NFL coaches don't care as much about flashes as they do consistency - I think they'd rather have a boring but consistent QB like Brock Purdy or Dak to an extent, over someone who wows you one play and has you pulling your hair out the next.

I think we're millennia away from the point where we are developing and trading late round quarterbacks for assets lol. Unless I'm missing someone, then I think the Patriots did it one time with Matt Cassel? And I think we'd agree that it was less that they "developed" him but that they made him look good in their system and then tricked another team into trading for him, only for him to never live up to what they gave up. Otherwise I'm assuming you're thinking of Garoppolo? He was drafted in the 2nd and later traded for a 2nd. The only other QB I can think of was way back in the day with Drew Bledsoe, but he was drafted 1st overall, played ~10 years, then traded for a 1st. So only Cassel would fit what you're saying about drafting a guy late, developing him, then trading him. 99.9% of the time (my unresearched guesstimate) it goes in the opposite direction where a team drafts a QB and then trades them for a huge loss. Like Mac Jones and Justin Fields going for a 6th round pick each, after costing their drafting team a mid-1st. Trust me I understand the idea conceptually. I just think it's an idea that sounds better on paper than it is in practice. If it was an untested theory, I'd be on board and say yeah sounds good let's try it. But there is a mountain of evidence already to the contrary. I'm not even by any means saying let's never draft QBs in the later rounds, I'm just in favor of following your draft board which is a culmination of months and months of scouting. tl/dr: If a QB you are intrigued by falls in the draft and is available in the 6th round when you're on the clock and his value lines up with your draft board, then hell yeah let's take him. Otherwise just grabbing a developmental QB every year late in the draft hoping one of them pans out just reeks of desperation IMO.