Mr. Scot

Same. Don't understand that at all.

Yeah, that's a bit "out there" for me

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.

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.

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.

No, but winning blunts and decreases any motivation the team might have to replace him.

With a 3% margin of error

I don't think anyone is forcing Canales to say anything.

I want nothing to do with "Rudolph". Cousins I could see but he's ancient. Is prefer someone like Sam Howell. Maybe Will Levis but his skill set doesn't fit our current scheme as well as Howell's would.

See above...

Inconsistent? Yeah, that's my biggest problem with him. I would say though let the "highs" have gotten "higher" (especially lately) More importantly though... We're winning, and against very good opponents rather than bottom feeders. That can't be argued, and it's a big deal.

I think he quoted the wrong person. You weren't talking about Trevor Lawrence in that post.

I don't think he's being forced.

Heh Side Note: Why the hell is it called "Preparation H" anyway? It's supposed to be a medication, not what you use to get something ready. And given where it's used, I'd really like for the manufacturers to explain to me precisely what they want to "prepare" that part of me for?

H

The "room"? Yeah, I expect them to hunt for a better backup. I also expect whoever they sign will be told they are not competing for a starting job.

Kyler Murrays preferred method of offseason preparation...

Consistent is the operative word here. He's shown he can be good. He's shown he can even be very good. But as far as consistency, that's where I'd ask the congregation to turn in their Bibles to Revaluation 3:15

Ditto... Wouldn't mind adding Sam Howell (his skill set fits wwll with Canales scheme) but I doubt he'd be considered competition for the starting role.

I don't think they're" just saying"... Like it or not, it's all real

You referenced us following a "Cardinals type plan"

My response to pretty much everybody who's talking about "competition" It ain't happenin' next year It could happen the following season, but only if Bryce has a bad fourth year. So if you're pinning any hope whatsoever on any potential QB competition for the 2026 season? Well, sorry but...

Neither do I... Also not a big Trevor Lawrence fan either. The "bigger and stronger" thing is probably the main appeal there.

Graziano does say he "talked to a bunch of Panthers people" and his takeaway was that "they still believe in him". My read on the extension talk though is that it's mostly hypothetical.

PS: Xavier Legette is bad, and I don't need stats to know that either