Mr. Scot

I'd suggest uou probably should. It'd at least be better than trying to make arguments based on a game you didn't bother to watch

I'm sure I could resort to pointing out prior takes of yours rather than arguing actual arguments if wanted. I choose not to because I don't honestly remember any actual arguments you've made, good or bad. It's pretty much all been just responses to someone else's ideas. Perhaps you can remind me of an original thought you posted?

Did I miss Hunt playing today? "Yeah, we've had injuries but when we signed those guys we were considered to have one of the best lines in the league. Therefore, Bryce is bad." Did that argument really make sense to you when you wrote it? Come on, dude Likewise, "anything good he might have done is invalidated Bec he screwed up on that one play" isn't what I'd call solid logic either. And again, Bryce actually does get credit for the part he played in our wins, even as a rookie when he was at his worst. I know you wanna spin some sort of logic that denies that idea, but it ain't working... and it isn't going to. Your positions here from the very first post in this thread are all emotion based. It's not a good look. As said numerous times already, I want toove on from Bryce just as much as you do, but you really need to make better, more logical arguments. These posts ain't it.

Fitterer didn't have final say until Reich.

Never bought into the idea of games being rigged. Still don't... Today's officiating was next level sh-tty though.

And I'm certain you came to this conclusion by watching the game... Right?

That name crossed my mind

Right up there with "ya know, of our receivers would have caught everything thrown to them, our line made the right blocks every time and the defense would only have allowed three and outs, we'd have won. Bryce isn't even in the upper 70-80 percent of why we lost today.

Not saying you did, but the arguments you are making aren't significantly superior to that suggestion. Same here: Bryce has actually been a pretty effective runner. Hell, some games he's contributed more running the ball than some of the guys who get paid to do it. But if you wanna go this route, I'm gonna assume you've factored in the effectiveness of the respective offensive lines. Right? All of this ultimately boils down once again to the utterly ridiculous suggestion that any games we've won with Young under center were won in spite of him. There are very few arguments I find dumber than that one.

Rhule ran the whole damn show. Every player acquisition mistake he made cost us.

You could successfully execute a quarterback sneak with me under center if your interior blocking is good enough. On the flipside, we could have had Josh Allen under center and that playcall still would have failed. It was a dumb call.

That honor goes to Matt Rhule.

Sometimes it is. Hell, I've seen playoff level teams lose because they couldn't overcome nine points.

Not surprising, sadly. I suppose he might think it's funny. Not sure he understands how thoroughly stupid it makes his posts look, though

Ten other defenses managed to keep the Saints offense from scoring more points than their own offense did. Ours? Not so much

Not contrarian at all... Philosophical. Look back at the Parcells quote mentioned above. It's a valid take. And as always, I'm in no way arguing that Bryce is or should be thought of as a franchise QB. Where I disagree is that a lot of the arguments being used to make that point are just plain terrible. Bryce is not the worst quarterback in history. Suggesting that is dumb. Neither is he even the worst quarterback in the NFL right now. Hell, he's not even in the bottom tier. And no, he isn't the primary reason for every game we've lost. Hell, I wouldn't even put him in the first, second or third tier of reasons we lost today. But here's the thing... None of those things have to be true to justify the argument to move on from him. Yet so many on here are pushing that point using arguments that are weak, lazy, emotional, irrational, illogical and hyperbolic to the point of being downright silly. (I would have said "logic" rather than risk sounding redundant by using "arguments" again, but none of what I'm describing rises to the level of being called "logic") You wanna argue for moving on from Bryce? Fine, I'm on your side... ...but don't do it like it's being done here. Acknowledge reality. Accept that Bryce is indeed capable of being a good quarterback...because he is. But he's not good enough, and you don't have to exaggerate the bad or deny the good to prove it. Doing so doesn't make your position look better. It actually makes it look weaker. On an intellectual level, it ranks roughly equal to saying we should have moved on from Cam Newton because he wasn't athletic enough

Has Bryce thrown more Interceptions this year than last? I haven't looked, but it doesn't feel like it. Honestly feels like his ball security is better this season than it's been any other year so far. Defensive minded coaches tend to subscribe to the old Bill Parcells philosophy that it's not the team who makes the most big plays that wins. It's the one that makes the fewest mistakes. And yeah, there's a lot of truth to that. And on that front, Bryce has cut down on his mistakes (I could argue significantly so). Doesn't make me wanna keep him, but I'm not gonna deny that.

I wouldn't say doghouse, I'd say outhouse. The difference of course is that, fired or not, I'm about 99% certain Evero won't be back next season. Bryce will, and quite possibly for the following year as well.

What's wrong in this take is it references a longstanding logical error... Quarterbacks don't play against other quarterbacks. Shough didn't outplay Bryce. He outplayed our defense. Mind you, that doesn't make the final result any better

Every quarterback in the NFl has bad plays in every game, and likewise weaknesses that show up on a weekly basis. If you stretch that sort of logic far enough, you wind up arguing that Cam Newton was the reason we lost every game we didn't win under him. Yes, that's dumb. And yes, Bryce is not consistently good enough to make him the future at quarterback. Nothing about today's game took away from (nor added to) that argument. So bottom line: It's still true, but damn, some of the emotional / irrational anti-Bryce takes I see on this board are dumbing down the conversation as a whole to utter ridiculousness

Is it impossible to win in the NFL without putting up huge passing numbers? (coaches who favor gameplans with a heavy run emphasis would probably be interested to know that) It's kinda like saying you can't win unless your team scores at least 21 points a game... except you can, as long as you hold the opposing team to 20 or less. Still waiting for the explanation of how Evero's issues are also Bryce's fault. (you left that part out)

He's actually admitted in the past that he sometimes intentionally posts stupid takes just for the hell of it. Is this one of them? Don't know Sometimes it's tough to tell if his arguments are intentionally dumb or honestly dumb.

I could watch this game and not see him as an issue. (in fact, I did) Other games? Maybe. This game? No. Despite the common mindset on here, not every loss or every issue the team has is traceable to Bryce.

You back to posting sh-tty arguments just for the hell of it or are you serious here? If you genuinely believe Bryce's skill set doesn't fit Canales approach, you may be in need of retaking Football 101, or at least the section of the course dealing with WCO concepts. I'm waiting for either you or Proudiddy to start a thread explaining how Ejiro Evero's issues are really Bryce's fault too. (was that a light bulb that just came on over your head?)

Yeah, if you think Ejiro Evero wasn't a huge part of today's loss, I can't help you