KSpan

My FF team says no.

I'm envisioning this meme, but with Belichick and a picture of Kupp.

The QB position did not improve last year. The OL position did not improve last year. The WR position did not improve last year (and Robby/Robbie regressed hard). The DT position did not improve last year (and Derek Brown found himself benched at one point). DE/edge/pass rush improved primarily because of Reddick, who is now gone. CB arguably improved but Gilmore brought his skills and is gone, and Jackson replicated his 2020 season at best. Scheming and strategy sure as hell didn't improve last year. No, the team did not improve on the whole last year. And while the new season is about to begin and make last season mostly irrelevant, it remains primary evidence against the whole '3rd year jump' commentary nonsense.

What is this 'Matt Rhule tends to have a big jump in Year 3' BS that continues to perpetuate? His biggest jumps have come from years 1 to 2 (while at Baylor), and otherwise his team continued on whatever trajectory they were on from Year 1 to Year 2. Carolina had zero improvement from Years 1 to 2, and even looked markedly worse on the field. If there is some magical big jump this year then cool, but it is not following a trend like everyone seems to think it is - Rhule already bucked that trend by failing as hard as the team did last year.

Seeing this made me realize that I've heard absolutely nothing about Damien Wilson throughout all of camp and preseason.

Because he seems to have zero upside and large limitations at this point, so why sign him to that contract?

Signing him to that contract for 3 years. It was a head-scratcher then and remains so now.

As one example 2021 Cincy won the AFCCG thanks to their 'bad coaching' changing up the defensive strategy mid-game, something that we've never seen from this staff.. that's not at all comparable. Getting to the playoffs after stumbling around and playing terrible football, picking into it, may not be likely but it is possible and is exactly why I said what I said. It's about how things happen as much as what happens. Mediocrity is not the goal and if there aren't signs of fundamental team elevation even if the team ekes out a couple of wins 2020 style, then Rhule can hit the road.

Sure you can. It's entirely possible to back into the playoffs and look terrible down the stretch, then getting waxed in the Wild Card. That's not the objective and IMO should still get Rhule axed even though it likely wouldn't. That said, this sin't a question that can really be definitively answered at this point. I am highly skeptical of Rhule but think it's more about the team actually looking like they're an NFL team. Maybe the team only gets 5-7 wins, but did they actually hang in against quality competition and look like they know what football at the NFl level means? That might be OK. They looked pathetic last year. Anything like like that that shows a continued failure to strategize and understand the NFL game, even if they eke out some wins, is not acceptable.

As if Fletcher wasn't such a pick. Smith absolutely should have been that choice, not an LS. And Carolina absolutely did need a center, though I can't say that I expect d Humphrey to come out as strong as he did.

Given the massive conflict of interest/likely affinity that Thompson most likely has when it comes to Rhule yes, it's quite reasonable to do so.

It would be the continued Fox/Rivera purgatory. Blech.

He could still turn out to be a good and/or effective coach at the NFL level. The current evidence though supports that he hasn't been, and doesn't look promising for such an outcome. Acknowledging that is somehow 'hating'...

For the millionth time now, being objective about the mess that has been the past 2 years is not the same as 'hating', nor is waiting to see what happens on the field.

I'm not telling anyone what to believe, just pointing out the glaring conflict of interest/predisposition that Thompson likely has (no judgment, just objective fact). If you can't see that or choose to ignore it, then that's your prerogative. College/HS coaches are also not NFL coaches, and hearing 'All NFL teams run the same stuff' from a guy who spent his limited other NFL time on some pretty shaky teams isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Yes. Was the only school that offered him a scholarship as he transferred from Florida.

I believe that poster was saying that only Rhule looking competent can end this thread. At least that's how I'm interpreting it, as any other option is just treating the manifestation and not the underlying issue.

I found this fascinating, particularly the part bolded (my own emphasis). An article from this past January, and while the Post has a reputation this is hardly the only report of such behaviors: "Many of the reported complaints, voiced anonymously, stem from Rhule taking the same approach that helped him in college to the pros. In one anecdote, Rhule was upset when a player signed an autograph before a game. One Athletic source said he micromanages “everything that touches football” and has built his staff and roster using plenty of Temple and Baylor connections, programs he guided to prominence. There are nine players from Temple and Baylor on the Panthers’ roster, including former Jet Robby Anderson and outside linebacker Haason Reddick. One agent who reps multiple Panthers players told The Athletic that the team is “less meritocratic” than any team he has dealt with." https://nypost.com/2022/01/01/matt-rhules-panthers-contract-has-them-facing-clusterf-k/ Such an environment would absolutely elicit plenty of eye-rolls.

What makes you say he isn't a bad coach, if only at the NFL level? I've seen nothing indicating he is, be it player development, strategy (both in-game and planning), personnel, player management... just nothing redeeming at this level.

The whole 'Year 3' thing is ridiculous but what gets left out of that take is that his prior teams also notably improved in record from years 1 to year 2. Carolina not only did not improve their record in year 2 but were notably worse on the field vs year 1.