Good film breakdown of Young. Good and bad. Film examples

[ForJimmy]

4 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Nfc south?

Didn’t they win a playoff game? 

Also Baker was in the same decision the prior year and sucked so bad he was cut…

Edited May 17 by ForJimmy

[mrcompletely11]

2 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Didn’t they win a playoff game? 

You know that was a joke right?

[CRA]

14 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

How did an offense that is just a continuation of Fox/Rivera football make the playoffs with a bottom of the league rushing attack and feature a QB having a career year? I’m not saying it’s going to be great but it seems different than Fox/Rivera and maybe more Seattle IMO. 

I mean, Tampa played in a horrific division.  The NFCS.  Which featured teams like the Carolina Panthers.   By default a NFCS team gets into the playoffs.  How did they win a game? Well, their Jake to Smitty connection had a good day.  That happens and why they have gunslingers and deep ball WRs.  

John Fox and Ron Rivera went to the playoffs.  They both went to Super Bowls.  

Pete Carroll? Seattle? Pete ran and played D.  That was the Seattle era.  Seattle was still just a variation Fox/Ron football mindset. The dude who ran the ball with Marshawn Lynch and played D during that historic run.   He was playing that brand of football with great talent.  The LOB era was really John Fox football.  And it's why those matchups were so fun. 

[ForJimmy]

2 minutes ago, CRA said:

I mean, Tampa played in a horrific division.  The NFCS.  Which featured teams like the Carolina Panthers.   By default a NFCS team gets into the playoffs. 

John Fox and Ron Rivera went to the playoffs.  They both went to Super Bowls.  

Pete Carroll? Seattle? Pete ran and played D.  That was the Seattle era.  It Fox/Ron football. The dude who ran the ball with Marshawn Lynch and played D......and had a QB that would chuck it deep off the run game.

I guess you missed the point. His rushing attack was dead last yet his team still performed. That’s not Fox/Rivera ball. His QB also had a career year. Remember the same QB that played for us in the same division and was so bad he was cut? 
Carroll coached after Lynch as well. In fact Canales was more involved in the more recent offense with Geno Smith and a good rushing attack.

People are taking him wanting a rushing attack and assuming that means we are shutting down our passing attack. Again many of the top offenses like SF, Miami, and Detroit featured strong rushing attacks. 

[CRA]

19 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I guess you missed the point. His rushing attack was dead last yet his team still performed. That’s not Fox/Rivera ball. His QB also had a career year. Remember the same QB that played for us in the same division and was so bad he was cut? 
Carroll coached after Lynch as well. In fact Canales was more involved in the more recent offense with Geno Smith and a good rushing attack.

People are taking him wanting a rushing attack and assuming that means we are shutting down our passing attack. Again many of the top offenses like SF, Miami, and Detroit featured strong rushing attacks. 

Baker just played how Baker played.... everywhere but here. He is a risk taking gunslinger.  Always has been.  And last year was asked to be what he was.  

Geno Smith was the best deep ball passer in the NFL his comeback season.  Wasn't even close that year.  Again, that's the type passer Canales has always been around in the offenses he has been part of.  The pass game that compliments the stubborn run is the deep chunk play pass game.   And that was his first investment with XL. 

My continued point, is the same as going into last season.  It's a bad marriage going in.  The QB doesn't fit the scheme.  Again. 

Carrol/Fox/Ron....all paired up their boring football with risk taking QBs.  And again, I'm fine if that is where we are going.  It's not my preference but that's not my argument.  I'm saying if we are doing that, we need a QB that matches it.   

 

[CPF4LIFE]

2 minutes ago, CRA said:

Baker just played how Baker played.... everywhere but here. He is a risk taking gunslinger.  Always has been.  

Geno Smith was the best deep ball passer in the NFL his comeback season.  Wasn't even close that year.  Again, that's the type passer Canales has always been around in the offenses he has been part of.  The pass game that compliments the stubborn run is the deep chunk play pass game.   And that was his first investment with XL. 

My continued point, is the same as going into last season.  It's a bad marriage going in.  The QB doesn't fit the scheme.  Again. 

Carrol/Fox/Ron....all paired up their boring football with risk taking QBs.  And again, I'm fine if that is where we are going.  It's not my preference but that's not my argument.  I'm saying if we are doing that, we need a QB that matches it.   

 

From what i see, Canales offense requires a QB that is willing to take chances to maximize the offense. XL is also the kind of receiver that needs a qb to be risky to bring out his full potential. Its just a matter of if Bryce is gonna be that QB.

[CRA]

5 minutes ago, CPF4LIFE said:

From what i see, Canales offense requires a QB that is willing to take chances to maximize the offense. XL is also the kind of receiver that needs a qb to be risky to bring out his full potential. Its just a matter of if Bryce is gonna be that QB.

Bryce isn't a risk-taking gunslinger.  That's just QB DNA.  No one has ever said that is what we were drafting when we went that route.  That's my point.  That's not Bryce. Can you make Alex Smith throw deep? Sure.  He will occasionally.  In the reverse, can you ask Brett Favre to just take the easy layups? Sure.  He can in moments.  But in the end, they are what they are. 

as I have said, Canales probably could win more games with PJ Walker.  And Bryce is a better overall QB than PJ.  Not suggesting they are comparable QBs.  PJ Walker would also have much worse games mixed in that Bryce would.   But PJ would take the shots and is built to take them.  It's like Jake Delhomme.  Jake was making throws Jake probably shouldn't of made....consistently.  But that's part of what you need when you are playing the way Fox did.   

I just think it's a bad fit/pairing.  Just like last year was going in.  I'll gladly eat crow and be wrong. 

[*FreeFua*]

48 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Didn’t they win a playoff game? 

Also Baker was in the same decision the prior year and sucked so bad he was cut…

Baker was never as bad as this organization made him look. I said that countless times during that year. Baker had enough tape in Cleveland that proved he wasn’t as bad as he was here. 

And again, Mike Evans consistently winning 1 on 1 opens up sooooo much for an offense. 

Plus the division is literally garbage 

[mrcompletely11]

3 minutes ago, *FreeFua* said:

Baker was never as bad as this organization made him look. I said that countless times during that year. Baker had enough tape in Cleveland that proved he wasn’t as bad as he was here. 

And again, Mike Evans consistently winning 1 on 1 opens up sooooo much for an offense. 

Plus the division is literally garbage 

propping up Canales and calling him an innovator for having a bottom half offense in a horrible horrible division is pretty wild

 

Ive said all along Dave is a fine hire.  A fine hire.  The best tepper could do under the circumstances that he created.  But if you dont see the major red hurricane level beach flags with this hire then you are blind.  I hope it works, I really do but come on.......

[ForJimmy]

22 minutes ago, CRA said:

Baker just played how Baker played.... everywhere but here. He is a risk taking gunslinger.  Always has been.  And last year was asked to be what he was.  

Geno Smith was the best deep ball passer in the NFL his comeback season.  Wasn't even close that year.  Again, that's the type passer Canales has always been around in the offenses he has been part of.  The pass game that compliments the stubborn run is the deep chunk play pass game.   And that was his first investment with XL. 

My continued point, is the same as going into last season.  It's a bad marriage going in.  The QB doesn't fit the scheme.  Again. 

Carrol/Fox/Ron....all paired up their boring football with risk taking QBs.  And again, I'm fine if that is where we are going.  It's not my preference but that's not my argument.  I'm saying if we are doing that, we need a QB that matches it.   

 

All offenses need a QB to challenge the defense. Bill O’Brien had Bryce doing this at Alabama. It’s why Jamo went in the 1st round. You need great deep threat WRs to make it work. Geno was great at it in Seattle because they had DK and Lockett plucking the ball out of the air deep. That’s just good football. A running game they just respect plus a WR that can track and adjust to deep balls is part of the formula. Too much of this “deep ball thrower” is labeled on the QB vs the WR and scheme. I’ll keep going back to Tua wasn’t a good deep ball thrower until he got deep ball receivers. Also Miami has installed a solid running game to complement this. 
Canales is trying to build a complete NFL offense and if someone like Bryce can’t operate in it, then we will simply find a QB that can. 

[ForJimmy]

3 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

propping up Canales and calling him an innovator for having a bottom half offense in a horrible horrible division is pretty wild

 

Ive said all along Dave is a fine hire.  A fine hire.  The best tepper could do under the circumstances that he created.  But if you dont see the major red hurricane level beach flags with this hire then you are blind.  I hope it works, I really do but come on.......

I’m not propping him up. I’m saying his offense isn’t Fox ball as they found success through their QB despite their running game being bottom tier. That could never happen in Fox football. 

[rayzor]

4 hours ago, Ricky Spanish said:

He's hot

My wife and daughters constantly remind me of this.

My reaction...

[mrcompletely11]

4 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I’m not propping him up. I’m saying his offense isn’t Fox ball as they found success through their QB despite their running game being bottom tier. That could never happen in Fox football. 

I mean I guess its how you define Fox ball.  He wanted to run a billion times a game and take the occasional deep shot, rely on defense.   It was a pretty straight forward old school nfl offense

[CRA]

9 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I’m not propping him up. I’m saying his offense isn’t Fox ball as they found success through their QB despite their running game being bottom tier. That could never happen in Fox football. 

I don't get this logic.  I mean, John Fox found some success here or there too when his stubborn run game wasn't working well.   His risk taking QB would just chuck it up for 89.  Baker was chucking it up to Mike Evans. 

I mean, Pete, Fox, Ron all had their ideal version of how to play football.  When the run wasn't working, they all could find some success in the air.  It's just inconsistent football for them. 

Canales’ Tampa team would have had a bad time last year if they were playing in the old NFCS.  As in an actual good division.  They beat 2 teams with winning records last year and 1 of those opposing QBs was playing hurt.   Division was good when Fox was rolling around playing his brand of football.  So yeah, he was sneaking into the playoffs by default with a bad run