What is the benefit to benching starters for the preseason?

[Jon Snow]

To piss off fans apparently. 

[strato]

Y’all don’t think 17 games will be enough to evaluate Young? Not enough chance for him to establish his viability?

Or maybe you fear that losing those first two games is what causes us to miss the playoffs? 

I don’t have those worries.

Edited August 19 by strato

[Waldo]

6 minutes ago, strato said:

Y’all don’t think 17 games will be enough to evaluate Young? Not enough chance for him to establish his viability?

Or maybe you fear that losing those first two games is what causes us to miss the playoffs? 

I don’t have those worries.

He has already played 16 so 6 should be plenty on that end. It's more about everyone else else including the coaches. There is plenty to be concerned about at this time.

[SmokinwithWilly]

4 minutes ago, strato said:

Y’all don’t think 17 games will be enough to evaluate Young? Not enough chance for him to establish his viability?

Or maybe you fear that losing those first two games is what causes us to miss the playoffs? 

I don’t have those worries.

What I fear is the excuse that they didn't have enough time with the new system, coach, GM, players, etc. I fear trying to build a system around him that avoids the use of common sense. I fear we are trying to invest everything in a QB that didn't even rank in the top 32 last year. That is downright terrifying given our history under Tepper. 

If we end up with a top 3 pick, and I believe our chances are better than 90% we will, not taking every opportunity may very well lead us to passing on a QB should there be one worth taking, or taking a player to specifically help BY instead of taking the best player to help the team. 

But my greatest fear is that this owner and FO can't or won't admit that a mistake was made, if indeed it was, and it's time to move on. The more opportunities that are available to evaluate his performance, the better that evaluation has the potential to be. 

[KSpan]

1 hour ago, WUnderhill said:

It’s funny how I just gave clear examples of actually most of the playoff teams last year not playing starters and this post immediately follows. To your first point, Justin Herbert hasn’t played a snap this preseason either with new coach, schemes, players, etc. Y’all really just need to stop acting like this is some Panthers-only, losing teams only, approach so we can have real conversations. And just lol imagining the posts we would have to endure here if Bryce Young had played this preseason to go 2/6 for 11 yards and a sack as Brock Purdy has.

Considering that the post that I responded to was before yours, I hadn't made it to yours, so no need to act like you were ignored. And note that I also said "some/all of their guys to varying degrees", meaning that different teams have different approaches all across the spectrum. 

Frankly, Carolina IS a losing team and until proven otherwise any approach that keeps the starters off the field is ripe for questioning given all of the turnover at the key positions. Yes, San Diego has had a lot of turnover as well, but Jim Harbaugh gets more credit for knowing what he's doing as an HC and how to evaluate a team than Dave Canales. Just the reality.

[strato]

42 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

What I fear is the excuse that they didn't have enough time with the new system, coach, GM, players, etc. I fear trying to build a system around him that avoids the use of common sense. I fear we are trying to invest everything in a QB that didn't even rank in the top 32 last year. That is downright terrifying given our history under Tepper. 

If we end up with a top 3 pick, and I believe our chances are better than 90% we will, not taking every opportunity may very well lead us to passing on a QB should there be one worth taking, or taking a player to specifically help BY instead of taking the best player to help the team. 

But my greatest fear is that this owner and FO can't or won't admit that a mistake was made, if indeed it was, and it's time to move on. The more opportunities that are available to evaluate his performance, the better that evaluation has the potential to be. 

Yeah that is what influences me to wish boom or bust. No middle, slightly hopeful ground that prolongs a resolution. Fish or cut bait as they say. 

[CRA]

2 hours ago, strato said:

Y’all don’t think 17 games will be enough to evaluate Young? Not enough chance for him to establish his viability?

Or maybe you fear that losing those first two games is what causes us to miss the playoffs? 

I don’t have those worries.

Do you actually have 17? Canales is installing a brand new O scheme.  Our OC has never been an OC.  Featuring an brand new OL where everyone has someone brand new to their left or right (with a C that has never played C).....featuring a green raw QB already on his 2nd new scheme in the NFL. 

 I don't see how those are a legit 17.   Maybe he doesn't have the OL to run it.  

[Donald LaFell]

26 minutes ago, strato said:

Yeah that is what influences me to wish boom or bust. No middle, slightly hopeful ground that prolongs a resolution. Fish or cut bait as they say. 

I just hope the improvement feels stable and fun. I guess that will start with the coach. I feel like recovering from the Bryce trade will take a while. 

[ForJimmy]

6 minutes ago, CRA said:

Do you actually have 17? Canales is installing a brand new O scheme.  Our OC has never been an OC.  Featuring an brand new OL where everyone has someone brand new to their left or right.....featuring a green raw QB already on his 2nd new scheme in the NFL. 

Can you evaluate a young QB when you haven't even gotten your O off the ground yet? 

When they get reps in preseason it typically isn't enough to equate to one game.  So yeah they probably will start off slow (kind of figured they would regardless), but even with that 17 games should be enough assuming he is healthy.  That's less than one game of practice he will be missing. 

The counter to this argument is if we do play Young in preseason and he gets hurts and misses a chunk (if not all) of the season.  We would still not have a good evaluation on him.  Imagine if he comes back for the last couple games and plays better.  Do we roll with him again?

I think Canales wants his OL healthy before he inserts Bryce to start rolling out this offense.  I don't necessarily agree with it or not, but it makes a little sense.

[MechaZain]

Injury prevention is the only thing that makes sense. There's no benefit in protecting Bryce's ego/"hiding how bad they are". None of that would matter once week 1 rolls around.  

I don't mind it one bit. Bryce getting injured before we get a full assement would ruin everything, that's not worth getting an early look. If the team sucks as much as feared a couple of a preseason snaps are not going to make the difference.

[CRA]

42 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

When they get reps in preseason it typically isn't enough to equate to one game.  So yeah they probably will start off slow (kind of figured they would regardless), but even with that 17 games should be enough assuming he is healthy.  That's less than one game of practice he will be missing. 

The counter to this argument is if we do play Young in preseason and he gets hurts and misses a chunk (if not all) of the season.  We would still not have a good evaluation on him.  Imagine if he comes back for the last couple games and plays better.  Do we roll with him again?

I think Canales wants his OL healthy before he inserts Bryce to start rolling out this offense.  I don't necessarily agree with it or not, but it makes a little sense.

we don't even know if the OL can play well enough to see what the Bryce and playcalls can do yet.  Still worried about the C play imploding it all.  A couple drives in preseason would take care of certain questions marks instead of searching post week 1. 

I think Canales finds himself where Frank did personally.  His starting O just doesn't work yet to really been seen.  And given how green he and his OC are......they opt to keep it on the shelf vs token appearances.   To me, that makes the most sense.  Bryce is bad enough, it doesn't matter if the OL has a 2nd stringer in it at a spot.  There no chemistry that exists with these dudes to begin with. He needs reps.  He needs snaps from Corbett.  He needs to take some basic throws in the O.  

[ForJimmy]

13 minutes ago, CRA said:

we don't even know if the OL can play well enough to see what the Bryce and playcalls can do yet.  Still worried about the C play imploding it all.  A couple drives in preseason would take care of certain questions marks instead of searching post week 1. 

I think Canales finds himself where Frank did personally.  His starting O just doesn't work yet to really been seen.  And given how green he and his OC are......they opt to keep it on the shelf vs token appearances.   To me, that makes the most sense.  Bryce is bad enough, it doesn't matter if the OL has a 2nd stringer in it at a spot.  There no chemistry that exists with these dudes to begin with. He needs reps.  He needs snaps from Corbett.  He needs to take some basic throws in the O.  

I'd say it's way too early for that.  Even the backup OL looked better this past game than last year.  We paid out for 2 proven OGs and yeah C may need some work but Corbet can block if he can hike the ball correctly.  I'm just not buying the another 17 games may not be enough for Bryce.  If he looks as bad or worst after 33 games played that's it.  It's gets grey if Bryce gets injured or if Bryce looks better but to what degree.  He gets injured in preseason and we are sitting in the exact same situation next year.  Again I don't think the few extra reps in preseason will have this huge change of outcomes on the season.  We may start off slow sure, but I'm 90% sure that's happening regardless.  

[WUnderhill]

2 hours ago, KSpan said:

Considering that the post that I responded to was before yours, I hadn't made it to yours, so no need to act like you were ignored. And note that I also said "some/all of their guys to varying degrees", meaning that different teams have different approaches all across the spectrum. 

Frankly, Carolina IS a losing team and until proven otherwise any approach that keeps the starters off the field is ripe for questioning given all of the turnover at the key positions. Yes, San Diego has had a lot of turnover as well, but Jim Harbaugh gets more credit for knowing what he's doing as an HC and how to evaluate a team than Dave Canales. Just the reality.

I’ve been there I don’t always read full threads before I reply either, just making an observation on the pervasiveness of the narrative. Successful teams don’t all follow the same formula and you don’t have to look hard at all to see plenty who aren’t playing any or many starters just like us, so I think it’s time to stop talking about the approach in terms of “successful teams do this and we’re doing the opposite” because we are actually more in line with what a majority of last years playoff teams seem to be doing and KC seems to be an outlier. To your point that they play “some starters to varying degrees”, well, the Panthers have played some starters as well. Do I think it would be beneficial to play more of our starters more minutes? Sure. But I acknowledge that is just based on my feelings and I don’t know everything that went into the decisions of who played and who didn’t. Like if they felt certain starting OL shouldn’t be playing for whatever reason, maybe there’s some soreness we don’t know about or whatever, yeah I don’t want any QB that we would be relying upon in the regular season taking snaps behind our practice squad level backups.

[jayboogieman]

Just started watching, so no cliff notes