Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Canales still not sold on Bryce?

Jackson113.2

By Jackson113.2,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

frankw Grand Master

frankw

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Jackie Lee said:

Shouldn't have beat the Giants, but 3 or 4 turnovers and a missed field goal helped get him over the finish line lol. 

Bryce Young needs to send Daniel Jones a fruit basket or something at least. That man singlehandedly improved his W-L record.

  • Pie 4
  • Beer 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

Canales and Morgan probably know they want to go another direction, but Tepper has to be shown without a doubt that we need to cut our losses with bryce.

Considering the cost involved, he'd want to make absolutely sure that there is nothing that can be done to make him worth the initial investment and that he is irredeemable to the point that we need to spend draft capital again to get another QB.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outlaw4 Mentor

outlaw4

Posted
Posted

A lot of this is gamesmanship. Of course Canales is going to keep his opponent guessing, even though it may not matter that much.

The Dalton comment tells me there's an open question on whether he's worth re-signing. Frankly, the best role he can serve given his age is to play within himself and not commit major mistakes. In other words, keep the seat warm until we eventually find a better guy. Even in that Raiders game, he got really lucky with some passes not being picked. Then his play was hurting us to the point in which Canales didn't immediately throw him back in last Sunday. 

For all we know, Canales wants to see if BY could at least be good enough that we don't need Dalton back as a backup anymore. Then bring in his own guy.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SOJA Veteran

SOJA

Posted
Posted

I don't really see the downside of playing Bryce. (and yes I have heard the draft compensation argument and tbh I don't think he has much trade value anyway)

Just play him and see what we've got

My theory on why Canales won't announce him at the starter is two fold: a.) he doesn't want Bryce to feel the pressure of having to be the franchise savior b.) he's showing the team no one is above evaluation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shocker Grand Master

Shocker

Posted
Posted

Swinging and missing on another QB will keep us in the cellar for years.  I think 2 of these QBs could be good but they have question marks.  All QBs are risks but Sanders and Ward are not #1 picks in most drafts.  Just my opinion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frankw Grand Master

frankw

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Shocker said:

Swinging and missing on another QB will keep us in the cellar for years.  I think 2 of these QBs could be good but they have question marks.  All QBs are risks but Sanders and Ward are not #1 picks in most drafts.  Just my opinion 

Screenshot_20241111_182610_Firefox.thumb.jpg.eb381a743e74feda0d34e3f0a5d27b8d.jpg

  • Pie 1
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon Snow Grand Master

Jon Snow

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, outlaw4 said:

A lot of this is gamesmanship. Of course Canales is going to keep his opponent guessing, even though it may not matter that much.

The Dalton comment tells me there's an open question on whether he's worth re-signing. Frankly, the best role he can serve given his age is to play within himself and not commit major mistakes. In other words, keep the seat warm until we eventually find a better guy. Even in that Raiders game, he got really lucky with some passes not being picked. Then his play was hurting us to the point in which Canales didn't immediately throw him back in last Sunday. 

For all we know, Canales wants to see if BY could at least be good enough that we don't need Dalton back as a backup anymore. Then bring in his own guy.

I'm leaning more to your observations. To be honest they are down to seeing if either one of them can at least be a backup next season. What they do for a starter is I would like to know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
45catfan Grand Master

45catfan

Posted
Posted

The Chiefs will be the ultimate test.  If Bryce can beat the Chiefs, then he should get the nod going forward.  What I don't wan to happen is they put Dalton back in to be the whipping boy so Bryce doesn't have his new found confidence shattered.  It's not fair to Dalton that Bryce gets to play the doormats and when we face the SB champions, Andy gets to be the sacrificial lamb.

We need to see Bryce versus a legit team, moreover, a legit defense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Panthering Experienced

Panthering

Posted
Posted

John Ellis on the pod made a point that Canales has nothing to gain by fully backing Bryce. He’s not his guy and he’s just treating him like an adult QB in the NFL. Has to earn it week in and week out. Bryce isn’t exactly setting the world aflame either so I get it. Canales has done a good job balancing the situation this year because he’s been pretty straightforward about it. 

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AceBoogie Veteran

AceBoogie

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

The Chiefs will be the ultimate test.  If Bryce can beat the Chiefs, then he should get the nod going forward.  What I don't wan to happen is they put Dalton back in to be the whipping boy so Bryce doesn't have his new found confidence shattered.  It's not fair to Dalton that Bryce gets to play the doormats and when we face the SB champions, Andy gets to be the sacrificial lamb.

We need to see Bryce versus a legit team, moreover, a legit defense. 

Umm Andy played the worst team in the league. And hasn’t played that well since. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
strato Grand Master

strato

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Icege said:

He's been fairly consistent about not naming the starter until late to keep a competitive advantage + evaluate practice reps.

Kind of weird that folks are upset about Canales making Bryce earn starts after all of the butthurt over him being "handed" the job his rookie season.

Everybody isn’t upset. It is about time young was treated fairly like any other player instead of being given everything. 
 

But there is no way he can beat out Dalton if it is fair. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, SOJA said:

I don't really see the downside of playing Bryce. (and yes I have heard the draft compensation argument and tbh I don't think he has much trade value anyway)

Just play him and see what we've got

My theory on why Canales won't announce him at the starter is two fold: a.) he doesn't want Bryce to feel the pressure of having to be the franchise savior b.) he's showing the team no one is above evaluation 

As a fan I agree. If I'm Dave Canales I saw Frank Reich get fired mid season last year. I'm probably wanting to go the route that I feel will make the team lost competitive any given Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...