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

Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Basbear said:

Thing is Andy was already here. Drew had a full off-season&season with Daves system and others coaches helping.

I got not clue how Drew would do here, there's barely any in-game snaps and Ive never seen him in a practice setting. 

He should be NFL QB "cheap", that's one of the biggest reasons cause panthers barley have any cap space. Plus it seemed the staff when after him, but lots changes in a NFL year. Dave could be all-in on rookie to pair with this very young team. 

I'm not against it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

I don't think Canales has the real say.  I think Bryce's benching after week 2 was Tepper (100%).  The only way to explain such a hard 180 after the Monday meeting from Sunday.   I think what to do going forward is Tepper......and that's why Canales forever struggles with basic questions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLGPanthersFan Grand Master

TLGPanthersFan

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, CRA said:

I don't think Canales has the real say.  I think Bryce's benching after week 2 was Tepper (100%).  The only way to explain such a hard 180 after the Monday meeting from Sunday.   I think what to do going forward is Tepper......and that's why Canales forever struggles with basic questions. 

Justin Timberlake Eye Roll GIF by Agent M Loves Gifs

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, CRA said:

I don't think Canales has the real say.  I think Bryce's benching after week 2 was Tepper (100%).  The only way to explain such a hard 180 after the Monday meeting from Sunday.   I think what to do going forward is Tepper......and that's why Canales forever struggles with basic questions. 

Not even Dan Snyder was that insane.

I am sure Dave had to pitch a case to Tepper in his weekly meeting but I don't think it was a hard sell. I am not sure it will be a tough sell to bench Bryce again, either.

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

Not even Dan Snyder was that insane.

I am sure Dave had to pitch a case to Tepper in his weekly meeting but I don't think it was a hard sell. I am not sure it will be a tough sell to bench Bryce again, either.

I am not even sure what to think anymore about this.  Canales would be insane to trot Dalton out there against the Chiefs but there is literally no point in not naming bryce the starter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon Snow Grand Master

Jon Snow

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I am not even sure what to think anymore about this.  Canales would be insane to trot Dalton out there against the Chiefs but there is literally no point in not naming bryce the starter. 

It doesn't really matter which one starts but the fact Canales doesn't say who's starting the next game is kinda odd. I'm not sure what the benefit is in not saying who's starting. The Chiefs will not have to change anything no matter who's behind center. Maybe he's still trying to convince Andy to start? I know I wouldn't want to be the sacrificial lamb to go against those guys.

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

Jon Snow

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

I don't really care who is named the starter.  While its interesting to some to discuss it on a message board, I doubt it matters much in terms of results.    

I'm guessing the Chiefs are sitting starters after halftime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon Snow Grand Master

Jon Snow

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

They are not really a "blow you out" team this year. It might be closer than we thinking while also being comfortably out of reach.

I would say the put up 30 rather easily. We might be lucky to get 6. It will not be close.

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

    • 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.
    • LinvilleGorge
      2024 College Football Thread

      By LinvilleGorge · Posted

      Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...