Panthers: You don't produce, you don't start

Last time I checked football is a TEAM game. Weinke had the team in the lead at the half in four games last year, behind by 7 or less in three others, down 10 in one game. He brought us back in two others only to have the defense fold against New Orleans and San Francisco. The defense rolled over against Arizona and New England the last two games. Yet to you guys, every fucking loss is his fault and his alone. I guess drafting Peppers gives last years biggest problem, the DEFENSE, a get out of jail free card from the rest of you. Weinke played no worse than any other recent rookie QB last year. He's now in his third offense in three years.


You guys are stuck on thinking benching Weinke will be the silver bullet to cure all our ills. It's not. The team is supposedly building for the future, playing Peete isn't. Sure Peete may win a game or two, but what do those one or two wins do to benefit us in the long run? Peete's probably here this year and that's it. Your problem hasn't been solved. One or two wins isn't building for the future, it's just getting the monkey off your back for a few weeks. You're like crackheads whose only fix is the instant gradification of a win. Are you going to be satisfied with one or two wins or do you want to build a consistant winner? And no Headcase (an apt handle if I ever saw one) arguing doing one thing and calling it a solution when there are a multiple of other problems is not logical.

 

Its obvious we are not going to agree on this, so after one last point I will let it go.

Where in the world do you get that I am not questioning Fox. All I am saying is that I understand his decision, and have done nothing but try to explain why it does make sense. If you disagree about it making sense, alright, but that doesn't make you right or me wrong, just different views. The only reason you seem to think I am blindly defending him is because I am going against your opinion. And yes, I actually do understand your rationalization, it just seems to me that you are being closed minded about it, and not willing to give the slightest benefit of the doubt until we see how things play out.

All of my arguements are based solely on my interpretation of why the decision was made. I have not gotten into what I would or would not have done in his place, there is no reason for me to...its a moot point. The decision is done. Instead of feeling bitter, I try to understand the logic behind it. And you know what, its there. Just as there would have been logic behind a decision to keep Weinke in there or even Fasani. Nobody knows what would have been the right move, but we have to live with the one that was made.

And as far as not saying anything about Weinke not hitting the pine if he struggles, what do you think all last year and the last two pre-season games were...his coming out party??? He struggled, and badly, so how long is long enough? You say there was no plan, but you have nothing to base that on. mVm said that, but again, that's an opinion, not necessarily a fact. It may or may not be true, I don't know, but I do know this decision does not show a lack of a plan. If anything, it reinforces that there is one: the players that give us the best chance to win play. Thats what has been said from the beginning. You can disagree if Peete does that or not, but if Fox believes he can, then this is right in line with his stated plan.

Discussing who we should have or not have picked up early in FA is pointless. We got players that were reletively inexpensive but had some upside. They also came with questions, that's why they were FA's. Most people seemed ok with the majority of our FA pickups. Sure everyone wanted better CB's, but there were none available, so we filled other holes. And should find a CB in the off-season. Regardless, that is not what this is about. Most people are mad at the decision to put Peete in there, you, on the other hand, seem generally bitter about something. I don't know what, and frankly I don't care, but as far as this discussion goes, I'm done. Peace!!!

 

Ahh. I get it. Someone who agrees with you has rational thought. this is righteously funny how political this has become.

>>You say there was no plan, but you have nothing to base that on.

Yet when you say there is, you have what - hope?
Sorry, things that are baseless and inconsequential only when they disagree with you don't make a case any more than they argue against. If you're going with that angle at least attempt to show positive proof.

>>Discussing who we should have or not have picked up early in FA is pointless.

No it isn't. If we had picked up a player who was intended to be a winning option, we would have done so. Now that our focus is winning a game we have a "mentor" in there.

The discussion is valid, the question is valid, and the fact that Fox made one decision and is now trying to dress it up as if another one only further shows the lack of a plan. You can't honestly say with a straight face that Rodney Peete was brought in here to be a winning option. You can't say he was the best QB we could have gotten.

 

LOL. magnus, you're too funny.

>>Ahh. I get it. Someone who agrees with you has rational thought. this is righteously funny how political this has become.

Uh, is there a point here???

>>>>You say there was no plan, but you have nothing to base that on.

>>Yet when you say there is, you have what - hope?
Sorry, things that are baseless and inconsequential only when they disagree with you don't make a case any more than they argue against. If you're going with that angle at least attempt to show positive proof.

Perhaps reading lessons are in order here. I said your opinion may or may not be true, I'm not in coaches meetings to know exactly why they do what they do or what plans they have, I only know what I see, read, and hear...no different than you. But unlike you, I don't judge based on limited information, I try to understand the decisions that are made. You ask for positive proof. What proof do you need? I gave you the proof for my opinion, just read. The only thing I said is that this decision does not show a lack of a plan. And that's true. I never said it shows there is a plan, just that this is not enough to assume there is not one. I further stated that IF Fox believes that Peete gives us the best chance to win, then that is in line with what he has said all along. So the proof is there to support my statements, but of coarse one has to have an open mind to see that.

>>>>Discussing who we should have or not have picked up early in FA is pointless.

>>No it isn't. If we had picked up a player who was intended to be a winning option, we would have done so. Now that our focus is winning a game we have a "mentor" in there.

No, this is about the decision to play Peete instead of Weinke. The discussion of whether or not Peete was the right player to pick up is another discussion. The fact is that we have Peete, and when Weinke proved incapable of leading this team, we had to go with who we have. Who knows if Weinke will step up or not, but thus far, he has not shown the development we needed to see. If he can show he is able to make the proper reads, and stop locking in on one receiver, I'm sure he'll get back out there.

>>The discussion is valid, the question is valid, and the fact that Fox made one decision and is now trying to dress it up as if another one only further shows the lack of a plan. You can't honestly say with a straight face that Rodney Peete was brought in here to be a winning option. You can't say he was the best QB we could have gotten.

Your the only ones trying to act like he is dressing it up. Just because your boy did not step up and was demoted, and you got mad doesn't mean Fox doesn't have a plan. No, I don't think Peete was brought in to be our "winning" QB. He was brought in to act as a mentor to the guy who was supossed to be. The fact that he is playing says volumes about Weinke's development. And for what we were looking for, who was available at a reasonable price? Ferrotte, Batch? Please, both would only be marginally better than Peete as a player, but far inferior as a mentor.

This has grown old, and I've got better things to do than argue pointlessly. So, knowing your need to always get the last word in, it will be going on deaf ears, at least as far as I am concerned. Later.

 

First off, I reply to anyone who has a rebuttal that's worth replying to. I'm rightly tired of having people whine about the last word and then outline fifty questions they demand answers for. if you're going to argue with me at least dust off some new barbs or even just leave the personal remarks at home.

>>how political this has become.
Uh, is there a point here???

The point is it's political. And then you had no rebuttal. The other part of it was the hilarity that window dressing a remark as "reason" or "fact" actually makes it so when the same criteria is just "opinion" and even "baseless".

>>But unlike you, I don't judge based on limited information, I try to understand the decisions that are made.

That's not unlike me. I've been trying to make sense of this. I can see their reasoning, and just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I don't understand it. That I think there's no plan in place doesn't mean I don't understand what they're saying, but the old reading comprehension trick is a neat standard isn't it?

>.So the proof is there to support my statements, but of coarse one has to have an open mind to see that

In other words, you have to just accept the move, and say it was best for the team, without having to get your hands dirty with consequences or effects?

In other words, if they say Peete is a mentor, then you believe. If they say Peete was their best chance to win, you believe. No questions asked. No mention of the fact that the team keeps changing stories, and has no real direction at the quarterback spot. Weinke, of course, has done wrong, but as long as there's no Observer story suggesting that the staff is at all responsible for their part they're not responsible.

>>No, this is about the decision to play Peete instead of Weinke. The discussion of whether or not Peete was the right player to pick up is another discussion.

No, actually, it's the same discussion. If this team saw this possibility and had at any time decided they wanted to chance sitting Weinke, they most likely would have gone after a quarterback instead of a "mentor". But now they need that prototypical second string quarterback that they didn't get. They changed directions at the last second and either they honestly do feel Peete's that backup that no one else in the league thought he was, or they didn't have a plan for yanking Weinke and are now paying by playing Peete when they hadn't planned on it. And saying things like Frerotte would only be marginally better than Peete doesn't help your case for saying you're not just towing the Fox line. I know, I've towed a line before.

By the way, Weinke isn't "my boy". I didn't feel he was ready to play early in 2001 and I got rushed under by a billion people talking playoffs after Minnesota. It's the decision, and the lack of commitment to grooming a quarterback, that I have a problem with. If Weinke isn't it, I'm not heartbroken. hell, I pimped Jeff Lewis for two years on nothing but promise and potential and I wasn't heartbroken. I just wish the staff looked like they had a plan coming into this situation and they didn't.

 

Just for the record, this will mark the first year I won't say "play-offs" to start the season. I'm the eternal optimist, a positive voice always looking for best case scenerio. Fox & Co. fucked up this season.

I'm not syaing they can't get the job done....eventually. He's a first year HC. He was unprepared at QB and he didn't get his QB prepared. He had a plan, but Plan A failed and they came up with Plan B a few days ago.

Of all the QB's to choose from, I would have perfered one that's played this century. Hell, if we win on Sunday, I'll just have to change my name to Y1Buddy.

 

>> Ahh. I get it. Someone who agrees with you has rational thought. this is righteously funny how political this has become.

did i say that i agree with Wiggin? you're being presumptious ... again. in fact, i do not agree with all his opinions but i appreciate
that he argues intelligently.

>> Yep, they're [coaches] all about mixed signals. An internet site or two wants to tell you that Fox was and always will be against Weinke and is just waiting for next year to draft a QB. Then it leaks that anonymous sources say Weinke didn't learn the playbook. Now it's about not producing.

you mix fact and fiction. Fox's statement was that the change was made to give the team it's best chance to win. Henning was consistent with that signal ... Weinke had not produced so they're going with Peete. No mixed signals there. Whether it's the whole truth and nothing but the truth is another matter. But they don't owe you and me the truth. They don't even owe their QB's the whole truth. They are gonna tell them what they think they need to hear ... knowing that thier conversation will likely be shared with the media. And they're gonna tell the media what they want them to hear and what they think is in the best interest of the team.

>> Henning's own words say that this is not the same offense that Peete played in at Detroit. Contr[a]dictory to Fox's proclamation on the matter or not?

Yes, inconsistent but understandable. Fox made a slip in trying to make things smoother for Weinke by saying that Peete has more experience in the offense. It was an obvious lie and everyone discounted this statement when it was made. Quite simply, Fox doesn't think Weinke gives them a shot to win this weekend so he is going with his best option at the moment. Henning confirmed that. No inconsistency there.

>> Face it, Weinke's the most convienent scapegoat of the moment[. T]hat more than anything is why he's sitting.

Is Gilbert also a scapegoat or did he get benched cuz he sucks at the moment. IMO, Weinke sucked this preseason and his consistently uninspired play is what got him benched.

>> Does Fox have the balls to sit any one else?

That's a joke, right?

>> I was told the offense would be built around Weinke, so putting Peete in is bull, because they're two different type of QB's, so I need an explaination on that.

You need an explanation? Would it be helpful if Fox flew over and spent a few hours explaining his rational. Would that make you feel all warm and fuzzy. Give me a break. Besides, he explained it already ... Weinke sucked.

>> My take is that Weinke's gone and Fox wants "his guy" in there.

My take is that Fox wants to win and he doesn't think Weinke can get it done.

>> It’s the execution [Piper's problem with bringing in Peete and then going to him as the starter]

Peete was seen earlier in the year as a good hire. "He's a veteran who can fill in for a series or a quarter or even a game. He is intelligent and respected and is considered a good guy ... hired him to back up starter Weinke and serve as a confidante and mentor. He wasn't the kind of reserve that would undermine the starter or demand playing time." The coaches apparently felt different than you in regards to some of the other FAs you mentioned. I guess time will tell now on whether Peete will be a good backup.

Peete's not playing more is unfortunate but something the coaches could not control ... other than they could have played him in the second half of the CLEV game. It's puzzling to me. May have been: 1) they hadn't decided at the time to bench Weinke so they stayed with their planned rotation, 2) they didn't want to risk injury to Peete considering that Weinke sucked and Fasani is not ready, and 3) they wanted to see a lot more of Fasani and whether he could be the future. Guess they could have also given him more time to play in the NE too but they were probably still thinking that Weinke was their starter and needed the reps.

What is getting served is that Peete gives us our best chance this weekend. If he can't get it done then ... Plan C.

My first instinct was that Peete was a short transition until they could get Fasani ready. But I'm not so sure of this anymore. Fox has thrown me for a loop so I'm not guessing anymore.

>> As for Peete, he is a veteran who has seen whatever teams can throw at him. Therefore, he is better prepared to deal with it, and s[h]ould make fewer mistakes than Weinke.

Not so sure if the simple fact that he is a veteran is the main reason he would give us a better shot at winning. I think Weinke has serious flaws in his game that don't seem to be improving. Seems to me that he just does not make good decisions when he has to improvise, has lots of problems throwing to his left and he doesn't show much, if any, field leadership. It also sounds as if he is not making good reads. If they were correctable flaws, you'd think by now he would have shown improvement but he hasn't. I haven't seen enough of Peete to pass judgement. Fox has and I think it's more than just about experience. If that were the main case, he woulda name Peete the starter long ago.

>> It's doesn't matter really, without Foster, our offense will suck.

In the NE game our offense was sucking even with Foster. He's a great looking player but he's not a cure-all.

>> [Fox] sounds like he's in over his head.

I was following ya fine but then ya lost me with this conclusion. I'll agree that he chose a tuff row to hoe taking on a 1-15 team. He knew he wasn't going to be able to fill nearly enough holes to make us a playoff team. Even if he did not like Weinke from the get-go he decided to gamble that Weinke could at least be average until we could draft us a QB next year. So either: 1) he fell in love with Peppers which apprears reasonable based on what we have seen so far, 2) he wasn't that impressed with Harrington and only time will tell, or 3) he really thought Weinke could be our future. My guess is that he thought Weinke would be much better than he showed this preseason and he lost his gamble. Now he's in a scramble hoping that Peete can be okay. That's probably all he feels he needs to have a chance to win some games.

>>The point of it is this: some of the reports say that Fox was never sold on Weinke. It would be easy to let a quarterback fail. The more mixed signals that are out there, the more they want to point to this one.

Are you suggesting that Fox set Weinke up for failure because he was never sold on him? The picture is becoming so much clearer. In the CLEV game they call for a pass play that has Byrd running wide open over the middle cuz they knew that Weinke would overthrow him. Then on the next series they call for an out pattern to Moose cuz they knew that Weinke would float a ball into the hands of a defender for a TD. (And i was wondering why they'd call for a pass play to the left when they know Weinke can't throw to his left). Now that's brilliant. And all so they can declare their man, Peete, the starter. And the best part is Fox doesn't have to worry about job security.

Why aren't you guys grilling Hurney. Didn't he do the Weinke contract? Isn't it his job to get players in here. Why didn't he make more effort to get us some better weapons for our QBs to throw to? You don't think he woulda had any input in the team going into this season with Weinke pegged as the starter? Maybe Fox was dealt the hand and then told to coach.

>> it's Weinke's job to learn, but it's also the staff's job to teach

well, apparently they're happy enough with what they taught Peete. and did someone say that Wiggin was blindly defending Fox. it would seem to me that some are on a witchhunt. ya got the mob intelligence thing going here.

>> A little struggle like the last two weeks isn't out of the question if you're looking to develop a player

"a little struggle"? come on, it's been more than a little struggle and it's been more than for just a couple of weeks. if that's all it was Weinke would be starting. maybe it would help you to see more clearly if you say it with me ... "Weinke Sucked." and it's hard to see him ever being a QB that you can win with. if Fox and Henning see him as still our future then they see something i do not.

>> Y2 and Piper are making points to the basic fact that Rodney isn't our best possible shot if we saw this coming.

key word ... IF. and again, Fox may have been dealt this hand.

>> But the first guy called on the carpet in this punitive system is the leader.

only problem with that statement is that Weinke never was the leader.

>> Some people see a ballsy move and are lapping it up. Fine, but I don't see a plan here at all and I for one actually do want to see a plan in place rather than just trusting the guy because he wears a headset and looks animated.

To name Peete was ballsy cuz he had to know that he would get fried over making this move. I'm lapping it up becuz it makes sense. Weinke sucked and Fasani is not ready. So the best option now is Peete. Uh, the plan was for Weinke to start and Peete to mentor and backup and to groom Fasani. That didn't work out so now the plan (at least on surface) is start Peete and have Weinke backup while watching and learning and to groom Fasani. If you need more explanation than that then maybe you can go to Y2's when the guy with the headset flies out there to provide him with an animated explanation.

 

>> Plus we didn't even bother having Lytle compete

like i said ... we could cure cancer.

>> Look dude, the MAJORITY of people posting on this subject are in disagreement with you.

now there's a rational argument.

>> You still can't find it in yourself to even question Fox at this point. You see us questioning Fox and rush to defend him without even attempting to rationalize what we are saying.

it's not that Fox can do no wrong at this point, but it is the point where you still give him the benefit of the doubt. we're fans. we're suppose to be on the same side as the coaches and players. give it a few games and see if the team is improving till ya decide to lynch him. the guy is a rookie head coach. he's gonna make some mistakes. most coaches do.

>> You guys are stuck on thinking benching Weinke will be the silver bullet to cure all our ills. It's not.

no. i'm stuck on the fact that weinke sucks. that, in of itself, does not cure a damn thing. benching him will help our QB situation, which might help us to win some games.

>> The team is supposedly building for the future, playing Peete isn't. Sure Peete may win a game or two, but what do those one or two wins do to benefit us in the long run? Peete's probably here this year and that's it. Your problem hasn't been solved.

So exactly what would someone with such a clear head do to solve our problem, which is i guess to develop a QB for the future? do we continue to try to develop Weinke? even if he is developable, which i doubt, why would it be such a big mistake to sit him while he is sick, try to get a quick fix by winning a couple of games with Peete, and then bringing him back when he's all well? what would be the point in forfeiting the first 2 games. how is his going out there and continuing to suck and losing games gonna help his development or the confidence of the rest of the team? granted if ya do start Peete and then bring back Weinke and he still sucks then ya problem has not been solved, but what would ya have lost? the chance to start Fasani for a few games more? oh i know, now that ya know Weinke sucks you would go back in the past and spend a lot of dollars on a better backup ... but that wouldn't have solved our problem of developing a QB for the future. i'm sure the solution is there and it's gotta be simple so, please enlighten me.


>> You're like crackheads ... And no Headcase (an apt handle if I ever saw one)

and if you can't think of anything rational to say, just start calling names and making fun of others' handles. works for me. oh and thanks for the compliment, i rarely get those nowadays.

>> arguing doing one thing and calling it a solution when there are a multiple of other problems is not logical.

did that just feel real good to type? shame it doesn't make sense

 

anyone else generally skip over long replies?

 

does anything more need to be said at this point other than, i hope it all works out?

so much second-guessing and hypothesizing about a man's motives for benching an underwhelming quarterback.

fox doesn't have a track record yet. we don't even know where this will fit in a couple of years from now.

i think the panthers' track record has everyone jumpy.

let's just hope for the best here -- whatever that may be (weinke coming back, drafting/developing a new qb, fox getting fired).

i'm not worried about wins and losses this season anyway -- i just want to see improvement and something to build on for next year's draft/free agent moves.

i'm all about 2004 though.