Peon Awesome

Not to excuse Rhule since his development of our young guys has been sorely lacking but is there another team that still hasn't settled on their starting qb? Maybe Pittsburgh, but Pickett is 3rd on their depth chart so realistically I don't think they plan to seriously consider him week 1. I can't really blame them for giving the vast majority of practice reps to Darnold and Baker until they have settled on the starter. And even though it sucks for us and the franchise, Rhule doesn't have much incentive to care about Corral. Either he wins with Baker and saves his job or he loses, gets fired and isn't around to see if Corral is the answer.

Well there are some high profile examples in the NFL: Mahomes, Aaron Rodgers, and most recently Trey Lance, although it's too early to make conclusions on him. Honestly, I think a lot more teams would delay throwing their rookie qbs into the fire but most of the ones drafting a high profile rookie qb are too awful to have the luxury of waiting without having the entire fan base turn on them. That may be the case this year with us too, but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if Baker Mayfield is so good that we don't feel inclined to see what we have in Corral. If things go awry, I think we throw Corral out there sooner than planned regardless of how ready he might be.

It seems like we're definitely underprioritizing Corral's development. The best rational I can come up with is that Corral is truly being delegated to a redshirt year and the staff has instead put their focus on settling the starting qb between Baker and Darnold. With those 2 splitting so many practice reps, doesn't leave much scraps to be split between PJ and Corral. But if you know you're planning 1+ years to develop Corral, urgency for that isn't really there. In fairness, establishing the 2022 starter should take priority right now unless we're already giving up on the season. Now once they announce the starter for week 1, which is supposed to happen after the Patriots game, then the excuses go out the door. I'm expecting Corral to play a full half in the 3rd game.

Or perhaps the preseason is about evaluating more than the QB position? Maybe PJ has a stronger grasp of the playbook allowing a better assessment of the receivers, offensive line, running backs, etc. Now I realize getting a potential future franchise qb meaningful practice and reps probably should be near the top of the priority list. But as far as rational explanations for not doing so, I think that is far more plausible than PJ trade bait.

Also 90% of the preseason league-wide is showcasing players that are highly unlikely to make the team. It's not like PJ is special in that regard.

Honestly Corral is clearly very raw and maybe the idea was to ease him in with only a few drives in his first game as opposed to playing the majority of the game like PJ. Game reps are good and all but if you don't have a basic grasp of being an NFL qb, getting shellacked and humbled for your first ever game might be an unnecessary bruising of confidence. My guess is he'll get a good chunk of playing time in the last preseason game and that may be the last time we see him in action for quite some time.

My best fan interaction memory was when @MasterAwesomeand I went to the divisional round game against the Seahawks in 2015 and sat next to a Seahawks fan who had flown in from Seattle. Lots of very friendly ribbing if you could even call it that. I remember fist bumping him when the Seahawks scored their first td, saying "watch out for the comeback." We ended up taking a picture of the 3 of us with arms around the shoulders to commemorate. It's unfortunate it's the loud and rude people that make themselves heard the most that make things look worse than they might really be; true in sports and the rest of life (politics, etc)

For starters, I think all this is all highly unlikely. But honestly it wouldn't shock me if McVay could turn Darnold into a serviceable qb; hell he may be the only one who can. So the one plausible scenario I could see is Stafford is expected out for a while and we do a deal similar to the Mayfield one in all aspects: conditional day 3 pick, we pick up a large portion of the salary AND Darnold agrees to a pay cut/contract adjustment that shifts some of the money to non guaranteed incentives bonus. And if you're Darnold, you should do that in a heartbeat. His value is an all time low. He'll be lucky to get medium end backup money next off-season. But if he goes to the Rams and has McVay revive his career, now you're suddenly back in play for starter money. Sacrifice $5 million this year and potentially get $30 million more on your next contract. Win win for everyone: Rams get a super cheap flyer when they are in desperate need in win now mode, Panthers save about $5 million in cap space and get a late round pick, and Darnold gets one last chance as a starter with the best offensive mind in the NFL (or top 2 if you favor Andy Reid) coaching him rather than the absolute nightmare succession of Adam Gase followed by Rhule/Brady.

If Corral, who is supposed to be pretty raw and need a full year to develop to unlock his potential, looks "great for 2-3 games" in his rookie year, that means a lot more to me than Sam Darnold or Kyle Allen looking decent for short stretches after a few years of NFL coaching. I'd be pretty damn excited and want to give him the best chance to take over rather than have him looking over his shoulder at a 2023 1st round pick. The real question is what to do if he looks like a middling starter on the Baker Mayfield tier. That's where the debate gets more interesting. Because you project he'll get better but you don't really know by how much. In that scenario, I'd keep drafting a 2023 QB an option if the value is there. If not, let him play out 2023 and if he flounders, we're presumably in great position to draft a top qb in 2024.

It does put into perspective the Panthers thought process in doing the 5th year extension on Sam Darnold, as regrettable as that is now. The going rate for a decent starting qb seems to start at $40 million per year now. All Darnold had to be was a mediocre starter for it to be a decent deal with his $19 million 5th year deal. It sucks he couldn't remotely live up to that but you can at least understand the Panthers hoping he might.

Whoda thunk that saying you want your team to win even though you don't like the head coach would be some edgy and debated take? Can't think of much else that better encapsulates the Huddle than that.

Is Sharp's point really the own he is trying to make it out to be? We basically gave up a 2nd and a handful of day 3 draft picks for our entire qb room. Most teams are using top 10 picks or multiple 1sts to find their qb. What does that crap platter of picks equate to? Like pick 30? Mayfield was picked #1, Darnell #3. Justin Fields was 2 1sts and more. Trey Lance was 3 1sts and picked #3. We just made a bunch of relatively low cost moves that won't hamper our ability to move on, pivot and build a complete team if they don't work out. If Corral works out and/or Baker is an above average starter, we'd have gotten a huge bargain. If not we basically used up the equivalent of the Vernon Butler pick and swung out trying.

Nothing so far suggests we're planning on getting in a bidding war with another team for Baker so pretty sure we can just shut that conjecture down. Cleveland: Please take Baker! We'll pay most of his contract! PLEASE! Carolina: Nah, you gotta pay at least 90% of it or don't even waste our time. Seattle: We might be interested in Baker. Carolina: Holy s*%t! Here's 3 1st round picks and a $100 million extension!

All this talk about how much the Browns are willing to pay is meaningless unless we know the draft compensation that is being discussed. Browns might say they're willing to pay $10 million if we trade them a 3rd round pick. That's a lot different than just considering the cost of taking on the remaining $8-9 million of salary.

This seems like a pretty nonsensical take unless you have some data supporting it. In what world is the coach the one wanting to draft a long snapper? The rationale for drafting a long snapper is to cut costs at a position that is not valued. That's definitely a big picture GM type move. Doesn't even make sense that a coach would micromanage a long snapper decision but if so, would almost certainly prefer the solid reliable vet. There's no benefit for a coach to take a worse unproven player. Coaches reluctantly accept moves that make their team worse in the short term; they don't pound the table demanding them.

Whoever Horn is locked up against will have 1 catch for 8 yards

If your goal is winning a super bowl, it's extremely hard to fathom an avenue where the Panthers get there by trading the farm for Watson. Too many holes to patch up. How do you suppose we accomplish that with no high draft picks and no cap space (since Watson will eat it all up)? So for me the answer is easy: Corral and Icky. Even if the chances aren't great, they're greater than the zero that comes with Watson.

I'm baffled by this obsession with getting a veteran qb to mentor Corral. That's what the coaches are for. Did Herbert rise to stardom because of the incredible tutelage of Tyrod Taylor? Who's responsible for the rise of Josh Allen? Nathan Peterman or Matt Barkley? Or hell, was Cam Newton getting tips on how to be a dominant dual threat qb with a cannon arm from the similarly talented Derek Anderson? QBs are expensive especially if you are signing one to compete for a starting job. There's no evidence that they make enough of a difference to warrant that commitment. That money is better reserved towards signing the best playmakers and solidifying the line around Corral for the foreseeable future. That's how you give him the best chance of success. Oh and making sure he has a competent OC and QB coach.

Brady getting head coaching interviews was for one reason: teams were obsessed with trying to uncover the next Sean McVay, i.e. undiscovered young offensive mastermind. There was no buzz around Brady being a serious contender for any of those jobs after his interviews and once his body of work was actually evaluated, he couldn't even sniff another OC position. Brady could become a good OC some day, maybe. But he'll need a ton more experience before I'd feel comfortable handing him the keys to any offense. At the end of the day, his claim to fame is one year as a passing game coordinator for a team with Joe Burrow and two wide receivers who just had the most historic rookie seasons for a wide receiver in NFL history in back to back seasons. Suggests to me that Brady owes them more for his success than the other way around.

Someone else posted this the other day. While it's nice to see any metric where the Panthers grade first, this one is really flawed unfortunately. In this system, you'd get rated way more highly for drafting a 4th round prospect in the 6th round than drafting a presumed top 5 pick in the 2nd round. A better system would look at the difference in values on a trade chart (like Chase Stuart) comparing where a player was projected or ranked vs actually drafted. The Panthers would still look pretty good, just not #1

I think we're seeing a general shift in front offices' pholosophies. Right or not, there's a big push to prioritize a transcendent star qb above all else. The idea of a solid starter/game manager headlining a complete team has been devalued. Look no further than San Francisco's trade of 3 1sts for the opportunity to draft Trey Lance, Cleveland throwing historic guaranteed money and a bajillion premium picks to get Watson, or Denver giving up a bunch of picks including a top 10 of their own that could've gone towards a qb, to take Russell Wilson. When it boils down to it, most overwhelmingly felt like the chance one of this year's qb class making the leap to stardom was quite low. And if that's the case, why invest a premium pick? Wide receivers are going for $25 million per year and the hit rate for a wr in rounds 1-2 of at least turning into a decent starter is far greater than a qb. Doesnt make much sense to sacrifice a premium draft pick to roll the dice on a qb prospect when the consensus seems to be Baker Mayfield, who can likely be had for peanuts right now, might be their realistic ceiling. Meanwhile in the 3rd or later, where any draft pick is 50/50 at best to become a meaningful starter, the 5-10% chance that rookie qb prospect might play to a high level suddenly becomes a reasonable gamble.

On face value, the team trading up twice, including using a future day 2 pick, doesn't quite scream Fitterer, who has been better known for trading back and amassing picks.

I'm definitely not opposed to rolling the dice on Willis as long as the cost is reasonable. Something like our 4th and Robby Anderson to a wr desperate team to get back into the latter half of the 2nd could make sense for both teams.

The last time the Panthers took a qb in the 2nd round who had a 1st round grade: Jimmy Clausen.

Probably best to acknowledge we have no idea how long these qbs will last. Pretty sure you'd have laughed if someone said Malik Willis would be available in the middle of the 2nd. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Howell is there at our original 4th round pick. People have clearly way overvalued this qb class relatively to NFL front offices.