LinvilleGorge

Don't worry about it, it's not. You'll find a lot more engagement if you keep the quotes limited to one

See what above?

C'mon man. You're not actually this obtuse. Everyone is always unwilling to trade a guy until they get the price they want. The fact of the matter is that we negotiated this trade for weeks and landed on a 4th and future 2nd and 6th. If we actually really wanted him we wouldn't have let this linger for weeks negotiating over relative peanuts risking another team scooping him up out from under our nose. We wanted Darnold only at the relatively low price we paid.

Bro, you gotta stop with these multiple quotes. No one engages with you because they don't feel like editing out your posts to get to the quote that pertains to them. Just make multiple posts.

My source is that we negotiated for weeks over the Darnold trade. That's common knowledge. You don't negotiate for weeks over a trade if you actually really want a guy. We were obviously okay with losing him over peanuts.

I have no idea what you're trying to do. I just know that you're really hung up on a sunk cost to the point that you're admittedly fully willing to pass up on a franchise QB prospect at #8 simply simply because of a relatively small value trade made to acquire a former high pick bust of a QB.

They don't really believe in him. They negotiated for weeks over a paltry trade sum. If we really wanted him we wouldn't have risked losing him to someone else.

You're asking for proof but where's yours? As mentioned before, what we gave up in trade is peanuts for the QB position. Honestly, Darnold's trade value is better evidence AGAINST that. We wouldn't have been negotiating for weeks over a relative pittance if we REALLY wanted him. Verge has also said that if Darnold was black he wouldn't even be in the league right now.

Yep. We tried the smart, physically limited QB last year. It didn't work out. So now we're trying the physically talented underachiever.

Agreed. We wanted Watson. We legit tried for Stafford. We sniffed around Russell Wilson just for due diligence. We called Miami about #3. We obviously projected the draft and didn't see #8 working out for us at QB, thus here we are. If the leaves fall in a way that #8 works out, you don't let Sam Darnold, a 4th rounder, and a 2nd and 6th next year slow you down.

I just don't see that trade as much of an investment. Certainly not enough to forego adding a better option at QB if the opportunity presents itself. I honestly think that trade was made simply so that our hand wouldn't be forced. I don't think making the trade will force our hand the opposite way.

That'd be a tremendous improvement. One of the things that made Jake special was his clutch ability. He was basically just an average starting QB for the most part, but the bigger the moments the better he usually was.

Yep. I'm just nowhere near as convinced of that happening as you are. Honestly, I'd probably out the odds at 95% against. 90% if I'm being generous.

This is a key reason why I'm hoping we don't draft a CB in the 1st. I like the CB prospects likely to be there at the top of the 2nd better than I do the OT prospects likely to be there.

I think we traded relative pennies considering the position for a guy who has some talent to work with (more than Teddy) but who is probably a lon shot to actually work out and the trade compensation tells that story. 23 year old former #3 overall pick QBs don't get traded for a 4th and future 2nd and 6th unless the rest of the league has pretty much given up on him. The most recent close comp to this situation is Josh Rosen.

So you're really letting the sunk cost of a 4th round pick and future 2nd and 6th round picks keep you from making the pick you would've made otherwise? That's exactly what I hope we DON'T do.

Please, enlighten us. You throw a lot of shade at other opinions usually without offering much other than that.

Hell, I hope Sam Darnold is the Super Bowl MVP next year, but I'm not gonna engage in mental gymanstics and try to convince myself that he's "basically a rookie" so that I can ignore his three seasons of atrocious NFL QB play.

I want no part of Mac Jones, but this.

Yeah, that's what concerns me. Teddy first, now Darnold. If Darnold goes no better then there's a serious question on whether or not Rhule knows how to evaluate NFL QB talent. I don't think they think he sucks. I do think that they think he was their best option available at the time and none of them were fantastic.

What is Rhule supposed to say? Yeah, we know he sucked but we're really hoping he won't here. It's coach speak.

This is one area where college experience is an advantage IMO. College rosters are a lot bigger and you're constantly developing young talent.

You keep saying that Darnold is basically a rookie but that's just hilarious. He's started more games in the NFL than any of these college prospects we're talking about have started in college. He isn't basically a rookie. He's IS a bust looking to resurrect his career. Let's not gloss over three years of terrible play and pretend like he's basically a rookie.

You have it all figured out but you're wrong. My opinion is that Darnold is highly unlikely to be good. History isn't kind to the idea of top pick bust QBs bouncing back elsewhere. People love the Tannehill como but it isn't a comp. Tannehill was MUCH better in Miami than Darnold was in NY. I don't know whether Fields will be good either. What I do think though is that if we have him valued as a franchise QB prospect, then he likely has a much better chance of being good than Darnold. The trade is a sunk cost. If you pick Fields, having Darnold means you don't have to force Fields into action too soon. It also means that if Darnold plays well, now you have your choice of the two and you can trade the other. That's a great problem to have.

Take Cam off of those teams and you have an absolutely terrible run of football for the Panthers. Cam is a great example of the impact of an elite QB. Most of those teams pretty much sucked minus Cam. The fact that people still immediately go all the way back to the Dilfers and Johnsons of the NFL is exhibit 1A on why that philosophy of roster building no longer works on today's NFL where the rules are continually tweaked to create advantages for the offense - particularly the passing game.