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!

     

At what point will you start rooting for us to lose for Lawrence?


t96

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Jeremy Igo said:

I don't. If it happens it happens. And if it does, it has no guarantee the Panthers will win a Superbowl. What last #1 overall pick won a superbowl with the team that drafted him? 

 

A better outcome from losing would be Hurney getting fired. That may have more of an impact on long term success. 

I’ll never actively root for a loss. I physically  can’t watching the game. Even if I wanted them to lose it would just devolve into me rooting for a win. Having said that, I didn’t have high expectations for this team coming in. For that reason losses aren’t as hard on me as other years. Knowing the potential prize of TL, Fields, or Lance awaits makes it even less difficult to swallow a loss. Basically approaching it how I felt after several weeks in the Jimmy Clausen season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MGH1989 said:

I’ll never actively root for a loss. I physically  can’t watching the game. Even if I wanted them to lose it would just devolve into me rooting for a win. Having said that, I didn’t have high expectations for this team coming in. For that reason losses aren’t as hard on me as other years. Knowing the potential prize of TL, Fields, or Lance awaits makes it even less difficult to swallow a loss. Basically approaching it how I felt after several weeks in the Jimmy Clausen season.

This

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MGH1989 said:

I’ll never actively root for a loss. I physically  can’t watching the game. Even if I wanted them to lose it would just devolve into me rooting for a win. Having said that, I didn’t have high expectations for this team coming in. For that reason losses aren’t as hard on me as other years. Knowing the potential prize of TL, Fields, or Lance awaits makes it even less difficult to swallow a loss. Basically approaching it how I felt after several weeks in the Jimmy Clausen season.

Scenario -- Panthers and Redskins are both 1-13 going into our week 16 matchup. Next worst team has 3 wins already and can't pick 1st overall. That game is literally -- loser gets Lawrence, winner gets 2nd overall or even worse. Would you really root for a win in that situation? I'm just not sure I could root for such a meaningless win then when it could mean that we miss out on a generational talent at the most important position...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I was so against the Bridgewater signing. He is a good backup QB who can win a few games. However, I think his arm talent limitations mean that a Super Bowl is likely never in his future as a starting QB. I think the Panthers are a team with very limited talent and the worse they are this year, the greater their chances to be in a position to draft a potential franchise QB.

Unfortunately, I think Bridgewater is good enough to mean the Panthers win some games they would otherwise lose, which means worse draft picks next year. Sometimes in the NFL you win by losing. I would rather have a 2 win team that a 5 or 6 win team. Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, t96 said:

Scenario -- Panthers and Redskins are both 1-13 going into our week 16 matchup. Next worst team has 3 wins already and can't pick 1st overall. That game is literally -- loser gets Lawrence, winner gets 2nd overall or even worse. Would you really root for a win in that situation? I'm just not sure I could root for such a meaningless win then when it could mean that we miss out on a generational talent at the most important position...

Problem is the Saints in week 17. If we are tied with anyone for 1st week 17, the Saints will make sure we win. 

Edit nvm I see what your saying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • I have zero issues with this.  
    • Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...