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!

     

Rapoport: Panthers expected to be in the mix for Watson.


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

People get paid to write three paragraphs of opinion that 1) is pure speculation and 2) doesn't provide any detailed supporting evidence for the assertion? I'm in the wrong line of work.

He may be right or he may be wrong, but how about a breakdown of our available assets and analysis of why they wouldn't be enough?  We have plenty in the coffer should we decide to use them.  Just because Miami or some other team has more doesn't mean they are willing to use them all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

He's assuming the Texans would trade Watson within the AFC. He's also overlooking a lot of quality pieces we have. CMC, Burns, Chinn, and Moore would all be valuable trade pieces. 

I normally don't agree with this guy, but he actually makes sense this time.  So you are saying get Watson and trade what few pieces that we have, the very ones that made us somewhat competitive last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jon Snow said:

They drafted him.  They didn't trade the farm for him when they were rebuilding.

Rodgers won his super bowl outside of his Rookie contract and the Packers drafted a 1st round bust in Harrell in 2007 didn't have a 1st round pick in 2008 and Rodgers signed his mega deal in 2010. Then drafted another bust in 2011.

So what I am seeing is.... The Packers spent a shitload of money on QB, and won a super bowl with a bust and no first round pick. The proceeded to bust on the next year's pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 45catfan said:

I normally don't agree with this guy, but he actually makes sense this time.  So you are saying get Watson and trade what few pieces that we have, the very ones that made us somewhat competitive last year.

No, I'm saying he wrote a very selective article. He didn't paint an accurate picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

The Packers, Chiefs and Bills can afford to because they drafted their franchise QB's, duh.

And two of those 3 have signed their qbs to mega deals. PM has a quarter of a billion dollar contract.
 

I was against this at first but the more I think about it I’d do it. 2022 and 2023 are his big cap years and we still will have our young talented players under rookie contracts. The only player we’d be looking at to extend is Burns and DJ. We’d have to draft extremely well in the 2nd and 3rd rounds and I wouldn’t be opposed to trading down in those rounds to get more picks. 
 

do some of y’all watch Watson play? He’s a top 5 qb and is 25 years old. We could be looking at our qb position being locked up for the next decade. I’m a huge trey Lance fan and where we pick is more than likely gonna be him unless we move up. He is a bigger risk then this. And we’d have to give away picks to move up for an unknown QB if we wanted Lawrence, Wilson or fields. Watson is a known elite qb. This opportunity literally never happens. I’m in.

Edited by TheRumGone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, woahfraze said:

People get paid to write three paragraphs of opinion that 1) is pure speculation and 2) doesn't provide any detailed supporting evidence for the assertion? I'm in the wrong line of work.  

If it's anything like the site I write for, yes, you do get paid, but it's not close to enough to live on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 45catfan said:

I normally don't agree with this guy, but he actually makes sense this time.  So you are saying get Watson and trade what few pieces that we have, the very ones that made us somewhat competitive last year.

and spend years complaining about wasting Watson with no team around him and calling for Fire Fitts in every thread

  • Beer 2
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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • LOL... Yet again proving you can't look below anything than what you see on the surface Mock drafts ARE NOT draft grades They are what people think will happen.  They are mocking teams taking QB's in the top 5 of the draft because that's just historically how drafts go regardless of the grades on the QBs.  Almost every draft expert, even those mocking QB's going high, have said time and time again that none of these QB's actually grade out as those type of picks. This is again, where I say you don't like to actually read what I have to say, because I already explained it. 2022 the exact same thing happened, mock drafts had guys like Pickett and Willis going in the Top 5 because that's just what teams usually do, but GM's listened to their prospect grades and knew they weren't worth taking that high, so they didn't. It's not to say QB's won't go that high this year, but it's to say that they aren't graded out as elite QB prospects.  Mock drafts 
    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
×
×
  • Create New...