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!

     

On Matt Stafford and the Carolina Panthers


Zod
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, AceBoogie said:

History tells you that you need to draft the guy. Stafford shouldn’t be in play at all. Watson would be an outlier 

I would amend that to say "recent history." There are lots of Super Bowl winning QB's that are on other teams than they were drafted by. Not as many in the last 15 years but there is also a certain QB who keeps skewing that number, as well.

Edited by kungfoodude
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Even if we did keep both(and we absolutely wouldn't) we would be under $50 mil in 2021 and 2022. 

Remember, all the prorated bonus money for Stafford stays with the Lions. His actual pay would be $20 mil in 2021 and $23 mil in 2022. That's actually less than what we would be paying Teddy.

Okay, that's true, but there is no getting rid of Teddy now. His play last year and the size of his contract means he stays with the Panthers. So, while it's not $53M for the QB position, it's still near $40M, which is still too high if your QB1 isn't named Mahomes, Rodgers, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Panther'sBigD said:

I want Watson, but not for three firsts. We don't have the draft capital to make a trade like that without it hurting us for years to come. We're not a QB away from being a complete team; not even close. 

If we can get Stafford for a reasonable price, I say do it. Rebuild the line through this draft, give them a year to gel with a proven QB under center and if we get to the playoffs, we package future picks together in the 2022 draft and go get Sam Howell or whoever is a good fit. 

Don't think of it as 3 first round picks - it's not.

Think of it this way. The Panthers would use their #8 pick this year on a franchise QB. So, instead of it being Lawrence, Fields, Wilson, etc, change that name to Deshaun Watson. So you've used one of those three picks on the QB. Essentially, the Panthers are giving up TWO future 1st round picks for Watson. 

Now, isn't that easier to swallow?

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I would amend that to say "recent history." There are lots of Super Bowl winning QB's that are on other teams than they were drafted by. Not as many in the last 15 years but there is also a certain QB who keeps skewing that number, as well.

Eh....I was going to respond.

Tannehill, Rivers, Brady, Brees, Smith...just this season.

Now, I do think that's an outlier due to the 3 HOF QB's that were still going strong this season...but yes, for long term success, you probably need to draft your guy.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I would rather have Watson, but Stafford is intriguing due to how little it may cost to get him.  We could probably flip Teddy and a third for him.  This would make it easier to contend sooner.  I like Stafford over Fields and Lance. I like Wilson,  but his injuries scare me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

He isn't a free agent, he is under contract for the next two seasons. He isn't going to have much of a choice in the hypothetical "Lions move on from Matt Stafford" scenario.

This isn't like the Watson situation.

I get that. I just dint think he fits what we are trying to do. Build long term winning sustainability. He is at the end of his career and we are entering year 2 of rebuild. I’m wanting to draft a young QB, but Watson being 25 and one of the best is obviously tempting. I just don’t think we should trade away any assets for another rental QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Panther'sBigD said:

I want Watson, but not for three firsts. We don't have the draft capital to make a trade like that without it hurting us for years to come. We're not a QB away from being a complete team; not even close. 

If we can get Stafford for a reasonable price, I say do it. Rebuild the line through this draft, give them a year to gel with a proven QB under center and if we get to the playoffs, we package future picks together in the 2022 draft and go get Sam Howell or whoever is a good fit. 

Watson is intriguing because of his age (and his ability). He is essentially a first round choice that is proven, so low to no risk.  But, I am with you, if we are going to lose the ability for several years to secure starters to fill our other holes (four on the OL, maybe five, a MLB, some secondary help, a TE, and depending on what happens with Samuel, someone to fill that role), you risk becoming what we were under Rivera where our offense was a QB, maybe one receiver of some merit, and an OL that would have trouble protecting an Abrams tank (save for 2015).

I like Stafford, and believe he would be held in much higher regard if he had landed somewhere that the city did not throw a parade if they simply made the playoffs.  But he has neither the age nor dramatic ability advantage of Watson.  He does not fit in with the "younger, better, longer" philosophy.  He would just extend the QB envelop a bit before we need "the guy."  As ForJimmy said, he is basically a rental whereas Watson is (or better be) the solution. 

Still, at the right price, he might be in play.  Our current QB depth chart should not contain the word "depth."  Stafford may give us the flexibility to not draft a QB in with our first pick (especially if 3 or all of the top 4 are gone), or trade down to fill other holes and pick somebody like Jones, who may or may not become a starter but at least makes your depth chart more than one layer deep.  It really depends on what Rhule and company think about the "big 4" not named Lawrence, and what they think of the available QBs not in the "big 4."

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
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

    • I don't know; I think it's close for the first half and if it gets ugly it'll be in the second half.
    • The thing is, I feel like last Sunday validated what I have been saying about Bryce.  And this is why I'm somewhat optimistic. He isn't a good QB, let me make that clear before the brigade storms into this thread, but the biggest difference between Bryce before last week and Bryce in the second half of last season was his lack of confidence and willingness to make plays downfield.  Last week was the first time this season he's had that "F It" mentality, the same he had when he came back last year when he just looked and played care-free (in a good way; he had a positive energy).  We need him to keep that energy the rest of the season because if he does, we can win games. It ain't always about being good.  Hell Jameis Winston isn't good (better than Bryce, but still), but he plays with such a confidence that his teams always have a chance.   If Bryce is down to be as aggressive as he was last week, I think the opportunities will be there against a weak and injured 49ers defense.
    • I don't have a great feeling about this game, but after last night I have a real good feeling about our chances to win the division. I think we might actually have a fair amount of wiggle room if Baker is out for an extended period of time, especially if he misses one or both of the games against us. 9-8 could very well win the NFC South this year. Hell, depending on how long Mayfield is out I wouldn't be shocked to see 8-9 win it.
×
×
  • Create New...