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 gave you a full breakdown and examples from last year as to why I think it's unfair to expect 1k from T-Mac this year if everyone stays healthy. But the TLDR version is we will have 4 legitimately good WRs next year, most rookies who get to 1,000 yards don't have any others on the team with them let alone 3 others, it will be hard for him to put up 1k with out the others being injured or falling short of expectations themselves, but in 2026 without Thielen it's different.
    • Ulcerative Colitis is not CTE. 
    • Last year Thielen had 615 yards in 10 games (had more ypg than his 1k season in 23).  XL had 497 in 16 games with tons of drops and Coker had 478 in 11. They also only had only 192 of our 518 targets to get those numbers. So if Thielen has 1,000 yards again, XL and Coker each improve to say 600 yards each, and T-Mac comes in at 800 yards, you're going to say that's not good enough?  Especially if he ends up with close to, if not getting to, double digit TD's like I think he will, as he's going to be a red zone monster for Bryce? Because if that's the breakdown of just the Top 4 and Bryce plays all 17 games, he's going to be pushing a 4,000 yard season as the TEs, RBs, and other WRs will probably add up to 750-1k yards as well, and I think that would be far more than anyone here could be expecting of him this season. Last year the Giants only had 2 players with more than 331 yards besides Nabers and they were 699 and 573 while Nabers "only" had 1,200 yards (granted in 15 games).  While the Jags second leading receiving was a TE with 411 yards and BTJ also "only" had 1,282 but in all 17 games. If everyone stays healthy and XL/Coker have improved, I think Bryce is going to spread the ball around rather than focus on T-Mac in a way that most of the 1k rookies have been able to get. Again I point to MHJ and the Cardinals last year. They had 3,859 yards receiving.   McBride had 1,146, MHJ had 885, then their 3rd and 4th in rec yards were 548 and 414. Take the 146 and 85 that McBride/MHJ had over my example for our guys and give them to the other two and they get to 7 yards shy of the 600 I'm using for XL/Coker, while the rest of the team added up to 866 yards. So, if you expect T-Mac to get to 1k, where are you taking those yards from? if anything, XL and Coker each getting 600 yards seems like a low projection, so they wouldn't come from there. Maybe they come from Thielen now that we have T-Mac as the true #1.  But I think if anything, having T-Mac draw attention will just make it easier for Thielen to get open and him and Bryce have great chemistry already, he's not going to stop throwing his way if he can pick up easy chunks of yards there. So maybe they come from the RBs, TEs, other WRs, but it's I think a very fair example to show why expecting 1,000 yards if everyone stays healthy isn't necessarily fair to him. It's also why I said I'd then expect at least 1,200 yards in 2026, as once Thielen leave and all 3 of T-Mac/XL/Coker get better, they absorb that 1,000 yards Thielen leaves behind with T-Mac probably taking close to half of it and the other two splitting up the other half.
×
×
  • Create New...