Alternate Trade Up Scenario

[Varking]

1 hour ago, panthers320 said:

The different scenarios end in the exact same result but you are just choosing to classify one as trading multiple 1sts vs not.

In both cases we have to give up 2 picks, its just whether its for Wilson or for the right to pick Wilson. At the end of the day we would end up with Wilson and the Jets would end up with 2 of our 1st round picks. I agree the net is 1 but at the moment in time before the Jets pick they would own multiple (more than 1) 1st round picks from the Panthers regardless of if we traded for a player or one of their picks. 

 

You’re intentionally being difficult for the sake of arguing. 

[panthers320]

2 minutes ago, Varking said:

You’re intentionally being difficult for the sake of arguing. 

No im not. I honestly dont understand how giving up 2 1st is not considered giving up multiple 1sts. If we traded up the jets would have control of multiple of our 1st round picks. We give up more than 1. I get one is a swap but then under that logic you consider watson a swap of a 1st and therefore we arent giving up multiple 1sts. 

[panthers320]

Or understand how if we tell the jets to draft wilson and then we trade 2 1st for him it is considered different than if we traded 2 1st to the jets then drafted wilson. In both cases we give up the rights to 2 1st round picks and get wilson yet people on here consider the offers different (whether we give up multiple firsts or not)

[Daly]

Get fields please 

[Peon Awesome]

1 hour ago, panthers320 said:

No im not. I honestly dont understand how giving up 2 1st is not considered giving up multiple 1sts. If we traded up the jets would have control of multiple of our 1st round picks. We give up more than 1. I get one is a swap but then under that logic you consider watson a swap of a 1st and therefore we arent giving up multiple 1sts. 

For the record, I agree with you. These scenarios we would be trading 2/multiple 1sts. I think it's the other people that are being obtuse. There's no given that we have to give up pick 8 to get pick 2 or 3. What if we traded DJ Moore and a 3rd rounder for pick 3? If swapping 1sts doesn't count as trading a 1st, how do you differentiate that from trading DJ, pick 8 and our 3rd? 

[BrizzMachete]

2 hours ago, Varking said:

It’s prospect fatigue. People have been talking about him for years so they look harder for flaws. Same thing happened with Herbert. When you have these guys blow up for just one season you have less film to kill them for. 

Exactly the point i was tryna make . It’s just people like the new flavor of the month it happens too much for guys that get paid 100 of thousands of dollars to keep repeating . 

[weyco2000]

19 hours ago, Ship said:

One of my preferences in trading for an established QB vs a rookie is the value of the picks we’d be giving up is greater for a rookie vs a vet. Conceivably with a rookie next year we could easily be in the top 10. With a vet I think we’re in the middle, maybe even back third of the draft. 

Most of the Huddle ignores these facts, we build OL and next year we’ll be in a Chiefs style position.

[thefuzz]

17 hours ago, cookinbrak said:

Not to mention that someone else would have our top 10 pick.

 

Probably should have worded it better, but you captured my fear.

What I'm scared of is using two top 10 picks on any QB this year not named Trevor.

[thefuzz]

Or Watson...I should add.

[DeAngelo Beason]

19 hours ago, thefuzz said:

We've been middling for the last 25 years.

I sincerely hope you were not on board with Hurney 2.0, Keeping Ron, Bringing in Teddy, etc...if you are now talking about rushing things?

This team should have done it correctly, Tepper had no idea how to do that, and now we find ourselves in dire straights.  In this instance, I'd rather do it right, rather than right now.

We missed our shot, now we will have to wait.

Here's what happens when you have an "ok" QB.... You get a guy who gets you just enough wins each year to ensure you NEVER get to draft an elite signal caller.

THAT is EXAAAAACTLY why the Panthers have been middling for 25 years.  How many super bowls would the Panthers have won during the Delhomme era if you'd replaced Delhomme with Peyton Manning?  I'm thinking 2 - 3 at least.  The trade off for going up and grabbing him would have been the unstoppable Jason Peters, and maybe Rashard Anderson (if you extrapolate out trading a few first rounders to go up and get him)...

First rounders are great, but I think this board greatly overvalues them.  They're still rookies, and there is still a TON of uncertainty surrounding them, as we've seen from Shaq and Vernon Butler.

[thefuzz]

4 minutes ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

Here's what happens when you have an "ok" QB.... You get a guy who gets you just enough wins each year to ensure you NEVER get to draft an elite signal caller.

THAT is EXAAAAACTLY why the Panthers have been middling for 25 years.  How many super bowls would the Panthers have won during the Delhomme era if you'd replaced Delhomme with Peyton Manning?  I'm thinking 2 - 3 at least.  The trade off for going up and grabbing him would have been the unstoppable Jason Peters, and maybe Rashard Anderson (if you extrapolate out trading a few first rounders to go up and get him)...

First rounders are great, but I think this board greatly overvalues them.  They're still rookies, and there is still a TON of uncertainty surrounding them, as we've seen from Shaq and Vernon Butler.

Didn't want Teddy as I knew we would be dog poo and he would win us just enough games to not have us able to pick a top QB this year.  What happened?

That was a dumbass move by the Panthers, and anyone that had an eye knew it.

We tried to build the team wrong.  Continuing to build the team wrong could result in MANY years of futility, not just 1 or 2.  These QB's scare me, and it scares me even more that we may have to use 2 1sts (and more) to acquire one of them.