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!

     

Panthers might trade up according Jason loc aflorla if they can't get Watson


Panthers316
 Share

Recommended Posts

The ideal scenario is, of course, Lance or Fields fall to 8. But I think that's really unlikely to happen. Allbright is reporting Lance is going #4 overall to Atlanta. SF would love a chance to get Fields and would def trade up for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

If we're sold on a particular prospect, I'm all for it. Yes, there are four very good QB draft prospects available but history says they almost certainly won't all pan out. Trust your evaluation.

That's just it. We have no idea what our actual QB evaluation will be. If we trade up, we'll have some idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BurnNChinn said:

Really bad idea I’m not trading up for second or third best qb. To give up that much capital for an unknown is never smart imo. 

Texans and Chiefs traded future 1st round picks to trade up for Watson and Mahomes respectively.  

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mage said:

Texans and Chiefs traded future 1st round picks to trade up for Watson and Mahomes respectively.  

Yep I know that, those qbs were better than the ones in this draft. If it wasn’t for teams wanting qbs so bad the ones after Trevor wouldn’t even be thought of in the top 10. I’m just saying I don’t think these qbs this year are worth that. JMO

Edited by BurnNChinn
  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mage said:

Texans and Chiefs traded future 1st round picks to trade up for Watson and Mahomes respectively.  

"Never" is a bad take. The draft is all about risks. It all comes down to how much you trust your organizational evaluation. If your scouting department, coaching staff and GM all think Player X is "the guy" then maybe that big price to go get him isn't outlandish. 

But, you are then subject to the backlash if that ends up whiffing. We just got rid of a front office guy that had a lot of "bold" takes on prospects. It didn't work out too well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BurnNChinn said:

Yep I know that, those qbs were better than the ones in this draft. If it wasn’t for teams wanting qbs so bad the ones after Trevor wouldn’t even be thought of in the top 10. I’m just saying I don’t think these qbs this year are worth that. JMO

Were they as PROSPECTS though? It's easy to say that knowing what they turned out to be in the NFL.

Watson showed the ability to play some real hero ball at Clemson but he was kinda like Fields in that sometimes he looked like the best player in college football while in other games he just looked flat out off. Mahomes had tremendous raw talent but he needed a lot of work from a footwork perspective and their were a lot of question marks about the offense he came out of. Those guys were good prospects but far from slam dunks.

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

    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...