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!

     

Russell Wilson to Carolina?


HardcoreHokie
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Three firsts, a third and two players.

The available players they were willing to offer reportedly included Khalil Mack and Akiem Hicks.

Is this official, or just rumored? Sorry, I didn't really read much on that potential deal.

Those (3) 1st would presumably all be late picks starting with 20 this year. Pick 8 is worth more than pick 20, 2022 1st, and that 3rd rounder. I would say picks 8 and 40 are worth more than all those picks combined.

Khalil Mack is a great player, but in my opinion is a negative in that trade. His cap hit goes to $30 million next year (2022), and then has 3 years left on the contract through 2024.  

Hicks will be a FA next offseason, and will also command a large contract. 

This is not me making a case for Russell, because I am certainly not. Just trying to see if the Bears offered the value that people keep saying.

 

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

1 minute ago, TheProcess said:

Is this official, or just rumored? Sorry, I didn't really read much on that potential deal.

Those (3) 1st would presumably all be late picks starting with 20 this year. Pick 8 is worth more than pick 20, 2022 1st, and that 3rd rounder. I would say picks 8 and 40 are worth more than all those picks combined.

Khalil Mack is a great player, but in my opinion is a negative in that trade. His cap hit goes to $30 million next year (2022), and then has 3 years left on the contract through 2024.  

This is not me making a case for Russell, because I am certainly not. Just trying to see if the Bears offered the value that people keep saying.

Officially reported from a couple of different sources.

If I recall correctly, the source that had the names of specific players was Albert Breer.

Edited by Mr. Scot
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Watson/Wilson rumors have actually talked me into being the most comfortable with a slight trade up for Lance or Fields whether it's to #3 or #5. 

I'd prefer we have a deal with MIA set up going into the draft and get ourselves Lance for less without losing any players, 6-8 less years under his belt, and all the potential in the world.

Package that with some weapons and linemen to round out the draft and we can go into the season with the usual void in the secondary lol.

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Trainwreck said:

I rather have Wilson over Watson. I would take him 11 out of 10 times. And nothing has to do with the Watson drama. Watson knows how to win, Watson is still learning how to win. Wilson is older but his season last year was by far from impressive than Watson who was pretty much playing from behind the whole season. Forty passing touchdowns. 

He specifically wants out of a market that is just like Charlotte and they turned down Mack, Ayers and 3 first round picks.

I want Watson bc of the likelihood he would stay....Wilson is a total wild card with Ciara. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, unicar15 said:

He specifically wants out of a market that is just like Charlotte and they turned down Mack, Ayers and 3 first round picks.

I want Watson bc of the likelihood he would stay....Wilson is a total wild card with Ciara. 

Just curious, but how is the Seattle market "just like" Charlotte?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, unicar15 said:

He specifically wants out of a market that is just like Charlotte and they turned down Mack, Ayers and 3 first round picks.

I want Watson bc of the likelihood he would stay....Wilson is a total wild card with Ciara. 

Mack’s cap hit is 30 mill after this year. 

I think you mean Hicks not Ayers and Hicks is a free agent after this season so he provides no real value with 1 year left.

If that’s really the best the Bears could offer no wonder they were turned down. That’s a terrible package for Seattle

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, *FreeFua* said:

Mack’s cap hit is 30 mill after this year. 

I think you mean Hicks not Ayers and Hicks is a free agent after this season so he provides no real value with 1 year left.

If that’s really the best the Bears could offer no wonder they were turned down. That’s a terrible package for Seattle

 

Yeah maybe you’re right. Maybe Burns is more valuable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, unicar15 said:

Yeah maybe you’re right. Maybe Burns is more valuable. 

Both had 10 sacks and 3 forced fumbles last season. Obviously there’s a ton more besides these two stats but yeah.

One is 30 on a huge contract while the other is going into his 3rd season on a rookie deal and is still improving. 

It ain’t even close imo 

Edited by *FreeFua*
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

    • In all honesty, outside of the Saints games, I don't think we will be favored in any remaining game (unless Tampa is playing their backups against us week 18)
    • Rough back half of the schedule. NFC West looks like the best division (up there with NFC North), Tampa has been very good this year (despite their injuries), and I can't remember the last time we swept the season series with Atl (easily more than 10 years). I think we go 8-9 - beat the Saints twice and go 1-1 against the Bucs.
    • Quoted rom one of the many Bryce threads... Wanted to reply to this, but since my answer turned into a go route (i.e. went long) I thought I'd put it in a separate thread. So here's my take on the names mentioned above...and a few others. ... Lance was a prototypical "take an athlete and teach him to play quarterback" example who now serves as an example of why that's a bad idea. Worth remembering that Lance was given to a coach heralded as a QB guru with a friendly system. In the end though, even that potentially ideal situation wasn't enough. And the fact those events were followed up by said guru taking his team to the Super Bowl with a QB who went undrafted helps bolster the folly.of that approach. But then you have Wilson, an actual quarterback with off the charts passing skill. This guy's sure to succeed, right? Well...wrong, which demonstrates that even the right skill set doesn't guarantee success.  Could Wilson have succeeded in a better situation under better coaching? Unknown, but it's a question I find myself asking a lot. (See also: Levis, Will) Rosen falls into the Ryan Leaf / Ryan Mallet category, i.e. don't hand the keys to your billion dollar franchise over to a dickhead. Character matters, and not strictly in the 'upright citizen vs thuggish criminal ' way. (I could add maybe don't draft guys with the first name 'Ryan' unless they went to Harvard, and even then only in the 7th round) Darnold is another guy who likely could have benefited from a better situation / coaching (see also Carr: David). Heck, it also might have helped to send him to The Wizard and have him ask for "da noiv", or perhaps to Egon Spengler and company to chase away any and all "ghosts". Sending him to Matt Rhule? 😬 Yeah...definitely not the answer 😕 But hey, at least he's doing better now. (ttill playoff time, anyway) Mind you, Drew Brees does serve as proof that guys who land in less than ideal - or just flat out lousy - situations early on can indeed resurrect their careers later on in better surroundings. Will Darnold go that far? Unknown, but we do know it's possible. Kenny Pickett (also known by the X-Men moniker 'Littlehand') is that proverbial great college quarterback who for one reason or another just doesn't cut it in the pros.  (gotta say, feels like the past several drafts have put forth a lot of that particular QB archetype) Mac Jones could arguably carry this label as well, though I'm waiting to see how things play out in San Francisco. For now, Jones might be a better example of why you should always be cautious and skeptical of guys from certain systems. Justin Fields is a cell in that spreadsheet column, as is Kyler Murray. Now I'm sure someone here will mention another certain quarterback we're all quite familiar with as a prime example of this subset too 😐 Fair point, though I think he, Murray and Tagovailoa work better under the heading of "Davids". What's a David? It's a guy you send to battle against a "Goliath". And by all means, bet on that guy if he's a shepherd.  If he's a quarterback, though? 🤔 Root for him, encourage him, appreciate his courage and be inspired by him... ...but don't draft him. The return on investment might be a great story, but it's not likely to be one that involves championships and rings. ... Bottom Line? You've no doubt heard the saying "this ain't rocket science".  Well, I'd argue saying "this ain't quarterback evaluation" might truly make a better negative metaphorical comparison. At least with rocket science, it's science. You're working with things that have some level of consistency, even predictability. Stuff like chemistry, physics, metallurgy, etc. Things that have rules. Human beings?  Specifically young male athletes with competing amounts of ego and testosterone, who've generally been heavily catered to a lot of their lives, and have now been handed large sums money and a portal to fame... Yeah, good luck with that  Heck, you might get better odds buying a Powerball ticket, or perhaps playing a roulette wheel at a Vegas casino 😖 (gambling involves risk; please play responsibility; for help with gambling addiction call the Gambling Hotline at 1-800-522-4700)
×
×
  • Create New...