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!

     

49ers trading up to number 3 with Miami!

joemac

By joemac,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Harbingers Grand Master

Harbingers

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, WaterBoy said:

They aren't even at his pro day. 

 

  • Jags: OC Darrell Bevell
  • Jets: GM Joe Douglas, HC Robert Saleh, OC Mike LaFleur
  • Falcons: GM Terry Fontenot, HC Arthur Smith, OC Dave Ragone
  • Eagles: OC Shane Steichen, QBs coach Brian Johnson
  • Lions: GM Brad Holmes, HC Dan Campbell
  • Panthers: GM Scott Fitterer, OC Joe Brady
  • Broncos: GM George Paton, QBs coach Mike Shula

It’s basically Lance or Fields I think. With the other going at 4. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seltzer Veteran

Seltzer

Posted
Posted

I don't understand all the existential dread on this topic...  absolutely zero of these QB's have proven they will be dominant in the NFL, let alone become an established starter...

Ryan Leaf, Jamarcus Russell, RG3, Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, Mitch Trebisky, Sam Darnold, Sam Rosen (remember him), etc, etc, etc, etc... the list never ever ends of top-drafted QB's that either flame out entirely or at least with their drafted team.

Honestly, even if we draft a QB high, Teddy is/was almost assuredly going to be our starter going into the season and potentially for all of it.

We were all set to go all-in on Watson... thank God we didn't trade for him and then have all this crap happen.

I love the Panthers, but all the stars would have to align for us to overtake Tampa this year, even had we gotten Watson.

We are not 1 player away... of course every team wants to find their franchise guy... but that doesn't happen more often than it does...

Everyone wants better QB play, but short-circuiting a team that is being built the right way to do so isn't going to help us in the long-term.

Statistics tell us it is an almost certainty that at least 2 of the top 4 QB's (Lawrence, Wilson, Fields, Lance) are going to be massive disappointments.

I understand you have to take a chance to get one of these young QB's, but there is no guarantee this is going to work out for the Niners... 

But it's much easier to make the case that they should make that risk versus the Panthers since they really are arguably one player away

  • Pie 6
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImaginaryKev Grand Master

ImaginaryKev

Posted
Posted
Just now, TheRumGone said:

Lance would thrive in SF

I agree. I have no idea how guys in the draft will turn out but I would not be surprised to see people's basement mock drafts all turned to rubbish come draft day. It happens every year and still people will call you dumb for making a bold draft prediction or say a guy is a "lock" to go anywhere

  • Pie 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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      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
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      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.
×
×
  • Create New...