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!

     

Tony Pauline: Panthers sleeper team to trade for Sam Darnold


TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

I would be completely fine with this.  Two things must happen simultaneously: if selection #8 is on the clock and the 'big 4' are all gone, we are on the phone with the Jets for Darnold (assuming they took a QB--Wilson) and we have offers to move back. 

If this transpires, we take the best OT on the board several picks later to block for Darnold when he gets here.

Not the ideal scenario, but a very solid plan 'B'.

Unless Sewell is there.   Which probably would happen if 4 qbs are gone.   I still think one drops it’s just a matter if we like that particular player.   They may think darnold is a better option than say lance.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Unless Sewell is there.   Which probably would happen if 4 qbs are gone.   I still think one drops it’s just a matter if we like that particular player.   They may think darnold is a better option than say lance.   

Sorry, but no.  Immediately better?   Sure, but this game is not played for "today", unless you are the Bucs.  That would be extremely short-sighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 45catfan said:

Sorry, but no.  Immediately better?   Sure, but this game is not played for "today", unless you are the Bucs.  That would be extremely short-sighted.

I am just saying there is a chance.  Lance is a good 2-3 years away from being a quality starter if that.  I like the dude but I am going to trust the staffs judgement.  He is 20.  Played in just a handful of games and that obviously was at the fcs level.   I am just saying it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see them pass on lance at 8.  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd much prefer Minshew, but kicking the tires on Darnold for a 3rd-4th rounder sounds good to me. If we're not drafting our franchise guy, swing for the fences on Darnold.  He either sucks (and we pick high), or he gets the stank of Gase off of him and shows some potential under Brady. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 45catfan said:

Sorry, but no.  Immediately better?   Sure, but this game is not played for "today", unless you are the Bucs.  That would be extremely short-sighted.

Lance is no more talented than Darnold. They both have technical flaws to fix.

  • Pie 2
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

    • Would Morgan or Beason have been HOFers' if injuries hadn't derailed their careers?  I was not a close watcher of the game when Morgan was in his prime but I thought Beason had a few seasons at close to Lukes' level of play.
    • Franchise QBs feast when things are rolling and the tide that raises boats when things are going sideways.  Bryce isn't that. He's a complimentary player, that's it.  When the defense and STs are on point, he plays loose and it shows.  When we are in a dog fight and things haven't gone our way, he struggles.  It's that simple. He's not a horrible QB, but he's not top tier either.  So the question begs, is this worthy of a second contract?  The answer should be no.  It definitely is my answer. Bryce will never be a QB that can produce wins largely on his arm.  That's a FRANCHISE QB, any other QB is simply a placeholder at the starter's position until that guy can be found.   At some point the excuses of lack of weapons will be a straw man.  Heck, it's nearly there now.  I mean if he doesn't look even better than last year will we blame it on the TE position?  'Well if Bryce only had a player like Kelce, Kittle or Gronk on this team...'  Are we really going to do that?  
    • When I arrived at college, I was 18, not too much younger than some of these draft picks.  It was not a huge school, but there were guys on the team who were 21, 22, 23....playing ahead of me.  I was seventh on the depth chart.  Those guys have been through a few seasons, were stronger, more knowledgeable.  I was a better raw player than some of them, but those other factors matter.  As I grew stronger, more familiar with the playbook, and learned what it was like to play in college, I gradually improved and with that, I rose up the depth chart.  It took most of my freshman year for the light to come on.  Had the coach thrown me into the starting lineup day 1, I would have probably failed.    And that was college.  So I agree with you based on my experience on a much lower level.  Frankly, I think that is why so many kids drafted to fill huge gaps bust.  The teams are desperate.  Anyone who looks to fill vacancies in the starting lineup through the draft is desperate.  You draft depth to develop.  For this reason, I say, "Let Walker start for a while."  Maybe Brazzell can be our WR 4.  Throw Hunter into a rotation and ask him to do one or two things.  Freeling needs some strength and he needs to work on run blocking.
×
×
  • Create New...