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!

     

McShay has us trading picks moving from 8th to 7th with Detroit to pick Lance

panthers55

By panthers55,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

AU-panther Mentor

AU-panther

Posted
Posted
On 4/3/2021 at 7:39 AM, panthers55 said:

https://www.derp/2021/4/1/22362214/carolina-panthers-trade-up-gamble-on-quarterback-trey-lance-nfl-mock-draft-todd-mcshay-espn

Maybe it is just me but why would we trade up from 8th to 7th with Detroit to pick a guy who will be there anyway. If they really wanted Lance they wouldn't make the trade and they likely won't go QB after trading for Goff. They need weapons around him like WRs.  If Detroit wanted a QB I could see us trading ahead of Detroit if we thought they wanted Lance but not with Detroit. Tell me where my thinking is flawed 

Lets say Fields is still on the board at 7 and we really like Fields.  Detroit calls and says "give us a third to move up one spot" or we are taking a future 1st from WFT to trade with them.  We give up a third to move one spot to insure we get the QB we like.

On 4/3/2021 at 8:02 AM, panthers55 said:

Then unless we think Lance is so much better than Fields we just let them and pick Fields and save our picks. Or that team picks Fields and we get Lance. 

You are thinking like a fan, not a team.  Most fans will be happy with any of the top-4 QBs.  Chances are though, that most teams, after lengthy evaluations, will definitely like one QB more than the other.  History though tells us that often those teams guess wrong, and sometimes not getting what you want ends up better.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peppers90 NC Community Regular

Peppers90 NC

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AU-panther said:

Lets say Fields is still on the board at 7 and we really like Fields.  Detroit calls and says "give us a third to move up one spot" or we are taking a future 1st from WFT to trade with them.  We give up a third to move one spot to insure we get the QB we like.

That is pretty reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChibCU Experienced

ChibCU

Posted
Posted
On 4/3/2021 at 9:15 AM, WarPanthers89 said:

We get a future franchise QB without trading multiple first round picks? Consider me sold. 

What are the gas prices like in 2027? I assume you've time travelled back here to give us this "future franchise QB" information.

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...