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!

     

Darnold part of the draft day strategy


JawnyBlaze
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

We've given the Packers a load of sh-t for taking Jordan Love when they could have taken someone to help Aaron Rodgers.

Now we're suggesting the Panthers do the same thing? 🙄

In this scenario, who would be our Aaron Rodgers, the draft pick or the so-far-bust Sam Darnold?

🙈

Given up a second rounder next year who could have helped the draft pick.... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2021 at 6:33 AM, JawnyBlaze said:

I think it’s entirely possible that in addition to hedging our bets with Darnold in case a top four QB doesn’t drop to us, it could also have been a strategy to make teams behind us think we’re not going to draft a QB and therefore have no reason to trade ahead of us. Fitterer’s comment about changing nothing on our board might be next level gamesmanship, causing teams behind us to think that if that’s what Fitterer is saying publicly then his real plan is not to get a QB, making it more likely a QB falls to us. 
 

if that’s the case, then it was a cheap price to pay to increase the likelihood our guy falls to us. If not, it was a cheap price to pay to take a chance on a guy that’s never been put in a situation to succeed and then surround him with talent. 

Either that or someone wanting to trade with us allowing us to add additional picks....it is a CHESS GAME!

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

Because they had a proven, HoF, still playing at an elite level QB? Darnold is a project and far from a sure thing, doubling up just increases our chances of having our next franchise QB especially if a talent like Fields falls to us. It’s really not the same thing at all... The Packers were just in the NFC championship game and still have a window to win it all. We are rebuilding so finding a young QB is possibly the most important part of this rebuild.

Then why not help him out by taking, say, a left tackle?

(especially given that you don't currently have one)

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kass said:

In this scenario, who would be our Aaron Rodgers, the draft pick or the so-far-bust Sam Darnold?

🙈

Given up a second rounder next year who could have helped the draft pick.... 😉

Think of it this way...

Would you prefer to have a starting quarterback and a starting left tackle or a starting quarterback, a backup quarterback and no left tackle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Then why not help him out by taking, say, a left tackle?

(especially given that you don't currently have one)

I think we can get one in round 2. If Fields is gone (which he probably will be) then I’m all for Sewell, Slater, or Lance (depending on how they view him).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ForJimmy said:

I think we can get one in round 2. If Fields is gone (which he probably will be) then I’m all for Sewell, Slater, or Lance (depending on how they view him).

Like we did just two years ago?

How many times in the past has this team thought they could get a left tackle in a later round?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Like we did just two years ago?

How many times in the past has this team thought they could get a left tackle in a later round?

 

Better chance this year with the depth of this class. Every pick is a gamble. If they think Lance can become Mahomes, then you gotta take him at 8.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Like we did just two years ago?

How many times in the past has this team thought they could get a left tackle in a later round?

 

This draft is suppose to be deep at LT. We also had different people drafting players in the past. Can’t hold Fitts/Rhule accountable for Hurney’s mistakes. Your option is assuming Darnold is a capable starting QB in this league. He might be or he might not be. Darnold is our backup plan in case the draft goes QB crazy which is probably will. It also prevents us from having to compete in a bidding war to move up. Im just saying, only IF our guy falls to 8, we draft him. Let Darnold and him battle it out. Having two talented QBs wouldn’t be a bad thing. Darnold might even start until the rookie is ready. I think Fields is a blue chip QB that would be too good of a prospect to pass on compared to Darnold. Hopefully we will never draft this high again for a while...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pup McBarky said:

Better chance this year with the depth of this class. Every pick is a gamble. If they think Lance can become Mahomes, then you gotta take him at 8.

Heard that before too.

Each time we have a chance at finally solidifying our offensive line, we find an excuse not to. Then we wonder why we are where we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I think we can get one in round 2. If Fields is gone (which he probably will be) then I’m all for Sewell, Slater, or Lance (depending on how they view him).

You think.  But we definitely without any reasonable doubt select a LT at 8.  Why continue to kick the can down the road?

 

And we aint drafting Lance at 8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Heard that before too.

Each time we have a chance at finally solidifying our offensive line, we find an excuse not to. Then we wonder why we are where we are.

Again, as @ForJimmysaid, you can't judge Fitz/Rhule by mistakes of the past. It's a deep class at OT. We could get a solid starter in round 2. 

Personally, I'd prefer to trade 8 back and pick up an extra pick or two, draft Darrisaw later in the first and pick a stud OG or C along with a CB in the 2nd and 3rd. And yes, I'd pass on Lance. But that's me.

  • 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

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to compete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...