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!

     

Panthers Well Represented at Fields 2nd Pro Day

ncfan

By ncfan,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

This makes the most sense. I don’t know why people are struggling with this. We got Darnold because there was significant doubt Fields will be there at 8. After the draft, Darnold’s price could go up for desperate teams. We went ahead and secured our backup plan for little draft cost.

The article you linked in the next post contradicts your take on Darnold.

Quoting:

The real question is: does it make sense to still take a quarterback? Giving up three draft picks, although not a huge haul, are still three draft picks at the end of the day. You don't just give that kind of draft capital for a guy you hope can be the answer and maybe be a backup to the guy you draft in the first round. That's a type of move that shows you have confidence in the player that you're trading for. 

Could this just be the Panthers bluffing to get teams from behind them to trade up into Carolina's spot? Possibly. Then again, if Brady, Rhule, and Fitterer truly fall in love with Fields maybe they do draft him and let he and Darnold compete. It's all a game of unknowns right now and one that we likely won't know the answer to until draft night. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

The article you linked in the next post contradicts your take on Darnold.

Quoting:

The real question is: does it make sense to still take a quarterback? Giving up three draft picks, although not a huge haul, are still three draft picks at the end of the day. You don't just give that kind of draft capital for a guy you hope can be the answer and maybe be a backup to the guy you draft in the first round. That's a type of move that shows you have confidence in the player that you're trading for. 

Could this just be the Panthers bluffing to get teams from behind them to trade up into Carolina's spot? Possibly. Then again, if Brady, Rhule, and Fitterer truly fall in love with Fields maybe they do draft him and let he and Darnold compete. It's all a game of unknowns right now and one that we likely won't know the answer to until draft night. 

It takes both sides hinting at it’s all a games of unknowns. That’s the whole point of the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

It takes both sides hinting at it’s all a games of unknowns. That’s the whole point of the article.

It allows that the Panthers could draft Fields and allow he and Darnold to compete for the starting job.

But this...

Giving up three draft picks, although not a huge haul, are still three draft picks at the end of the day. You don't just give that kind of draft capital for a guy you hope can be the answer and maybe be a backup to the guy you draft in the first round. That's a type of move that shows you have confidence in the player that you're trading for. 

... directly contradicts this:

We got Darnold because there was significant doubt Fields will be there at 8. We went ahead and secured our backup plan for little draft cost.

As I've said previously, Darnold is not a "just in case". The team legitimately views him as a starter.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tijo Newbie

tijo

Posted
Posted

We would be stupid if Fields fell, and he was the best option left but we passed on him because we didn't have our people look at him.

I think he'll be better than Wilson or Lance or Jones. And I think that if he's there, we should take him, unless Sewell is there.  If Sewell is there you turn in the card with 9:59 left.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

It allows that the Panthers could draft Fields and allow he and Darnold to compete for the starting job.

But this...

Giving up three draft picks, although not a huge haul, are still three draft picks at the end of the day. You don't just give that kind of draft capital for a guy you hope can be the answer and maybe be a backup to the guy you draft in the first round. That's a type of move that shows you have confidence in the player that you're trading for. 

... directly contradicts this:

We got Darnold because there was significant doubt Fields will be there at 8. We went ahead and secured our backup plan for little draft cost.

As I've said previously, Darnold is not a "just in case". The team legitimately views him as a starter.

So the real catch is what the writer thinks a future 2nd and 6th, 4th round picks are valued. Do I value them as strong enough capital to pass on a potential franchise QB if he happens to fall to us at 8? Absolutely not. I think it was used to move on from Teddy (apparently Tepper wants this) and secure a young QB with potential in case the one we like isn’t there at 8 (which he very well might not be). Do they think Darnold can be a starter? Yeah I think they believe that. A top 10 drafted QB is viewed at as more than just a starter. They can be franchise changers. Alex Smith was a solid starter yet the Chiefs still traded up for Mahomes. It all boils down to how they view Fields and none of us know the answer nor should we at this point. 

Here is a great example. We viewed Teddy as a starter and gave him a solid contract showing our confidence in him. They have stated if Herbert fell to them he would have been the pick. Imagine if he did fall and we didn’t draft him because we had a potential starter in Teddy and too many needs in other areas...

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PantherPhann89 Mentor

PantherPhann89

Posted
Posted

It's hard to get a bead on what direction our current staff will go with their decision making. It's easy to get caught up in the past regimes, but as far as this draft goes:  I think that Sam Darnold was our trade/starter/fill in.

Meaning if we can't draft who they want, Sam is the starter and we'd draft accordingly.

If we can draft the QB we want, we'd draft him and continue to let Darnold start and fill in till he's/draft pick is ready.

 

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...