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!

     

Are You Really Against Fields or Lance if they fall to #8...


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Panthera onca said:

Seems like San Fran may have their eyes on Fields now. The Mac talk may have been an elaborate smokescreen.

No need for a smoke screen they have the #3 pick, and for all accounts #1 and #2 are locked in. Fields isn't going #2. 

The Wilson love / hype  is too real, right now Fields is being drug through the mud similar to how Cam was, and Lance coming from a smaller school / less competition you're not really hearing too much about him. 

  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to get Fields or Lance. The problem I have with selecting them tho is that everyone claims the Jets didn’t build around Darnold like they should to put him in a position to be successful. If we grab a QB when we could trade back, I feel like we are passing up a good chance to put Darnold in a great position. A first round selection and an extra early to mid 2nd rounder could be huge in providing Darnold with the protection and weapons he should have gotten with the Jets. Plus, adding defensive help always benefits the offense as well.

  • Pie 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

right now Fields is being drug through the mud similar to how Cam was 

Yeah I just saw a recent mock on nfl.com that had fields drafted at #24 and to “sit for a year to learn.”Absolutely insane.

If he’s there at #8 please draft him panthers.

Edited by TheRumGone
  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mbarbour21 said:

I would love to get Fields or Lance. The problem I have with selecting them tho is that everyone claims the Jets didn’t build around Darnold like they should to put him in a position to be successful. If we grab a QB when we could trade back, I feel like we are passing up a good chance to put Darnold in a great position. A first round selection and an extra early to mid 2nd rounder could be huge in providing Darnold with the protection and weapons he should have gotten with the Jets. Plus, adding defensive help always benefits the offense as well.

WR - DJ Moore (Emerging Elite WR) / Robby Anderson (One of the best vertical threats in the league - has rapport with Sam) / David Moore is capable, and we're like to add a rooki

HB - CMC (Best all around back in the NFL), depth can be added Day 2 / 3 of the draft

TE - Dan Arnold is an emerging vertical threat, and Ian was surprisingly good when CAM was throwing to him

OL was middle of the pack last year even with all the injuries, stands to reason we will improve even if slightly -- people gotta stop acting like quality OL is only available in the 1st. Some of our best OL have come on day 2 (Trai / Moton / Norwell UDFA)

--------------------------------------------------------------

There is plenty around Sam to succeed while still making the best move for this team moving forward IF a top QB prospect falls. 

Very little need to worry about that, plus our cap space moving forward is JAX Jaguars'esque

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

35 minutes ago, TheProcess said:

I agree, not drafting Mac at 8

Depending who is on the board, I may select or may trade down 

I know y'all hate the Brady comparisons - and I'm not going to make one - but there's a fun clip of Brady in the 'Brady 6' documentary. It's about the 6 QBs that were taken before him (and you better believe he remembers their names).

Anyway he makes the salient point that QB play is about what's between the ears (11 mins into the doc below - it's well worth a watch).

Most on here seem to be wrapped up in physical attributes (tall, mobile, big [enough] arm) when really that's not what wins you football games at the next level. NFL evaluators think Jones has the mental side of the game down and they're trying to learn from the Brady / Brees / Wilson mistakes. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, PanthersGTI said:

I don't pretend to know how to evaluate... It might as well have been me making those picks. 

Have you noticed the bust rate of NFL picks? It's a lottery, and even the "experts" are wrong all. the. time. Part of the reason I'm very happy to trade down if the option presents itself. You mitigate risk with more chances at hitting on the non-busts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing you have to consider is not only "do you want the player?" or not, but "what are you actually surrendering to take the player?" 

So the question is, "Do you take Lance or Fields knowing that they will take over for Darnold within a year?  If so, you lose Darnold and the picks we gave up for 1 year of service.  If we offer him the fifth year, then that is an expensive reserve or cut for a season.  You also give up Slater or Pitts or Waddle in round 1.  That means you HAVE to draft a LT or CB of lesser value in rounds 2 and 3.  So taking a QB in round 1 is more of a gamble than you think.

Which brings me to Mond and Mills.  In 1 year's time, is it possible that either would be ready to start in the NFL?  What if you have red flags with Fields and Lance--use them to trade back a few spots, and use that pick to draft Mills, for example.  Less pressure to start the first round QB, still developing that QB for 2022, and you have a backup plan if Darnold suck arse.  Mills was criticized for declaring for the draft--saying he would have been a top QB in the 2022 draft.  So grab him now. 

Of course, if either QB is there and we don't take him, it will become a historically-preserved chink in Fetterer's armor.  I think, personally, there is a very slim chance Fields falls to us, and odds are against Lance.  There is probably a 50% chance Jones is there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, run-run-pass-punt said:

Have you noticed the bust rate of NFL picks? It's a lottery, and even the "experts" are wrong all. the. time. Part of the reason I'm very happy to trade down if the option presents itself. You mitigate risk with more chances at hitting on the non-busts.

That's why you trade down top of the 2nd and 3rd where the gap between players is larger, or really in the mid to late 1st. There's less busts at the top, and QB is a 50/50 proposition. 

However; QB is such an important spot to get right that IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, when you're in position to take one, you do so if you believe in him. 

Fields has the resume', and to me Lance is worth it knowing you have a starter in Darnold that you're not committed to long term. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

However; QB is such an important spot to get right that IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, when you're in position to take one, you do so if you believe in him. 

Fields has the resume', and to me Lance is worth it knowing you have a starter in Darnold that you're not committed to long term. 

This is what people are failing to understand.  The fact that we traded for Darnold should be irrelevant to building a successful franchise.  If there is a QB who our staff believe is a franchise guy sitting there when we are on the clock, TAKE THE PLAYER.  It shouldn't even be a discussion. 

Darnold could fail (some would argue he has).  The guy we draft could fail.  Nothing else is relevant until you have that guy, so if the cost of getting that guy is a 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th, FINE.  People are going through two, three and four 1st round picks to get a QB already.  This is peanuts.

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally do not see them taking either Fields or Lance in the 8th spot. But of the 2 it would be Fields. Fields played against much stronger defenses than Lance did in college. The one thing that many people don't have much knowledge on about Lance, He played in the Missouri Valley Confrence. I live 3 miles from the Missouri State campus and I can't not tell you the last time Missouri State was competitive til this year when Bobby Patrino (however its spelled) became coach here. Many of the teams might win 4 games a year.

North Dakota St. is a run first team. Lance doesn't take many at risk chances. He almost refuses to throw into tight coverage or thread the needle on passes. He does reminded me of how Cam played. I love watching Cam play in his early years as he was exciting. But Cam could overthrow the tallest wide recieving Corp in the NFL. Drove me nuts.. Lance has the same issues. Not saying his legs can't win us a Super Bowl but he is not a very talented pocket passer. And in the playoffs, due to history, that hasn't worked well for most teams. Also Wentz, had very similar numbers as Lance in college even tho Wentz started for 2 years. On average, Lance threw only about 19 passes per game at the FCS level. It's a huge risk. And I'm not sure Darnold would be a great teacher. I'd say take the best player who fits our needs, Slater, Pitts, Waddle, Sewell or Parsons or Horn. Then if Samuel, doesn't become what they had hoped for, next draft we go for the homegrown boy, from Carolina. Even if he sucks, he will bring fans in the stands. Isn't that what the owners really want...Mo Money. But maybe, just maybe, Casper ( um, um, you know)will be the steal of a trade for our franchise QB. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CRA said:

how is that? 

We are kicking the tires on Sam.  Nothing more.   Lance 100% needs to sit.   So you would have to have a QB to start if you drafted him.   Fields likely could compete with him.  Then you can bring him in slowly.   

Worst case scenario is you end up with two decent QBs on your roster for a cost that isn't bad given one was a draft pick.   Much better organizations than us aren't afraid of drafting a QB....and having him sit. 

Much better organizations usually have an older established vet at QB, a better overall team, and can afford to let a guy sit for a year or two. The Panthers aren't in that position.

1 hour ago, ForJimmy said:

If they are “all in” on Darnold that’s a dangerous game. If a better option is available always pursue it, especially at the QB position. I just don’t see a future 2nd and a couple late round picks as being fully committed to that player.

Being all in on Darnold is no more dangerous than being all in on an unproven rookie draft pick.

54 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

If any of the big five guys happens to be missed until the 8th pick, I don't have the slightest problem with taking any of them.

I want Darnold to have a chance to succeed here, but let's face it, we have minimal investment in him AND a desperate need to find a franchise QB right now. If Fields, Lance or Jones falls to 8 (because there's no chance for the other two) then you have to swing for them and get your guy. Then you work both that guy and Darnold into training camp, preseason and onwards. Watch the development... go with the one who gives us the best chance to win, now and long term. 

Having a rehabbed Darnold and say a top-level performing Jones at the end of next season could be a big deal. If we sign the fifth year option on Darnold, and he is really good then we can either run with him or put him out there as a trade to someone in need. Same goes for the other guy. 

Both New England and Green Bay have had some serious success going this route with a top QB on the field and a first rate understudy waiting in the wings. Either the understudy takes over or goes to a needy team with some serious trade value.

If those guys are all gone (and there is a chance they are) then you go right to OT and grab Slater or Sewell. No questions, no delays, no getting fancy and trying to trade back.

 

New England and Green Bay had established vet starters and could afford to slowly bring a guy along. And exactly how many of those New England guys have been successes outside of New England's system?

1 hour ago, BrianS said:

Exactly.  If our staff think there is a bona fide NFL franchise QB on the board when our pick comes up, you TAKE THE PLAYER.  If we end up with two of them on our roster, FINE, we'll figure it out.

Let's say we draft Fields.  I don't think he starts week one, I think Darnold does.  I think both play extensively in the preseaon.  It also means we are UNLIKELY to pick up the $18 million option on Darnold, meaning he's now in a career year with every motivation to play OUT OF HIS MIND.

Now, suppose Darnold lights it up.  Great.  We've got our franchise QB and the cost was a first and a second.  THAT'S ACCEPTABLE for a franchise QB.  We've also got this guy on our bench who might ALSO turn out great, or at the very least he's a backup better than Teddy / PJ / Beard Guy.  WE WON.

Suppose Darnold is mediocre.  He's probably a better backup than anything we have.  Toward the end of the season Fields comes in and we find out what we've got with him.  Regardless of what Fields does, we've identified a solid backup in Darnold and we are rolling the dice on a top 10 prospect.  ACCEPTABLE AGAIN.

Suppose Darnold is terrible.  Fine.  Fields comes in earlier and we really get to see what we've got there.  Darnold is probably still a low end backup, and we could keep him around as such on a low contract.  We've rolled the dice on a top 10 QB prospect.  ACCEPTABLE OUTCOME.

There is now way drafting a QB at 8, assuming our staff believe in him, can go wrong.  I shouldn't say it that way.  Of course it can go wrong, the guy can fail.  But from the perspective of the franchise, you have to take those sorts of risks and they are just a coin flip. 

There is no version of an NFL roster with too many good QB's on it.  There just isn't.  If you end up with more than one franchise guy, you keep the one you like best and get your draft capital back by trading the other one.

I don't see any other way to look at it.

 

What if the staff think Darnold is a bona fide NFL franchise QB and don't see the need to draft a QB? What if they draft a rookie who plays and he ends up beyond mediocre?

3 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

That's why you trade down top of the 2nd and 3rd where the gap between players is larger, or really in the mid to late 1st. There's less busts at the top, and QB is a 50/50 proposition. 

However; QB is such an important spot to get right that IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, when you're in position to take one, you do so if you believe in him. 

Fields has the resume', and to me Lance is worth it knowing you have a starter in Darnold that you're not committed to long term. 

LT is such an important spot to get right that IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, when you're in position to take one, you do so if you believe in him. Now replace LT with CB, guard, center, safety, etc and you have the current Panthers. The FO may believe Darnold is a franchise QB. If that is the case and Sewell or Slater is there, the team should take whichever is there instead of trading back.

  • Flames 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

Much better organizations usually have an older established vet at QB, a better overall team, and can afford to let a guy sit for a year or two. The Panthers aren't in that position.

Being all in on Darnold is no more dangerous than being all in on an unproven rookie draft pick.

 

We aren’t all in on Darnold.  Just like we weren’t all in on Teddy.  

and drafting a QB means we wouldn’t be all in on him.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

Much better organizations usually have an older established vet at QB, a better overall team, and can afford to let a guy sit for a year or two. The Panthers aren't in that position.

Being all in on Darnold is no more dangerous than being all in on an unproven rookie draft pick.

New England and Green Bay had established vet starters and could afford to slowly bring a guy along. And exactly how many of those New England guys have been successes outside of New England's system?

What if the staff think Darnold is a bona fide NFL franchise QB and don't see the need to draft a QB? What if they draft a rookie who plays and he ends up beyond mediocre?

LT is such an important spot to get right that IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, when you're in position to take one, you do so if you believe in him. Now replace LT with CB, guard, center, safety, etc and you have the current Panthers. The FO may believe Darnold is a franchise QB. If that is the case and Sewell or Slater is there, the team should take whichever is there instead of trading back.

If Darnold WAS a franchise QB he wouldn't have been available for what boils down to a future 2nd. If he was this sure thing NYJ is the perfect position have cashed in that pick for a kings ransom. I covered this already. 

QB is the single most important position to get right on a team, OL is a UNIT, having a good LT is great BUT it is not the end all be all. This day and age you NEED a legit star caliber QB. There were several teams that make the playoffs year in and out with middle of the pack OL's -- BUT they have a QB. 

Aside from protecting your QB being able to get after one is also just as important. If a top QB prospect and SeWell or Slater are the choice you take the QB. Good OL are available at the top of Day 2, and guess where we pick....the top of Day 2. 

When you get the QB right, you're in a better position to get everything else right, then it will come down to competent roster management, we will ALSO have the money to BUY a LT if that's the case 2022 forward. Plenty of options to solidify the OL, less options to solidify QB with a top 10 prospect. 

 

 

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...