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!

     

Verge's 2021 Mock Draft


Verge
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

You sure about that?

Two of those got their rings without playing in the game.

 

5 of the last 10 Super Bowl winning QBs were first round picks.

The non first rounders were: Brady x 3, Russ and Foles. 

First rounders were Rodgers, Flacco, Eli, Peyton, and Mahomes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

That's the way you see it.

As I've mentioned many times, the Panthers don't necessarily see things the way you do.

As I've laid out many times and right above, it's not just my opinion. Several other options had to fail for us to trade for Darnold. That's reality. I'm not going to engage in mental gymnastics to try to convince myself that we planned all along to end up with Sam Darnold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I don't think he was as high as #3. Watson seems clearly #1. Then we made a significant trade offer for Stafford. And it was reported that we at least reached out to Miami about #3 overall.

And inquired about Russ in Seattle.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

 

If you take a first round quarterback and Darnold turns out good, you've wasted a number eight overall pick on a backup when you could have solidified another starting position.

No you haven't. Now you have your choice. Roll with the rookie or stick with Darnold. Trade the other. Or if we didn't pickup Darnold's option, let him walk and take the 3rd round comp pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Rings are the only indicator of success? Either way, now do the same for former top 10 busts on their second team...

Well if you don't want to count rings as an indicator, there was this guy named Collins that led his team to a Super Bowl (I forget who drafted him).

If you do count rings, then there's a quarterback named Plunkett who was taken number one overall. He wound up getting two of them.

Another guy named Dilfer got a ring with another team after not working out at his first stop too.

Of course there's that Tannehill guy too. No rings yet, but you said that isn't the only indicator.

And likewise, while they weren't all necessarily top three picks, there are plenty of guys who were considered "busts" who wound up being pretty good with their second team, or third or more in some cases.

It's not like it's unprecedented.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

As I've laid out many times and right above, it's not just my opinion. Several other options had to fail for us to trade for Darnold. That's reality. I'm not going to engage in mental gymnastics to try to convince myself that we planned all along to end up with Sam Darnold.

And again, how you think it happened doesn't square with what the team says.

Your response to that so far has been that if what's reported doesn't that's what you think happened, it must be a lie.

I'm not ready to buy that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Well if you don't want to count rings as an indicator, there was this guy named Collins that led his team to a Super Bowl (I forget who drafted him).

If you do count rings, then there's a quarterback named Plunkett who was taken number one overall. He wound up getting two of them.

Another guy named Dilfer got a ring with another team after not working out at his first stop too.

Of course there's that Tannehill guy too. No rings yet, but you said that isn't the only indicator.

And likewise, while they weren't all necessarily top three picks, there are plenty of guys who were considered "busts" who wound up being pretty good with their second team, or third or more in some cases.

It's not like it's unprecedented.

Wait, I thought we were just talking about guys drafted since 2010 per the link you were spiking the football over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I don't think he was as high as #3. Watson seems clearly #1. Then we made a significant trade offer for Stafford. And it was reported that we at least reached out to Miami about #3 overall.

well, 3rd option in regards to addressing the QB situation not via draft.    And like I said, the fact we went looking at Stafford/Watson and how we did Teddy in the process.....kinda built the need for a 3rd option whether we initially had anyone in mind there or not.    I think failing to get Stafford/Watson created a weird environment.  Then they just had to get a body to replace Teddy with. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jayflip said:

I hated the Vernon Butler pick and wanted a Henry. Waste of a fuging pick and it still bums me out. 

true, I already deleted him from the memory bank.  Worst first round pick since Butler. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously if Sewell is not there you want to trade down, but you need a partner with good enough compensation to do that, easier said than done. Horn fits the grade at 8 so I imagine they feel comfortable enough to take him there if they have to.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

And again, how you think it happened doesn't square with what the team says.

Your response to that so far has been that if what's reported doesn't that's what you think happened, it must be a lie.

I'm not ready to buy that.

They have said Sam allows us to take BPA and not reach for need. 

I don’t get why this is so hard to understand. 
 

if they like a qb at 8 like Lance or fields then based on those statements they will take the qb. They’ve literally said it wouldn’t stop them from taking a qb.

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

    • We've got another viral Panthers song The dab is back Jags Week 1, Ohio State National Title, JLo got divorced...   Nature is healing, it's Super Bowl time
    • Its too late for that.  Time has run out.  You dont give him a ext if he plays "decent".  He played "decent" at the end of last year and look what happened.  
    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
×
×
  • Create New...