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 likely trading back in the first


Zod
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, trueblade said:

Think about this nightmare scenario

JAX - Lawrence
NYJ - Wilson
SF - Fields
ATL - Pitts
CIN - Sewell
MIA - Slater
DET - Lance

I'd be looking to trade down. It's good Fitts has already made some calls.

Waddle/Smith if no one will trade, but someone will want Mac Jones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Likely" trading down isn't mentioned at all, just that it's been explored as I'm sure it is every draft.  Aforementioned trade down to 10 would make some sense if Sewell/Slater are equal in our eyes and one will be there.  

Trading down beyond that and missing on both would be hurtful unless the compensation is overwhelming, which I can't imagine it would be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, ericr0319 said:

this confirms nothing. if Sewell or Slater is there was are stupid to trade back. UNLESS, we receive a 1st, 2nd, and 1st next year. even then we are trading away from a top talent in the draft to get more "pieces"

This is based on hindsight information. You can go team by team, like every expert does, and guess what team is going to take who. You make the best decision in the moment with the knowledge you've accumulated up to that moment...

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, saX man said:

It all depends on how far down and who's available at 8.  This type of thing is impossible to really know with team's keeping their boards close to the chest.

Unpopular opion but I like Eichenberg more than Darrisaw.  If we trade into the teens, there's going to be other positional talent of value as well.  I caution everyone that Seattle has always tended to take some picks that no one expected at the time (Brooks, Collier, even Clark was deemed a stretch for them in the 2nd).

Anticipate picks that we may feel are reaches that really aren't.

Chiefs do as well. Why I have a feeling they will take Eichenberg. That dude is a stud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

Speculation that they could conceivably trade down to 10 with the Eagles but still get one of the top two tackles (if they fell)

I'd probably just go ahead and take one at 8 but I'm a cautious person.

Agreed on taking one at 8. Also, unless something changed and I missed it Philly has the 12 pick so would be going down 4 spots instead of 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

    • It's honestly pretty interesting just seeing this pairing play out. Canales’ offenses (Seattle, Tampa) are run-first, under-center, play-action systems built around defined reads and intermediate/deep timing throws. That structure worked when he had QBs like Baker Mayfield or Russell Wilson in a system that created clear launch points and sightlines. His success has always been tied to a credible run game + play-action gravity. You can see that with the Panthers team building philosophy as well. Coker and TMac both are bigger receivers that won't get the best YAC production but thrive as possession receivers in contested scenarios. They're not the best in space and creating additional yardage in such, and would likely fair better systematically with a stronger armed QB who can create better opportunities on those boundary 1v1 matchups with stronger throws. Bryce, on the other hand, is a spread-native QB. His strengths are rhythm, spacing, quick processing, and off-script creation. Asking him to live in condensed formations with long-developing play-action concepts just hasn't been his forte. And well, his boundary throws are limited in velocity which takes a big chunk of the playbook off. And I mean a QB like Bryce can still work, it's just Dave's offensive philosophy and foundation is very much at odds with Young's physical limits and his own experience. So it's certainly still a learning experience for Dave to figure out how he can mesh his offensive philosophy with Young's strengths. He's very inexperienced with maximizing Bryce's strengths with his system. Would love to see us bring in an OC with spread experience and adaptability to implement a cohesive system with Dave to allow Bryce to thrive, as it's obvious we're sticking with him for a bit longer.   
    • Only thing I really agreed with is questioning why we didn’t take any timeouts on their last drive.  I know hindsight is 20/20, but I think it would’ve saved clock bc they were desperate to score as soon as the opportunity presented itself, but I also think it could’ve helped the defense regroup and maybe give us a better chance to stop them.
×
×
  • Create New...