Panthers Intrigued by Fields

[ECHornet]

22 minutes ago, Aussie Tank said:

Hearing you but it wouldn’t be a competition. And if it was we would look like fools either way Darnold losses we wasted 3 picks and if he wins we wasted a top 10 selection. 

If either wins and goes on to be a franchise QB, then we look like geniuses. No one will care about the picks missed out on for the loser (which could likely be recouped by trading the loser).

[ForJimmy]

There is a very good chance we trade next year’s second and a couple late picks for Darnold because we doubted the QB we wanted would be there at 8. Go ahead and lock up our backup plan before the draft so

A) teams are less tempted to jump us and draft a QB 

B) we won’t have to trade the farm to jump up and grab a QB we like

C) we won’t have to worry about getting into a bidding war for Darnold with desperate teams who couldn’t land a QB in the draft after it’s over

This does not mean we are set and don’t draft a guy that falls to us. Those three picks wouldn’t be wasted. Darnold would have an advantage to start the season since he has been in the league 3 years. If our rookie is good we can ease him in and trade Darnold next year if we pick up his 5th year.

 

[Mr. Scot]

1 hour ago, BrianS said:

No its not!

ANY OUTCOME which sees you walk away from a first round pick and a second round pick with a franchise QB is a HUGE WIN.  There is no more important position on the field.

Every other pick you make is irrelevant until you have "the guy".  How much more obvious can it be?  How many non-franchise QB's have won a SB lately? 

Foles?  I mean, sure, the Eagles caught lightning in a bottle and won it with Foles, but I strongly suspect if Foles was forced to play that entire season he would have been found out and abused long before winning a Lombardi.  Who else? 

Flacco?  Dude has started 175 games in 11 years and thrown for over 40k yards.  The year he won the trophy he threw for 1100 yards, 11 TD and 0 INT's in the postseason.  Yes please.

You really have to go back to Brad Johnson to find a bona fide "nobody" QB winning a Super Bowl.  That's nearly 20 years ago, long before the NFL made the changes that ushered in the era of the QB.

We rolled the dice on Darnold.  I have zero problems rolling the dice on a second QB if a guy our staff believes in falls.  Maybe both of them fail, and then we'll be wondering why we didn't give up everything to go get Wilson/Lawrence/Lance or whoever succeeds.  The most important factor in our success as a franchise is finding that guy.

Yeah, that's... horrible thinking when you're talking about a rebuilding team with multiple needs.

By that logic, we could use our first and second picks on a quarterback or more because...hey, screw team building if we don't have a quarterback, right?

And hey, it's not like a pass rusher could get past our mediocre left tackle and snap our franchise quarterback in two either, right. That never happens!

Wait...Joe who? He plays where?

Edited April 21, 2021 by Mr. Scot

[ForJimmy]

1 minute ago, ECHornet said:

If either wins and goes on to be a franchise QB, then we look like geniuses. No one will care about the picks missed out on for the loser (which could likely be recouped by trading the loser).

Yeah no team has ever been upset with having two productive young QBs. Especially at the value they are currently holding... and if Darnold struggles we would be very thankful we would already have another option.

[Shocker]

Interesting that Jimmy mentioned that the Darnold deal does not take them out of the draft QB market.  Rhule said that, Fitty said it and now JJ said it.  Maybe we should believe them.

[Aussie Tank]

4 minutes ago, ECHornet said:

If either wins and goes on to be a franchise QB, then we look like geniuses. No one will care about the picks missed out on for the loser (which could likely be recouped by trading the loser).

If*

[onmyown]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

You're talking like everybody was in favor of that idea.

A lot of us weren't.

I just said people. If I had to guess...I’d say at least 50% of this forum. And that was before the 49ers trade. People seemed to flip poo about the 49ers trade in the thread when it happened because it wasn’t us.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, ForJimmy said:

Yeah no team has ever been upset with having two productive young QBs. Especially at the value they are currently holding... and if Darnold struggles we would be very thankful we would already have another option.

Or Darnold could be perfectly fine and Fields be awful (or vice versa) but the good one gets beaten to hell behind a sh-tty line that can't protect them.

Not like we've seen that movie before, right?

[FuFuLamePoo]

Nonsense, Verge said just yesterday we have Mac Jones ranked as the third best QB in this draft.

[ForJimmy]

Just now, Shocker said:

Interesting that Jimmy mentioned that the Darnold deal does not take them out of the draft QB market.  Rhule said that, Fitty said it and now JJ said it.  Maybe we should believe them.

It’s like spending a future 2nd (reluctantly) and late picks on a player in a position that important doesn’t guarantee him a starting spot. We just spent a decent amount of money on Erving telling him he can compete for LT, so do we not draft one now because we have to build a complete team and have other needs? I mean if we traded for Watson (before legal trouble) or Rodgers then yeah I would be against drafting a QB in the first, but it is Sam Darnold which makes the position still incomplete in my book...

[raleigh-panther]

1 hour ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Maybe but there are a lot of guys out there breaking fields down and seeing the same thing.   If he was a slam dunk we would have moved to 3

Maybe they tried but 49ers offer too rich vs a rebuilding team 

[bandu]

13 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Or Darnold could be perfectly fine and Fields be awful (or vice versa) but the good one gets beaten to hell behind a sh-tty line that can't protect them.

Not like we've seen that movie before, right?

ok well sorry for the bad news but I'm saying right now Darnold will not be fine  even prior to the start of the season  or let's say movie for the real spoiler alert   ...just saying

Edited April 21, 2021 by bandu

[Aussie Tank]

19 minutes ago, onmyown said:

Why wouldn’t it be a competition? I’m a true believer in it. It’s what Rivera, Fox and Hurney didn’t believe in.

Hell let TB compete too if were fuged cap wise for him anyway (sarcasm mostly).

In all seriousness the Packers didn’t waste a pick when they already had Favre, Colts didn’t for Luck when they already had Manning, Patriots have used 2/3 round for QBs all along Brady’s later years...you keep swinging until you hit. If the Panthers had done this when Cam started getting hurt, who knows we might’ve traded down and gotten Lamar Jackson. Yea that’s another discussion and a lot of speculation but you never know.

I think it’s good for the players to know  there is someone keeping them on their toes. There is absolutely nothing wrong having a lot of young talent for the ‘next man up’ at QB instead of just a backup. It’s what the teams above did, Eagles took Hurts. Despite the picks given up, in no way did Darnold earn his spot as the Panther’s starting QB. Why give him that complacency? 

It’s not that I’d prefer it, as I said I prefer a top LT but I won’t be mad at it, I’d understand it and value the effort. And a trade down while we’re at it? It’s worth it. You keep swinging until you hit.

We have this notion of keeping one QB with talent and never upkeeping the position with talent not placeholders. I wouldn’t mind seeing that changing.

This is no where near a Farve/Rodgers situation and Manning was out the door. 

[Snake]

5 hours ago, trueblade said:

If he's there at 8, you've got to pull the trigger. I'd even consider moving up to 7 if the price wasn't terrible to make sure Denver didn't jump me. 

I wouldn't move up but if he's there you take him.