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!

     

Albert Breer also has us taking Fields, believes Tepper is pushing for it.


GoobyPls
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

How many of you competition breeds competitiveness guys wanted the Panthers to draft first round QBs when Cam was here? That's just a line you guys are saying as an excuse to want a first round QB this year.

That didn't workout too well for the Panthers when they had Cam Newton. Three winning seasons and one superbowl appearance that they lost. Kerry Collins was a franchise QB too. One winning season and one NFC championship game, which they lost, out of four. 

You may not be able to build an elite offense without a stud QB, but you can build a superbowl winning one as season by Difler's Ravens, Johnson's Bucs, and Foles' Eagles.  Manning's Giants may fit this mold as well depending on how one feels about Eli.

Take Cam off of those teams and you have an absolutely terrible run of football for the Panthers. Cam is a great example of the impact of an elite QB. Most of those teams pretty much sucked minus Cam.

The fact that people still immediately go all the way back to the Dilfers and Johnsons of the NFL is exhibit 1A on why that philosophy of roster building no longer works on today's NFL where the rules are continually tweaked to create advantages for the offense - particularly the passing game.

 

  • Pie 4
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Sure. It is what it is. I have no say in the matter. I think Darnold could deliver Howell, so let's go!

I don't know whether Darnold is going to be good.

I don't know whether Fields is going to be good.

You seem to be pretty certain on both topics.

Is there absolutely no allowance in your mind that maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong?

Edited by Mr. Scot
  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I always love the "he's rich so he must know what he's doing" suggestion. As mentioned elsewhere, that idea works really well in places like Washington and Dallas.

What's sad to me is that you've previously been heavily against owner interference, but now with the idea that he might want your favorite guy, you're suddenly okay with it?


Let’s just all agree the that owner input issue is nuanced.

After all, not all ‘football’ guys are smart or think long term (talking to you Hurney)

Some owners are stupid. We see that all the time. Some smart owners have quietly interfered to keep their staff from building for the short term. Rooney and the Ben pick come to mind. His coach that year wanted an O lineman instead of Ben.

I think a good org needs a balance. The owner needs to stay away unless his football guys are making harmful short term decisions because they fear for their jobs.

 

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I don't know whether Darnold is going to be good.

I don't know whether Fields is going to be good.

You seem to be pretty certain on both topics.

Is there absolutely no allowance in your mind that maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong?

You have it all figured out but you're wrong.

My opinion is that Darnold is highly unlikely to be good. History isn't kind to the idea of top pick bust QBs bouncing back elsewhere. People love the Tannehill como but it isn't a comp. Tannehill was MUCH better in Miami than Darnold was in NY.

I don't know whether Fields will be good either. What I do think though is that if we have him valued as a franchise QB prospect, then he likely has a much better chance of being good than Darnold.

The trade is a sunk cost. If you pick Fields, having Darnold means you don't have to force Fields into action too soon. It also means that if Darnold plays well, now you have your choice of the two and you can trade the other. That's a great problem to have.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Sure but run stopping DT are much much easier to find than a solid LT.  I mean hell we just signed a run stopping DT

Didn't the team have one of the league's worst run defenses the year before we drafted Brown? Pick your poison. If we didn't miss on Greg Little the line might be in better shape right now but Brown has been a much welcomed addition.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tbe said:


Let’s just all agree the that owner input issue is nuanced.

After all, not all ‘football’ guys are smart or think long term (talking to you Hurney)

Some owners are stupid. We see that all the time. Some smart owners have quietly interfered to keep their staff from building for the short term. Rooney and the Ben pick come to mind. His coach that year wanted an O lineman instead of Ben.

I think a good org needs a balance. The owner needs to stay away unless his football guys are making harmful short term decisions because they fear for their jobs.

 

The owner's best influence is hiring the football guys.

His second best influence is, if they don't perform, firing them.

The important part in this is being able to recognize what a good football guy is.

Jerry Richardson's definition of a good football guy was someone he liked and who was loyal to him, regardless of whether he was actually qualified to be a personnel guy or not. Jeffrey Lurie seems to share the same philosophy.

David Tepper's idea was a guy who had done analytics work rather than actual scouting (again, not something that gives me a lot of confidence in Tepper's football smarts). Matt Rhule wanted an experienced personnel guy that could help him build the roster.

I'm thankful Matt Rhule won that debate. I recognize that we don't know whether Scott Fitterer will be a good GM or not, but at least we went with something that's known to work rather than trying to be the smartest guy in the room and do something different just because.

Here's hoping...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

You have it all figured out but you're wrong.

My opinion is that Darnold is highly unlikely to be good. History isn't kind to the idea of top pick bust QBs bouncing back elsewhere. People love the Tannehill como but it isn't a comp. Tannehill was MUCH better in Miami than Darnold was in NY.

I don't know whether Fields will be good either. What I do think though is that if we have him valued as a franchise QB prospect, then he likely has a much better chance of being good than Darnold.

The trade is a sunk cost. If you pick Fields, having Darnold means you don't have to force Fields into action too soon. It also means that if Darnold plays well, now you have your choice of the two and you can trade the other. That's a great problem to have.

Having to try and develop two guys who are basically rookies into NFL quarterbacks at the same time is a terrible problem to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, frankw said:

Didn't the team have one of the league's worst run defenses the year before we drafted Brown? Pick your poison. If we didn't miss on Greg Little the line might be in better shape right now but Brown has been a much welcomed addition.

when we let Star go....run D fell off.  Adding Brown was the start of getting it back.  Brown just not the force Star was out of the gate.  Which isn't a knock on Brown.  We lucked into the #1 overall player IMO in that draft who we only landed because of a medical scare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Sure but run stopping DT are much much easier to find than a solid LT.  I mean hell we just signed a run stopping DT

Brown was a game changer at Auburn. He has a great pass rush and we started to see that at the end of his rookie year. He was a solid pick in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Having to try and develop two guys who are basically rookies into NFL quarterbacks at the same time is a terrible problem to have.

a lack of QB talent to work with is the worst problem to have in the NFL. 

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Having to try and develop two guys who are basically rookies into NFL quarterbacks at the same time is a terrible problem to have.

You keep saying that Darnold is basically a rookie but that's just hilarious. He's started more games in the NFL than any of these college prospects we're talking about have started in college. He isn't basically a rookie. He's IS a bust looking to resurrect his career. Let's not gloss over three years of terrible play and pretend like he's basically a rookie.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Having to try and develop two guys who are basically rookies into NFL quarterbacks at the same time is a terrible problem to have.

Hard to consider a man entering his 4th year a rookie. Maybe in another four years he will be entering his sophomore season.

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

    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
×
×
  • Create New...