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

    • In my view, the realistic expectation for this team to compete will start 2027.  At that time, I think we could be looking at the following (this is HIGHLY speculative):   QB:  You know, Bryce.  I am not a fan, but they don't ask me.  But there is reason for hope--and here it is.  Bryce will be entering his prime.  Since we are likely to pay him, there will be changes that I include throughout this exercise--I realistically speculate on what they are going to do with Bryce and then I realistically speculate on what means in terms of the cap and other positions. Bryce HAS IMPROVED.  The idea is that if you give him more weapons and protection, that will continue.  His career:   At this rate, if his growth continues, by 2027 we should expect nearly 30 TDs and about 12 Interceptions and a Rating of about 98.  His completion percentage should settle at 65-66% or so.  If that happens, you can win with it. The following stats demonstrate how the Panthers will be able to afford it (and re-sign Ickey) My guess is they will require about $60m per year. This is why rookies who can play are important.  It also helps us see the blueprint.  You may disagree, but this is the cruel realities of the salary cap. Robert Hunt:  Cut post June 1 and save $19m.  Who do you replace him with?  Ickey. Tershawn Wharton:  Cutting him saves nearly $15m.  We should all hope to see Aaron Hall (UDFA) make the roster and play well.  Regardless, this is a position we would likely have to address in the next draft. Trevin Moehrig:  Cutting Moehrig as the starting SS saves this team $16.5m.   Ransom will be on year 3 of a cheap rookie deal and should be more than ready to take the reins.  their styles are similar.  Furthermore, FS Wheatley (R, 4th round) will be starting. Taylor Moton:  So much depends on his knee, but I have an idea that he can play another 3 years.  extending him could save the team about $5m per year.  Cutting him outright would save the team about $21m. In the most drastic situation, we have to cut Moton and the other three players mentioned.   We would need (in all likelihood) a starting DT and RT.  It is possible that the DE would be addressed, but Wharton's production (so far) could be equaled by a rookie.  Look for a cut free agent and a 2027 draft pick here.  If you cut Moton, you save $21m, and that would be the only big hole to fill.  Having Ickey at RG gives you some depth at T, and Ickey could be the guy.  T could be pick in the 2027 draft (first round), fwiw.  It saves you $21m while costing you $5m, for example. We get younger, creating a core of Freeling, Hecht, and the RT first rounder in 2027) along with Ekownu (second contract in the $15m range, and Lewis, whose contract would be in the $16m range if not extended.)  The OL cuts (Hunt, Moton) would save $40m.  The OL would get younger and still solid with veterans at G.   By cutting Wharton (no brainer if his play stays the same) and Moehrig (good player--but we have Ransom on a rookie contract who would not be that much of a drop off--if any) in addition to Hunt and Moton, we would save over $70m in cap room. We would be able to give Bryce bag  and we would have enough to re-sign Ickey (if the knee is not too risky) to a Guard contract (probably at a discount, coming off that injury).  Furthermore, we could add a RT in the draft (or a RG if Ickey moves to RT) and that would be the only large hole to fill. Correct my logic if you see issues-- On defense, in addition to the aforementioned, Scott ($2m contract) is out, replaced by a 4th round rookie contract. CB Jackson's contract ($7.8m) expires and he is (possibly) replaced by a rookie contract.  At Edge, patrick Jones II's $10m contract expires and he is likely a reserve, and his role is absorbed by Phillips, Scourton, Princely, and possible an UDFA like Isaiah Smith or a 2027 draft pick.   These productive developmental players over the past 2 drafts will pay huge dividends.  On paper, I see the team getting much younger and possibly better while cutting nearly $100m and reallocating that money to get more production.          
    • If everything played out and that last thing happened, I probably just quit. 
×
×
  • Create New...