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

[LinvilleGorge]

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.

 

[Mr. Scot]

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 April 28, 2021 by Mr. Scot

[Tbe]

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.

 

[LinvilleGorge]

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.

[frankw]

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.

[Mr. Scot]

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...

[Dex]

[Mr. Scot]

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.

[CRA]

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. 

[Shocker]

If I owned the Panthers we are taking Fields.  If my GM doesn't like it I will find another one.  Period.

[ForJimmy]

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.

[CRA]

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. 

 

[LinvilleGorge]

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.

[firefox1234]

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.