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

[jayboogieman]

1 minute ago, Smittymoose said:

Because it's a waste of a pick. What if Darnold DOESN'T give way to Fields, and you've blown the 8th overall pick on a guy that never sees the field? There are too many needs on this roster to draft a QB. 

A lot of guys that are for Fields will tell you that you can trade him for a pick or picks later on. Counter to that idea is that all picks are not equal. Just because the Panthers spend a top ten pick on a player doesn't mean they'll get the same or better value in return if said player is traded.

[LinvilleGorge]

3 minutes ago, Smittymoose said:

Because it's a waste of a pick. What if Darnold DOESN'T give way to Fields, and you've blown the 8th overall pick on a guy that never sees the field? There are too many needs on this roster to draft a QB. 

Then you trade Fields. Until we answer the QB question it remains a need and QB need trumps all other roster needs.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, jayboogieman said:

A lot of guys that are for Fields will tell you that you can trade him for a pick or picks later on. Counter to that idea is that all picks are not equal. Just because the Panthers spend a top ten pick on a player doesn't mean they'll get the same or better value in return if said player is traded.

Joe Person acknowledges that in that scenario, you'll never get the kind of return that you'd get by trading down during the draft.

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, jayboogieman said:

A lot of guys that are for Fields will tell you that you can trade him for a pick or picks later on. Counter to that idea is that all picks are not equal. Just because the Panthers spend a top ten pick on a player doesn't mean they'll get the same or better value in return if said player is traded.

We'd almost certainly have to take less. But that's fine. We'd still have our QB answer in Darnold.

The flip side to this is if you pass in Fields and he becomes great elsewhere while Darnold continues to be a bum. OUCH.

 

[Stormin]

   Another rumor, Bill trades up to 7 and grabs Fields.  Detroit gets pick 15 and a extra 2nd next year. Detroit does not need a qb and can still get a descent receiver, lineman etc at 15.

[Ship]

We’re either gonna have Fields or Sewell there when we pick and I can’t be mad at either one 

[1usctrojan]

42 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

My source is that we negotiated for weeks over the Darnold trade. That's common knowledge. You don't negotiate for weeks over a trade if you actually really want a guy. We were obviously okay with losing him over peanuts.

He wasn’t available for trade till Wilson’s pro day and health exam, how could the panthers be negotiating for weeks?  Jets waited too long, panthers took advantage of other offers dropping off in February because they wouldn’t wait.  
 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/04/08/inside-story-of-why-jets-traded-darnold-new-qb-search

[Call Me James]

I can't take the all in on Sam bottom of the NFL Darnold crowd serious. 

It would be one thing if he were a proven veteran, but he's not. 

He's been worse than Cam and Teddy who we've both brought in QBs for. 

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, Ship said:

We’re either gonna have Fields or Sewell there when we pick and I can’t be mad at either one 

It's actually not guaranteed that either of them will be available at our pick.

[LinvilleGorge]

Just now, 1usctrojan said:

He wasn’t available for trade till Wilson’s pro day and health exam, how could the panthers be negotiating for weeks?  Jets waited too long, panthers took advantage of other offers dropping off in February because they wouldn’t wait.  
 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/04/08/inside-story-of-why-jets-traded-darnold-new-qb-search

He wasn't available for trade given what anyone was willing to offer. You really think they would've passed in #8 overall at that time?

We were negotiating this trade for weeks.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/04/05/monday-afternoon-quarterback-sam-darnold-trade-panthers-jets

[jayboogieman]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Joe Person acknowledges that in that scenario, you'll never get the kind of return that you'd get by trading down during the draft.

Person has started to make sense? I don't know how I feel about that.

[jayboogieman]

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

We'd almost certainly have to take less. But that's fine. We'd still have our QB answer in Darnold.

The flip side to this is if you pass in Fields and he becomes great elsewhere while Darnold continues to be a bum. OUCH.

 

Or Darnold is bad enough to lead the Panthers to another top ten or better pick next year while they used this year's draft to improve other areas of the team. Then they use next year's pick on a QB.

[CRA]

18 minutes ago, Smittymoose said:

Because it's a waste of a pick. What if Darnold DOESN'T give way to Fields, and you've blown the 8th overall pick on a guy that never sees the field? There are too many needs on this roster to draft a QB. 

If you don't have a QB, you can't compete in the NFL.  Do we have one? 

I agree with the FO, you can't have too many good quarterbacks on your roster.  We have spent years spending first round picks on guys we knew would be backups/role players at RB, LB, DL, etc.   And they weren't drafted to be behind a "Sam Darnold" bust/project/lotto ticket.  If Sam ended up being a legit lotto ticket that Fields couldn't jump? That wouldn't actually be bad.  We would have real value on our roster.  To do what we wanted with. 

[DeAngelo Beason]

I wouldn't be mad about it... and call me stubborn, but I have not given up on Greg Little become a quality LT if he can correct his injury issues... so I think there's still a chance for the O line to be decent next year.