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

Or he could be putting that out there to have people thinking we're taking a QB so that we get a trade down partner or have someone jump in front of us so that even more QBs are off the board for us to get that T. I find it sus af...this staff has been smarter than that...if we really wanted a specific player I doubt we'd have it out there like this and we could have used those darnold picks(+ more obv) to move up in the draft to make sure we got the specific player we wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

When? Honestly, we've been amateur hour when it comes to a lot of stuff.

"I can't wait to coach Cam"

"Teddy Bridgewater is a franchise QB"

Then we publicly trashed Teddy to the point where we HAD to go a different direction.

Na those first two even prove my point lol. They aren't tipping what they are doing. OFC they'd say TB is a franchise QB if they want someone else to pick him up in a trade how is that hard to understand.

They were trying to trade Cam too and instead of saying "na we'll cut Cam" they said that instead...once again not hard to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rmoneyg35 said:

With all the Ohio state qb bust I don’t want him. Also lots of red flags for fields.

Yeah the Chargers should have passed on Herbert with all the Oregon busts (Marietta, Harrington) and the Bengals on Burrow with the LSU busts (Russell and Flynn). Texas Tech QBs were just system QBs until Mahomes...

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Diehardpanth02 said:

Probably because at that time the other option was Jimmy pickles. It's no execuse. The circumstances are different. We're bringing in a guy with potential, but no proven track record. To be honest, we should have considered drafting a QB as soon as Cams shoulder was destroyed as a contingency. We could've done so with plenty of guys. But our FO decided to wait or draft a LATE round flyer. 

Tom Brady and Drew Bledsoe

Aaron Rodgers and Brett Fabre

Steve Young and Joe Montana.

I could list examples all day with teams taking this approach. And they've been far more successful than the Teams that took the Trent Dilter route. And let's keep in mind all the guys you point too are from a different era when defenses weren't hamstrung by the rule book. Shoring up the QB position in this day and age of the NFL is by far the single most important piece off the franchise. To remain perennial contenders anyway. Sure we could draft a tackle and I'd be ecstatic, but then the Darnold could darnold and we're back at square one.

 

But go ahead. Go off.

 

Bringing in a guy when they knew Cam would not be the same would have made sense. Too bad they didn't. 

Brady was a late round flyer.

Favre was an established vet starting the slide to the downside of his career with a good team around him. The Packers were in a position to be able to take a young QB and let him sit and learn. Same for Montana and Young. The Colts did the same with Manning and Luck. The current Panthers are not even in the ballpark that those teams were.

Once again, Cam Newton franchise QB equaled 3 winning seasons with the current rules. It takes a lot more than a QB to be a perennial contender. A young QB needs weapons, coaching, and protection. The Panthers failed to give Cam that repeatedly. The current contending and superbowl teams had good teams built and then got their QB. The Panthers should follow the examples of those winning teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fox007 said:

Na those first two even prove my point lol. They aren't tipping what they are doing. OFC they'd say TB is a franchise QB if they want someone else to pick him up in a trade how is that hard to understand.

They were trying to trade Cam too and instead of saying "na we'll cut Cam" they said that instead...once again not hard to understand.

Yeah, I can advertise oceanfront property in Colorado too. That doesn't make me savvy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, rmoneyg35 said:

With all the Ohio state qb bust I don’t want him. Also lots of red flags for fields.

Fields didn't play for Urban Meyers.  Those were Urban Meyer QBs that busted...and consistently did it coming out of FL and OSU.  Fields is a Day QB. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yeah, I can advertise oceanfront property in Colorado too. That doesn't make me savvy.

na it don't nor does any of those previous two posts.

They just resold a pinto though so they rolling with more savvy points atm.

Edited by Fox007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CRA said:

Fields didn't play for Urban Meyers.  Those were Urban Meyer QBs that busted...and consistently did it coming out of FL and OSU.  Fields is a Day QB. 

 

It makes his hire in Jacksonville very questionable IMO. Forget the migraine issues that led to his OSU retirement. The guy has a long list of NFL QB failures and you're hiring him to develop the NFL career of the most anticipated QB prospect since Andrew Luck? Okay...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

At the end of the day all you are doing is playing the  odds.  

Are you willing to take a chance with a 30% QB to take a 90% LT or would you prefer to take a 60% QB to compete with your 30% QB, and yes I made all of those percentages up, but really that is all the teams are doing.  The payout for being right about a QB is exponentially higher than that of any other position.  

Evaluating players is nothing but trying to figure their chances of success.

There is a very good chance the team might be willing to take OT1 over QB3, but maybe they would take QB3 over OT2.  

 

I'd take the 90% LT so he could protect the 30% QB and whoever takes over for the QB if he fails.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

When? Honestly, we've been amateur hour when it comes to a lot of stuff.

"I can't wait to coach Cam"

"Teddy Bridgewater is a franchise QB"

Then we publicly trashed Teddy to the point where we HAD to go a different direction.

Yep. The current FO has some work to do before they look competent when it comes to QBs.

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

    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
    • The defense has pulled that feat off this season though.  Multiple times. offense has not had a single good first half all season.  Only and good opening scripted drive paired with disappointing play.  defense has been the actual unit you can measure real and consistent improvement IMO.  Still holes and flaws to it that aren’t going away until new bodies get here but they really are the story of the season IMO
    • One thing about RB's and LB's is they are going to get hurt. It's inevitable. Having a fresh Chuba is not a bad thing.  My only criticism of this entire situation is that I wish our staff would adjust personnel to matchup a little better. I think Chuba is a lot better than Rico against the stacked boxes we've seen the last two weeks. They are very different backs with very different strengths, and I love them both. Rico is so good at identifying the hole early, and hitting it full speed early. He's much better at breaking the big run. Chuba is a much more patient back, and finds 3 yards when there's nothing there better than Rico.  It's in no way a criticism of either, but I think Chuba would have had more success than Rico the way the Saints and Falcons attacked us from a Defensive standpoint.  When you put 9 in the box, often times there is no hole to attack. 
×
×
  • Create New...