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, Smittymoose said:

It's not betting the franchise on Darnold. It's betting a year on Darnold and seeing what you have with him. If he's bad, Carolina will be right back in position to take a QB next year. 

If you pass on a franchise QB at #8 then you're indeed betting the franchise on Sam Darnold.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Based on the assumption that Darnold will be bad and Fields will be good.

As mentioned previously, you don't know if either of those things will be true.

Can you just make this your signature. We all know that we don't know anything for sure regarding future play.

What we do know is that Sam Darnold has three years of terrible NFL QB play under his belt. That's what we know for sure. He isn't basically a rookie as much as you desperately want this to be true. He's a failed NFL QB hoping to resurrect his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NAS said:

Now that Teddy is gone, it’s a high probability we will draft a QB if he should fall down to #8.  I would still consider Trey Lance in addition to Fields.

I don't really think this means anything as far as our draft plans at all.

It's long been known that Bridgewater wasn't going to play here this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I'm fine with that too, but in that case you wasted a 4th, and future 2nd/6th as well as possibly forgoing a franchise QB option in the meantime. That's all I'm saying. That trade and Sam Darnold's presence honestly shouldn't weigh into our action at #8. Darnold just kept us from being in a situation where we felt our hand was forced to do something stupid there.

By going QB, the Panthers could be missing out on a possible franchise tackle, WR, or whatever else. Playing what if never works well. Lets just hope they make the best decision for the team no matter what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

Can you just make this your signature. We all know that we don't know anything for sure.

What we do know is that Sam Darnold has three years of terrible NFL QB play under his belt. That's what we know for sure. He isn't basically a rookie as much as you desperately want this to be true. He's a failed NFL QB hoping to resurrect his career.

I said the team needed to treat him like a rookie.

Based on what he's said, it sounds like Matt Rhule agrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Call Me James said:

He's gone through new coaching once already. And the incoming staff at the Jets decided it was time to move on. 

It's still up in the air as to how good our coaching staff is. 

But I recall these same arguments being made last year with regard to Teddy who ended up looking like the same guy he's always been. 

And to be fair, if the Panthers pass on a QB, if one is available, and Darnold doesn't work out the coaching staff better pray to high heaven the guys they passed on look just as bad. 

I didn't say new coaching, I said what should be better coaching. Even if the Panthers' coaches are bad, they shouldn't be worse than what Darnold had last year. Because if they are, the team has much bigger issues than picking a QB or not. As I stated in another reply, playing if never works well. I think the best option this year is to surround Darnold with talent and see what happens. If he sucks, he sucks and the team can pick another QB next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Smittymoose said:

It's not betting the franchise on Darnold. It's betting a year on Darnold and seeing what you have with him. If he's bad, Carolina will be right back in position to take a QB next year. 

Even if Darnold is bad, the Panthers are still probably picking in the teens instead of the top 10 meaning it will be all the more expensive to move up for a QB.

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...