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!

     

IF we hadn’t beaten Washington


mcsmoak
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, glenwo2 said:

Actually, yes they were or rather yes Joe Douglas was.

The writing was on the Wall during that season from hell. 

Yes, Adam Gase was history but Joe Douglas(Jets GM) wanted to draft HIS OWN GUY (as Sam was drafted by the previous GM) so he was gonzo no matter what.

Douglas himself has said they actually weren't, and even after the trade went down they were second-guessing themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

That was before the Darnold trade.

Once they got Darnold, they were out of the quarterback market but they didn't want anybody to know that.

but if we had traded to 3 there is a chance we wouldn't have signed Darnold.  Here again the OP asked what what would have happened if we hadn't beat Washington.

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Several sources have confirmed we weren't interested in Lance because they didn't feel like he fit Joe Brady's system.

Several sources also confirmed we liked Jones or Fields.  Several sources also were convinced San Fran was going Jones.  You just never know.  The fact we acted uninterested in Lance might tell you something.

None of this really matters at this point, but I do find it somewhat curious that we supposedly inquired about pick 3.

All we know for sure is that we liked Darnold more than Jones or Fields.

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AU-panther said:

but if we had traded to 3 there is a chance we wouldn't have signed Darnold.  Here again the OP asked what what would have happened if we hadn't beat Washington.

Several sources also confirmed we liked Jones or Fields.  Several sources also were convinced San Fran was going Jones.  You just never know.  The fact we acted uninterested in Lance might tell you something.

None of this really matters at this point, but I do find it somewhat curious that we supposedly inquired about pick 3.

All we know for sure is that we liked Darnold more than Jones or Fields.

 

There's a difference between pre-draft sources and post-draft sources. Once there's no more need to bullsh-t anybody, you can generally get a pretty honest answer.

There were indeed people within the building who liked Fields, David Tepper being one of them. Matt Rhule and Scott Fitterer? Not so much. And since they were the ones making the decision, here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

There's a difference between pre-draft sources and post-draft sources. Once there's no more need to bullsh-t anybody, you can generally get a pretty honest answer.

There were indeed people within the building who liked Fields, David Tepper being one of them. Matt Rhule and Scott Fitterer? Not so much. And since they were the ones making the decision, here we are.

what?  you are trying to prove a point to points I didn't even make.

I said apparently we liked Darnold more than Fields.  The fact we didn't draft him when we had the chance to says that.  Do you disagree with that?

I also said that there were reports early in the draft process that we inquired about trading to 3.  Do you agree with that?  

If that is true, who we were we interested in?  My guess would be a QB.  I can't see them trying to trade up that far for a non-QB.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

what?  you are trying to prove a point to points I didn't even make.

I said apparently we liked Darnold more than Fields.  The fact we didn't draft him when we had the chance to says that.  Do you disagree with that?

I also said that there were reports early in the draft process that we inquired about trading to 3.  Do you agree with that?  

If that is true, who we were we interested in?  My guess would be a QB.  I can't see them trying to trade up that far for a non-QB.

I pointed out earlier that at the time they were looking at that trade, they didn't have Darnold.

So yes it's possible they could have been looking at trading up for a shot at someone else (likely Wilson, based on what we've learned since) but it's not guaranteed.

Again though, once Darnold was on board, there was pretty much no shot of a QB being taken at #8.

We just had to make it look like there was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Move the Panthers to Raleigh said:

We probably could have traded back and still gotten Horn. No matter how anyone wants to spin it, that W cost this team.

I think Sewell would have been in play. 

We put out a lot of information right before draft night about all the teams we were talking to about trading down with.  Felt like we were trying to give the impression that someone was trying to move up for a QB, hoping that one team would, which would help our chances of getting Sewell.  We needed 4 QBs to go before us to have a good chance for him.  Horn was probably going to be there either way.

 

 

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I pointed out earlier that at the time they were looking at that trade, they didn't have Darnold.

So yes it's possible they could have been looking at trading up for a shot at someone else (likely Wilson, based on what we've learned since) but it's not guaranteed.

Again though, once Darnold was on board, there was pretty much no shot of a QB being taken at #8.

We just had to make it look like there was.

Why Wilson?  Everyone knew Jets were going QB at 2.  Trading with Miami would have been for QB3.

There was little chance of us taking a QB that we really liked at #8, I would agree with that.  Not only did we make it look like we might, we also tried to sell the idea that other teams were looking to trade up with us.  I think were trying to get Sewell to fall to us to be honest, but that is just a guess.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

 

I said apparently we liked Darnold more than Fields.  The fact we didn't draft him when we had the chance to says that.  Do you disagree with that?

 

Depends on how you define “we”.  

we know from reporting that some wanted Fields over Horn.   And that was Fields was debated until the end.   Which means it likely wasn’t just Tepper given he voiced he was going to stay out of it and let his staff do whatever. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CRA said:

Depends on how you define “we”.  

we know from reporting that some wanted Fields over Horn.   And that was Fields was debated until the end.   Which means it wasn’t just Tepper liking him. 
 

"We" is whoever made the decision.

 

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

    • Give me Mitchell Evans over T Sanders in this run heavy offense any day of the week. 
    • What's up gents, the OGs remember me, the guy who single-handedly gave the Panthers the greatest uniform in history moniker. Not too long after that I got involved with Pro Football Focus (pre-Collinsworth acquisition) and ended up taking backseat here to preserve some objectivity. But from a distance I noticed a lot. After the end of the Cam era this place devolved into the most un-fun, petty, negative cesspool of whining and bitching that has ever graced the internet. The worst part of it all is that the level of discussion turned into the most ill-informed, hot-take, unnuanced crap, rife with people talking out of their posteriors as if they have any clue about what they are watching. Once you get into the professional side of the sport and actual film rooms, you start to understand there's an absurd number of moving parts to pretty much every snap and the details you are privy to are truly only half the picture. The absolute most important thing I learned from being part of professional level football analysis is that quarterbacking is literally the most intricate and difficult position in all of professional sports, and that the NFL itself is struggling to develop any workable model that allows them to understand what makes one succeed vs what makes one fail. Because of this paradox it has also made the quarterback position itself grossly overvalued from a fan and media standpoint, creating an absurd fixation on the results delivered by a single player who has to rely on the contributions of everyone around them. This also drives the dreaded inflation of QB salaries that inevitably cause even elite teams to lose key talent all to pour cash into the one player supposed to be able to single-handedly elevate the entire team (and defense and special teams and coaching and ownership by some mysterious proxy), yet without those same players even talented teams can wander the wilderness searching for the right guy to take advantage of their talent window. The discussions the last few years around Bryce has personified this insanity, as this board has devolved into some sort of electronic civil war between the hyperbolic Young supporters and the vitriolic Bryce haters. The reality, like practically everything in this world, is somewhere in the middle. He has traits that can absolutely elevate a team with creativity, play recognition, off-arm angle throws, mental toughness, etc. He's also physically limited, with mostly "good-enough" qualities for most situations that a professional quarterback is asked to do, and will never be an overpowering physical force like pre-injury Cam. But "good-enough" physicality represents a large majority of championship-winning quarterbacks, even in the modern era. There's a reason the corpse of Peyton Manning took the chip from elite physical specimen Cam, because the team surrounding him was talented enough to get him there, while we all know Cam was the driving force of that 2015 team. That's no knock on him, that's just how the game of football tends to work: the more complete team usually wins. The summary is this: if this team lives or dies solely on the performance of its quarterback, then it is absolutely a paper tiger even if he plays brilliantly week in and out. There are no superheroes in this sport, there are only conduits that proxy the collective efforts of much of the team around them. And no one alive can tell you how the position is played perfectly, it's all a confluence of circumstance and what unique collection of traits each player brings to the position, which can never be truly recreated season after season, even for the same player on the same team. If this place remains a raging hellscape of idiotic hot takes I will happily remove myself again and do something more productive for yet another decade, but maybe's there hope that we can all get back to the old adage, and keep pounding.
    • Really impressed how the bottom six have looked the past couple games
×
×
  • Create New...