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!

     

Rhule on QB (Darnold) & my translation.

top dawg

By top dawg,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Perhaps, but at that point, we probably knew that it was a waste of time anyway, as the 49ers were already all-in, and we didn't want to spend the draft capital and decided that there was a better value.

Everybody at that point still thought the Niners were taking Mac Jones (not that this would have anything to do with system fit). 

The best read I've been able to make based on all the info surrounding the draft is that Fitterer and Rhule would only have been interested in a QB they saw as a sure fire franchise quarterback, and the only guys they saw fitting that description were Lawrence and Wilson. 

Frankly, it's not like they'd have been alone in that viewpoint. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trueblade Grand Master

trueblade

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Everybody at that point still thought the Niners were taking Mac Jones (not that this would have anything to do with system fit). 

The best read I've been able to make based on all the info surrounding the draft is that Fitterer and Rhule would only have been interested in a QB they saw as a sure fire franchise quarterback, and the only guys they saw fitting that description were Lawrence and Wilson. 

Frankly, it's not like they'd have been alone in that viewpoint. 

Opinions on this QB class were all over the place. Fit and Rhule certainly would have not been alone, but they would also have had plenty of scouts and fellow GMs disagree with them, especially the ones who staked their teams to Jones, Lances, and Fields. Those teams drafted them because they believed they are franchise guys. 

Edited by trueblade
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, trueblade said:

Opinions on this QB class were all over the place. Fit and Rhule certainly would have not been alone, but they would also have had plenty of scouts and fellow GMs disagree with them, especially the ones who staked their teams to Jones, Lances, and Fields. Those teams drafted them because they believed they are franchise guys. 

Par for the course...

There were professional personnel guys who believed in JaMarcus Russell and Ryan Leaf while others didn't think Russell Wilson or Tom Brady were worth first round picks. And of course there's the memory of Alex Smith going #1 and Aaron Rodgers still being available twenty spots later. 

We'll see what happens...

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

That may be true. But it does fit the profile. IMO, he is a narcissists, who cannot stomach the thought of his name not being associated with winning. And in the NFL, he wasn't winning enough.

“So I decided right then when that happened that we don’t have a quarterback in the NFL, we’re not going to win. I’m getting out of here. I’m not staying here. I’m not going to be responsible for this. That doctor didn’t know his ass from a handful of sand. Drew Brees plays 15 more years, wins a Super Bowl, goes to nine Pro Bowls. And we didn’t take him in Miami, where he wanted to go. Some things you can’t control. When we left there nobody understood why. Well that was why. There’s always a reason.”

I mean Saban isn't going to hang around take Ls.  We all know that.   But in the NFL, if you don't have a QB.....you are going to take Ls.  How great you are at coaching the sport isn't going to matter.  He is right about that.   

Miami gave him Joey Harrington.  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
raleigh-panther Grand Master

raleigh-panther

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jorgie said:

You’re confused in thinking that rhule dolled out the contract. Teddy underperformed, I think to say that it’s an example of how rhule doesn’t value the qb position, when he was publicly criticizing the teddy’s play makes no sense

He didn’t under perform. He is what he has always been

The biggest winner was NO for dumping him off on a division rival…knowing Brees was retiring, they chose to keep a Winston and Hill instead 

and don’t say, they didn’t have cap room, Payton always finds room for players they want. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
iamhubby1 Veteran

iamhubby1

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, trueblade said:

Opinions on this QB class were all over the place. Fit and Rhule certainly would have not been alone, but they would also have had plenty of scouts and fellow GMs disagree with them, especially the ones who staked their teams to Jones, Lances, and Fields. Those teams drafted them because they believed they are franchise guys. 

 

Orrr...They drafted a QB hoping he would become a Franchise QB.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
iamhubby1 Veteran

iamhubby1

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, raleigh-panther said:

He didn’t under perform. He is what he has always been

The biggest winner was NO for dumping him off on a division rival…knowing Brees was retiring, they chose to keep a Winston and Hill instead 

and don’t say, they didn’t have cap room, Payton always finds room for players they want. 

 

Have you seen what is going on in NO? The Cap came back to haunt them.  They lost some good talent this year because they couldn't pay them. Even in NO, the Cap finally bit them.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AU-panther Mentor

AU-panther

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Everybody at that point still thought the Niners were taking Mac Jones (not that this would have anything to do with system fit). 

The best read I've been able to make based on all the info surrounding the draft is that Fitterer and Rhule would only have been interested in a QB they saw as a sure fire franchise quarterback, and the only guys they saw fitting that description were Lawrence and Wilson. 

Frankly, it's not like they'd have been alone in that viewpoint. 

That might not be true.  There were reports that we called about moving to #3.  That would mean we might have been interested in three QBs.  Problem was the cost was two high.

The decision isn't' as easy as Darnold vs Fields, they might have actually like Fields just as much.  The real decision was the cost of trading up to 3 for QB3 vs the cost of trading for Darnold.  Once the draft happened they had already invested in Darnold.  The problem is they couldn't go into the draft guaranteeing themselves that QB3 or even QB4 would be there at pick 8.  

You have to remember that we had already burned the bridges with TB, we couldn't go in the draft hoping a QB that liked fell to us.  

Think about this way, what if we would have lost one more game and had pick #3, do you still think we trade for Darnold?  I don't, but none of us will really ever know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

That might not be true.  There were reports that we called about moving to #3.  That would mean we might have been interested in three QBs.  Problem was the cost was two high.

The decision isn't' as easy as Darnold vs Fields, they might have actually like Fields just as much.  The real decision was the cost of trading up to 3 for QB3 vs the cost of trading for Darnold.  Once the draft happened they had already invested in Darnold.  The problem is they couldn't go into the draft guaranteeing themselves that QB3 or even QB4 would be there at pick 8.  

You have to remember that we had already burned the bridges with TB, we couldn't go in the draft hoping a QB that liked fell to us.  

Think about this way, what if we would have lost one more game and had pick #3, do you still think we trade for Darnold?  I don't, but none of us will really ever know.

Except now that the draft is over, the info on what went on behind the scenes is out there and none of it fits what you're suggesting. 

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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • MHS831
      Isaiah Simmons: "A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma"

      By MHS831 · Posted

      I hear you and I have said the same thing at times, but blanket statements are accurate part of the time at best.  I have also coached kids who had the "tools" but they were slow and unproductive on the field--and a few adjustments to the scheme or teaching techniques, and the light comes on.  We call them "late bloomers."  Based on my limited experience, it should be called "coaching."  As a former coach, if you gave me kids with the tools and I could not get them to perform at the level of their ability, then I have failed.  The coaches know this, so their timetables to win may be shorter than the time they have to develop a player--I think a lot of talent goes down the disposal, which is why the success rate for drafted players is so low. In my view, based on my career as a professor and researcher, my job is to produce successful people for the workplace.   I use data to identify central problems and I use my relationships with my students to strengthen weaknesses.  I have a limited amount of time to do this before a decision is made about their development.  In this case, I would look at the variables (data and the situational influences unique to this individual that may have stunted growth) and not the ineffective player as the center of the problem.  The team has already interviewed him, talked to his college coaches, measured him, etc. So I would minimize the assumption that the kid is the problem and look at his system of support and teaching strategies.  Nobody wants to admit THEY might be the problem.  To blame a first-rounder for failing, you have to admit either you did not properly identify the prospect's potential (which is your job) or you were unable to prepare that prospect (with all the tools that got him the job) to succeed (also your job).  So are we going to blame the 24-year-old kid with all the tools to succeed for sucking or are we going to take responsibility for his success as his mentors and teachers?  
    • chknwing
      Defensive Tackle: The Need that Shall Not be Named

      By chknwing · Posted

      i was hoping they might bring robinson back but he went to the darkside.  They will need to sign a free agent as Evero does not like to start rookies.
    • ForJimmy
      Kaye with a nice breakdown on what Dan just did

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      Flexibility. If they don’t work out we simply walk away. If they look great we have the first crack at extending them. 
×
×
  • Create New...