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!

     

Christensen ...


Zod
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

So ok, maybe not fail. Let's go with, not succeed. Still has negative connotations. That's fine. I'm going to go find some folks that are a little more positive.

 

I'm too excited for this year to go down that road. Have fun, take care, and stay safe.

That is your problem, you view any hint of reasonable doubt with hysteria.

It's just plain weird. 

Especially when the Panthers fail much more than they succeed. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

The formula would also include the extra draft capital spent on Darnold in the trade. 

That's an interesting take.  The problem is, we had already spent the draft capital on Darnold because it didn't look like Fields or any top QB was going to fall to us. 

When the 9ers traded up, and the Lions traded away Stafford, many thought, 4-5 QBs could very well be gone.  Who would have thought the Lions would take a LT they didn't need.  Some thought Atlanta might select Ryan's replacement. 

It was possible we could walk out of the draft with no QB and have Teddy another year after we had very publicly spent months trying to replace him.  AWKWARD.

So the formula becomes

Darnold+Horn-DraftPicks > Darnold+Fields-DraftPicks-BenchedQB

The DraftPicks cancel out to become:
Darnold+Horn > Darnold+Fields-BenchedQB


Assuming Darnold is benched it returns to
Darnold+Horn>Fields

Now we might have been able to trade Darnold away after the draft, but a lot of potential suitors had found their guy in the draft.

Edited by SBBlue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SBBlue said:

That's an interesting take.  The problem is, we had already spent the draft capital on Darnold because it didn't look like Fields or any top QB was going to fall to us. 

When the 9ers traded up, and the Lions traded away Stafford, many thought, 4-5 QBs could very well be gone.  Who would have thought the Lions would take a LT they didn't need.  Some thought Atlanta might select Ryan's replacement. 

It was possible we could walk out of the draft with no QB and have Teddy another year after we had very publicly spent months trying to replace him.  AWKWARD.

So the formula becomes

Darnold+Horn-DraftPicks > Darnold+Fields-DraftPicks-BenchedQB

The DraftPicks cancel out to become:
Darnold+Horn > Darnold+Fields-BenchedQB


Assuming Darnold is benched it returns to
Darnold+Horn>Fields

Now we might have been able to trade Darnold away after the draft, but a lot of potential suitors had found their guy in the draft.

Well, remember this is a hindsight discussion ultimately. Also, one we won't have complete answer on for a few seasons, even if Darnold is a bust in 2021.

IMO, the picks involved in the Darnold trade are valid to use in the formula with Fields simply because they filled a hole he could have taken. Obviously we couldn't be sure that a QB would fall to us, especially him. But he ends up in the calculation because he did and we passed. 

I don't view the "trade Darnold after the draft" scenario as valid. It's both difficult to pull off and also makes the team look ridiculous. I think a more likely scenario would have been keeping Darnold and Fields to create a competition. Which, I would have been okay with that too.

As I have stated multiple times, I value QB over CB fairly significantly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

28 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

 even if Darnold is a bust in 2021.

or isn't.
 

Quote

IMO, the picks involved in the Darnold trade are valid to use in the formula with Fields simply because they filled a hole he could have taken. Obviously we couldn't be sure that a QB would fall to us, especially him. But he ends up in the calculation because he did and we passed. 

2 Things happened:

1)We did trade for Sam Darnold.
2)Fields and Jones fell to 8 and we passed.

Why do you live in this imaginary world where #1 didn't happen, but #2 did?
Would you consider moving to a world, where #2 didn't haappen and #1 did?...please

 

Quote

I don't view the "trade Darnold after the draft" scenario as valid.

I agree.

Quote

 I think a more likely scenario would have been keeping Darnold and Fields to create a competition. Which, I would have been okay with that too.

You either bench valuable draft capital in Darnold or Fields in this scenario, an very large waste.
  

Quote

As I have stated multiple times, I value QB over CB fairly significantly. 

Ahh, but do you value a player on the bench over the #1 defensive player in the draft?
Because that is the choice.
 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CRA said:

Yes, he said Phil Snow was the origin of the idea to bring in Darnold.  Claimed Snow thought he looked like Matt Stafford on tape.   

Snow IMO has always been the key to Rhule’s success so he probably has more pull than anyone with Rhule.  
 
But yeah, all that plays into why I am critical of what they have done.  This ain’t small time college football where great D paired with average QB play wins.  Which IMO is what Rhule and Snow did in college. 

Yup.  I can't find the video interview but here the quote :  link

"We were sitting there one day on defense, and I can't remember (exactly) what we were watching, we were watching a cut up, and Sam was playing on the other side of the ball, and a couple times he made some throws, and Phil Snow, our defensive coordinator, was like, 'Man, that kid looks like Matt Stafford.' And so, we put a couple games on – and this is the defensive staff -- and they were all like, 'You know what, every game we watch, he makes a couple of big-time plays, and there has to be some meat on the bone there,' " Rhule said.

"So, kind of went through the process and kept watching him and going back and watching him in college and watching his pro day and then going back and watching his first year in a different offense and the second year and his third year. When the compensation was enough where we didn't have to give up what we thought was too much that [it] would hurt our team and a chance to get him here, we'd watched so much tape on him that we saw enough shining moments."

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I read this quote again

"When the compensation was enough where we didn't have to give up what we thought was too much that [it] would hurt our team and a chance to get him here, we'd watched so much tape on him that we saw enough shining moments."

It sounds like we talked them down?

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SBBlue said:

or isn't.
 

2 Things happened:

1)We did trade for Sam Darnold.
2)Fields and Jones fell to 8 and we passed.

Why do you live in this imaginary world where #1 didn't happen, but #2 did?
Would you consider moving to a world, where #2 didn't haappen and #1 did?...please
 

You have such an illogical discussion style. 

5 minutes ago, SBBlue said:

You either bench valuable draft capital in Darnold or Fields in this scenario, an very large waste.
  

Ahh, but do you value a player on the bench over the #1 defensive player in the draft?
Because that is the choice.
 

Is Trey Lance a waste for the 49ers? Was Aaron Rodgers a waste for the Packers? Do you care about "waste" when you have an answer at a critical position?

I am genuinely perplexed by this idea of "waste." So do you consider quality depth "waste?" Is YGM "waste" because he doesn't start? Terrace Marshall? I consider a "waste" a pick like Greg Little. He was a waste for obvious reasons.

Also, the "#1 defensive player in the draft" is what he was drafted. We have zero idea if that will be the actual case. Could be Horn is a bust, could be Fields is a bust, could be Darnold continues to be a bust, could be Sewell is a bust, etc, etc. We have no idea about any of then, other than Darnold.

I think this is basically where you are failing in following the logic, there are other scenarios that may play out other than the ones in your mind. 

Hence why I am saying that Darnold+Horn will be compared to players we passed on at 8 and the draft capital we gave up. It's not a spectacularly difficult to follow. 

What we got versus what we gave up. Simple as that, really. My question would be, why would you exclude any of those factors? Give me your ultimate reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

Is Trey Lance a waste for the 49ers?

TBD
 

Quote

Was Aaron Rodgers a waste for the Packers?

Apparently not.
 

Quote

Do you care about "waste" when you have an answer at a critical position?I

Yes.  The jets thought they had the answer in Darnold and traded up to get him, mortgaging their future.  

Seriously, there are other players in football besides QB and oline Kungfoodude.
 

Quote

am genuinely perplexed by this idea of "waste." So do you consider quality depth "waste?"

No.  I consider benching  8th overall, or 3 picks benched indefinitely waste. 
 

Quote

Is YGM "waste" because he doesn't start? Terrace Marshall? 

No, and TM might start if we go 3 wide.
 

Quote

Also, the "#1 defensive player in the draft" is what he was drafted. We have zero idea if that will be the actual case. 

Same goes for Fields.

Quote

Could be Horn is a bust, could be Fields is a bust, could be Darnold continues to be a bust, could be Sewell is a bust, etc, etc. We have no idea about any of then, other than Darnold.

We don't know about Darnold either.
 

Quote

I think this is basically where you are failing in following the logic, there are other scenarios that may play out other than the ones in your mind. 

We weren't discussing what might happen.  We were discussing what HAPPENED.  We traded for Darnold before the draft.  We passed on Fields and Jones at 8.  You were saying that the Darnold picks should be included in the equation for passing on Fields.  I was explaining to you that is IMPOSSIBLE because they were already spent.
 

Quote

Hence why I am saying that Darnold+Horn will be compared to players we passed on at 8 and the draft capital we gave up.

 The. draft. capital. was. already. spent.
 

Quote

It's not a spectacularly difficult to follow. 

Apparently it is for you because you have trouble comprehending that the draft capital was gone when we passed on a QB at 8.  
 

Quote

 My question would be, why would you exclude any of those factors? Give me your ultimate reasoning.

You exclude the draft capital spent for Darnold because it was gone when we passed on Fields.   

Why do you want to live in this imaginary world where we didn't trade for Darnold and pass on Fields?
What does it buy you?
Its done dude.  Darnold's here.  We didn't draft oline in rounds 1,2 and 3...HEY...wait a minute.  On another thread you said you wanted OLINE in round 1, NOT FIELDS.  So now you're just trolling.

OK now I understand why the trolls keep pie-ing you.  It's becoming clear now.

  

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, SBBlue said:

TBD
 

Apparently not.
 

Yes.  The jets thought they had the answer in Darnold and traded up to get him, mortgaging their future.  

Seriously, there are other players in football besides QB and oline Kungfoodude.
 

No.  I consider benching  8th overall, or 3 picks benched indefinitely waste. 
 

No, and TM might start if we go 3 wide.
 

Same goes for Fields.

We don't know about Darnold either.
 

We weren't discussing what might happen.  We were discussing what HAPPENED.  We traded for Darnold before the draft.  We passed on Fields and Jones at 8.  You were saying that the Darnold picks should be included in the equation for passing on Fields.  I was explaining to you that is IMPOSSIBLE because they were already spent.
 

 The. draft. capital. was. already. spent.
 

Apparently it is for you because you have trouble comprehending that the draft capital was gone when we passed on a QB at 8.  
 

You exclude the draft capital spent for Darnold because it was gone when we passed on Fields.   

Why do you want to live in this imaginary world where we didn't trade for Darnold and pass on Fields?
What does it buy you?
Its done dude.  Darnold's here.  We didn't draft oline in rounds 1,2 and 3...HEY...wait a minute.  On another thread you said you wanted OLINE in round 1, NOT FIELDS.  So now you're just trolling.

OK now I understand why the trolls keep pie-ing you.  It's becoming clear now.

  

You literally cannot follow the discussion at all. I see why you answer the way you do, because you get lost in the weeds without seeing what the actual discussion is even about.

We are taking about a future scenario of Darnold+Horn versus Fields plus what it cost to get Darnold. The entire point of that discussion is the "what if" scenario for their FUTURE. 

Literally read back through our discussion and see how quickly you derail it by not being able to hold a coherent thought process.

I said I wanted OL and not Fields. Oh yeah, show me where I said that. By all means, show me the post where I made that statement.

Also, look at the title of this thread. You sure we didn't take OL in the first three rounds?

Edited by kungfoodude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Catsfan69 said:

It would be nice if like most forums there was a written set of rules.

 

Well, to be honest. When it first started. We didn't need to. It's only really gotten bad since Cam was drafted. Before that we had a few Trolls, but they weren't nearly as obnoxious as this generation.

 

But I see what you mean. Make a "Be a good Boy" contract that folks have to sign when they register. lol

  • Pie 1
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 did a lot of research on Xavier Legette for the past few weeks, and as some of you know, I was in favor of making him our first pick. I must say that I got tired of going back and forth seemingly every other day about X, and was so ready for the draft to come in order for the team to "put up or shut up" where X was concerned, and enable discussions on X to move forward. X was (is) the most polarizing player discussed on the Huddle in terms pick 33, and that brought a lot of contentious discussion as well as information. See, you never know what to believe during the draft season, and ever since the Senior Bowl, hints and outright stories of the Panthers' and X's mutual attraction appeared and ramped up so easily, that it was almost unbelievable. So, even though I liked X, and really figured that he should be the pick, the ease of which everything fell into place and the outside noise of different analysts made me lose a little conviction. But one ex-scout developed unshakable conviction all the way through.  Dan Kelly, who used to scout for the Jets back in the day, chose Xavier Legette as the top receiver in the 2024 draft class. I came across his thoughts weeks ago, but I'm sharing them now just to give you some positive food for thought since X is indeed a Panther. There is no boom-or-bust aspect to X in Kelly's estimation, as X is reminiscent of a damned good one. "This Gamecocks receiver conjures memories of how Pro Football Hall of Fame wide receiver Art Monk — the former Washington star — ran his routes." "Legette's sudden and spontaneous moves win initial route leverage against corners and then he wins again at route breakpoints." For as critical as some have been of X's release off the line, when I look at X work, I can't say that Kelly is wrong here. X certainly seems to get open (though admittedly sometimes he just out-physicals the DBs ). "Legette is the best in this draft class at "Mossin'" defenders — that is acrobatically outjumping corners for passes and coming down with circus catches. Legette isn't the next Moss, but he is darn good. He can go deep or sell the deep route well before settling back underneath and making those vitally important chain-moving intermediate-level receptions (11-19 yards)." https://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/scouts_view_the_top_receiver_in_the_nfl_draft_isnt_who_you_think/s1_13132_39987216 On Kelly's own site, First Round Mock, he was a little more specific: "Legette has this spontaneous and impulsive ability to put little moves on corners, whether releasing from the line of scrimmage...or...when going deep. Either way, it’s enough to earn Legette route leverage (position advantage against the cornerback he’s matched up against)." There's that term again: route leverage. Say what you want about X, but he knows how to get it. Lastly, within the scouting report, Kelly really mentions the term again without saying it. "Strong target who showed high-level receiving skills beyond his years...Runs routes to get open rather than well-defined routes which makes him tough to cover. Gets to the spot..." That's ironic, no? X in his roughness makes it ugly for defensive backs to cover him. For me, this was an epiphany when I was looking at some of his clips. Yeah, he may not be the technician that a Diontae Johnson or (dare I say) a Ladd McConkey is, but he always seemed to get where he needed to be. He just simply is not built to be bullied or redirected from the task at hand, and I don't think that's a characteristic or talent (if you will) that can be taught. Sure, he'll be polished up as best that the coaches can, and perhaps that will allow him a smoother release. And I'm sure that the coaches will devise ways to scheme him open, but he's built---physically and mentally to get to where he's going. You saw it last season, and you're going to see it in the pros. Watch what I'm saying. https://firstroundmock.com/2024/02/xavier-legette-reminds-former-nfl-scout-of-these-legends/
    • This is from his draft / combine profile from NFL.com.   https://www.nfl.com/prospects/austin-corbett/3200434f-5200-8097-d4cb-2bd53a7e3b55   Overview Corbett won't blow you away with any of his measurables or play traits, but he's solid in most areas. Corbett is definitely sharp enough to move inside to guard or even center and has good technique, but his average to below average play strength and lack of length may be a concern. He has the size and talent to compete for a guard/center spot early on, but he may elevate above an average starter during his career.   Sources Tell Us "He's smart and just solid all the way around. Long time starter in the league. I think he'll end up at center." - AFC offensive line coach
    • Our own PP won't be held to 9% this go round either.... I think the PK was a bit of an anomaly agaist the Isles...  
×
×
  • Create New...