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!

     

Looks like Stafford not wanting to come to Carolina is the reason he wasn't traded to the Panthers.


jayboogieman
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, RJK said:

Meh. Not saying Darnold is the answer but an old beat down stafford isn’t what this franchise needed 

He would've been a better place holder to allow us to compete while they searched for a better option.  They are still looking for that guy from what I can tell. 

I get the impression they think the odds are better to find a competent place holder than a franchise qb right now.  The thinking would be that it will buy them time to develop someone. That's my perception any. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jon Snow said:

He would've been a better place holder to allow us to compete while they searched for a better option.  They are still looking for that guy from what I can tell. 

I get the impression they think the odds are better to find a competent place holder than a franchise qb right now.  The thinking would be that it will buy them time to develop someone. That's my perception any. 

This is probably true. The problem with Stafford and why I was against getting him was the cost. If the idea is we are still rebuilding and looking for our guy, giving up a future 1st seems counter productive. And that’s coming from a bigger Stafford fan than most. 
 

If you are trading away a 1st, it better be for a proven player in the mid 20s. And if you are trading away multiple 1sts for a single player then you are just begging for punishment imo. Between the value of rookie contracts and the likelihood of getting 3 starters with those three picks, I’m not sure anyone in the league not named Mahomes is worth that kind of haul.

I’m glad we found a solution that didn’t cost us a 1 even if it’s temporary 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheMostInterestingMan said:

This is probably true. The problem with Stafford and why I was against getting him was the cost. If the idea is we are still rebuilding and looking for our guy, giving up a future 1st seems counter productive. And that’s coming from a bigger Stafford fan than most. 
 

If you are trading away a 1st, it better be for a proven player in the mid 20s. And if you are trading away multiple 1sts for a single player then you are just begging for punishment imo. Between the value of rookie contracts and the likelihood of getting 3 starters with those three picks, I’m not sure anyone in the league not named Mahomes is worth that kind of haul.

I’m glad we found a solution that didn’t cost us a 1 even if it’s temporary 

I get the feeling they looked at that future first as a low first, which is essentially a second based on talent available most years.  It was a ballsy gamble for a first year GM.  

Based on how they manipulated the last draft I do not doubt they had a plan to compensate for the loss of the pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

I get the feeling they looked at that future first as a low first, which is essentially a second based on talent available most years.  It was a ballsy gamble for a first year GM.  

Based on how they manipulated the last draft I do not doubt they had a plan to compensate for the loss of the pick.

I feel the only way it’s lower than mid draft is if Darnold ends up being pretty decent. If he’s really just bad then I’ll be surprised to see us picking below the top 12.

Who knows? Ultimately I was just in favor of hanging onto early draft picks. We didn’t have to give up a first. And I believe Darnold can still be salvaged. So that was really an ideal trade from my perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheMostInterestingMan said:

I feel the only way it’s lower than mid draft is if Darnold ends up being pretty decent. If he’s really just bad then I’ll be surprised to see us picking below the top 12.

Who knows? Ultimately I was just in favor of hanging onto early draft picks. We didn’t have to give up a first. And I believe Darnold can still be salvaged. So that was really an ideal trade from my perspective.

I meant that they thought that with Stafford on the team the could possibly contend last season meaning the 1st round pick surrendered would be a low first.  That is not so bad.

This season its Sam's turn to show he can be that guy.  We are either drafting a QB or a LT in the first this coming draft, unless it's traded for one.  Either way we should have a good idea which one or both is drafted by seasons end. 

Edited by Jon Snow
  • 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’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...