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!

     

A little more insight on the almost Matt Stafford trade.


Panthercougar68
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

If we had Stafford we'd be in win now mode.

And since we did everything we could to acquire Stafford- this front office thinks we are in win now mode.

 

 so, in a nutshell since we didn’t acquire stafford we are still in rebuild mode? Is that the logic that is being used here

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Detroit's team has been cursed. It's the only explanation for how they could suck so bad for so long. Can't blame him for wanting out of there. Also, can't blame him for wanting to head to sunny LA and play for a team that has the window open right now and a couple of years more.

That cost, though... Whew, too rich for our blood. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

If we had Stafford we'd be in win now mode.

We are still missing some pieces. First we are the youngest or second youngest team. We have offensive linemen, linebacker, and FS issues. TE is still a bit of a question mark. LA had a roster than was in “win now” BEFORE the Stafford deal. They already made several playoff runs already. McVay is also more proven than Rhule at this point. The LA decision makes sense to me and I kind of want a young QB to grow with our roster…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other QB trade news, Adam Shefter is now reporting conclusively what was widely rumored back when the Niners traded for #3 - they made the move for Mac Jones.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32192632/sources-san-francisco-49ers-trade-no-3-draft-pick-spurred-concern-new-england-patriots-moving-mac-jones

That look of deep concern Shanahan had on his face at Mac Jones' pro day makes a lot of sense assuming this is correct. Uh oh. This ain't that guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

We are still missing some pieces. First we are the youngest or second youngest team. We have offensive linemen, linebacker, and FS issues. TE is still a bit of a question mark. LA had a roster than was in “win now” BEFORE the Stafford deal. They already made several playoff runs already. McVay is also more proven than Rhule at this point. The LA decision makes sense to me and I kind of want a young QB to grow with our roster…

No team is set at every position group. I’m sure the Rams fans think they have holes just like we do. Especially with them trading every 1st rounder they’ve had for a decade and handing out market setting contracts to many vets. That’s just how the NFL is set up. No team is going to have studs at every single position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, joemac said:

Goddamn imagine Stanford in this offense with these weapons. He’d have thrown for 5000 yards. 

Or gotten killed behind this OL.

If we had Stafford though, we'd probably be a very popular dark horse playoff pick.

I can't blame Stafford for picking the LA situation. They're the better situation for an aging QB. Yeah, we have damn good weapons but our OL looks like trash on paper.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, joemac said:

No team is set at every position group. I’m sure the Rams fans think they have holes just like we do. Especially with them trading every 1st rounder they’ve had for a decade and handing out market setting contracts to many vets. That’s just how the NFL is set up. No team is going to have studs at every single position. 

Agreed but we are definitely in more of a rebuild stage than these playoff teams. The Rams have made several runs with QB play being the issue that holds them back. They are hoping Stafford fixes this. We are in year two of gutting our roster. Definitely trending in the right direction. Put it this way, Stafford makes the Rams potential Super Bowl contenders and would make us a potential playoff team IMO. If he came here and won one analysts would be shocked, not so much over there…

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Or gotten killed behind this OL.

If we had Stafford though, we'd probably be a very popular dark horse playoff pick.

I can't blame Stafford for picking the LA situation. They're the better situation for an aging QB. Yeah, we have damn good weapons but our OL looks like trash on paper.

Yeah, objectively the Rams have a much better line than us to begin the season, but we all know how quickly these things can change. Especially with ancient Andrew Whitworth playing LT and several of their guys coming back from big injuries. I guess we shall see…

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gipetto said:

I didn’t want Matt Stafford. Dude played 12 years in Detroit and didn’t accomplish one thing.

Agreed. Stafford is a spoiled rich brat from oil money in Dallas. He’s physically gifted up the wazoo and his arm talent might be the best in the NFL, but he hasn’t accomplished anything in his time in the NFL and probably doesn’t have that fire in his belly to be great.

  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, joemac said:

Yeah, objectively the Rams have a much better line than us to begin the season, but we all know how quickly these things can change. Especially with ancient Andrew Whitworth playing LT and several of their guys coming back from big injuries. I guess we shall see…

Yep. I'm just thinking from the perspective of a good, aging QB. From that perspective, weapons are nice. They're awesome. But I'd rather be behind a good OL with lesser weapons than behind a porous OL with better weapons. I'm thinking that if the OL can keep me clean I'll find somebody but all the weapons in the world aren't gonna help me much if the defense is having a team meeting around me immediately after the snap every time I go to drop back and those hits are starting to hurt a lot more than they did a decade ago. Yeah, I'm going better OL over better weapons.

  • Pie 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yep. I'm just thinking from the perspective of a good, aging QB. From that perspective, weapons are nice. They're awesome. But I'd rather be behind a good OL with lesser weapons than behind a porous OL with better weapons. I'm thinking that if the OL can keep me clean I'll find somebody but all the weapons in the world aren't gonna help me much if the defense is having a team meeting around me immediately after the snap every time I go to drop back and those hits are starting to hurt a lot more than they did a decade ago. Yeah, I'm going better OL over better weapons.

Can’t really argue with that!

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...