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!

     

  • panthers-redskins-1.jpg

A little more insight on the almost Matt Stafford trade.


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

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.

He’s still pissed he swallowed the hook so hard. What’s the difference in league sources now as opposed to then. NE wouldn’t trade up any to get him. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/2021-nfl-draft-adam-schefter-confident-49ers-pick-mac-jones-no-3%3famp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Toomers said:

He’s still pissed he swallowed the hook so hard. What’s the difference in league sources now as opposed to then. NE wouldn’t trade up any to get him. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/2021-nfl-draft-adam-schefter-confident-49ers-pick-mac-jones-no-3%3famp

Maybe. But those rumors (even though they made no sense to me) were way too strong at the time for their not to be some fire behind the smoke and they were definitely watching Jones at his pro day with keen interest and their faces read deep concern.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Maybe. But those rumors (even though they made no sense to me) were way too strong at the time for their not to be some fire behind the smoke and they were definitely watching Jones at his pro day with keen interest and their faces read deep concern.

 

When rumors are that “strong”, especially involving the draft, take it with all the grains of salt. Like you did. Who knows the exact reason but it never made sense. If the Panthers took Jones, this article would be about how the 49ers were scared y’all would take him. Or Denver. Schefter is as good as it gets, but he believed the wrong people on this. As did many people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

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

but would we win is the thing?

We have a young roster with some talent on it. I think you're smarter than to say if we put a good but not great aging qb on the roster we're suddenly an automatic contender. For one thing, do you really want to put an aging not especially mobile QB behind THIS OL? Would you really expect that to be an easy fix given how quality LT's grow on trees?

I don't think it's a given that this roster with a solid QB is automatically a contender.  Talk to me at the end of this season and if things go as we hope they will and the OL rookies look promising, then maybe at that point it's a different conversation, but right now? Nah I don't think acquiring Stafford would have been the right move, and frankly I'm glad we missed out, even if Darnold doesn't turn out to be the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting, good read. I also think this puts to rest the dumb “Panthers don’t care about QBs” nonsense. They do if they find someone they like. They just didn’t love the QBs in the draft this year that were available. 
 

I’m going all in on blind optimism and Darnold at this time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

but would we win is the thing?

We have a young roster with some talent on it. I think you're smarter than to say if we put a good but not great aging qb on the roster we're suddenly an automatic contender. For one thing, do you really want to put an aging not especially mobile QB behind THIS OL? Would you really expect that to be an easy fix given how quality LT's grow on trees?

I don't think it's a given that this roster with a solid QB is automatically a contender.  Talk to me at the end of this season and if things go as we hope they will and the OL rookies look promising, then maybe at that point it's a different conversation, but right now? Nah I don't think acquiring Stafford would have been the right move, and frankly I'm glad we missed out, even if Darnold doesn't turn out to be the answer.

I think we'd be a contender for a playoff berth with Stafford. SB contender? Nah, I wouldn't go that far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, hepcat said:

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.

This is a really bad take. He’s one of the best QBs in the league and has been so for the past decade despite being in a miserable franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford is an excellent QB and will be very good for 3-4 more seasons, but if we can make Sam work he could be the answer here for the next decade. Failing that, we will draft our QB of the future once we have resolution on Sam, but don't count him out. Sam looks like he needed a quieter place to develop due to coming out of the draft so young and the Jets were a crash landing because they needed a savior and a savior he is not. The thing that keeps sticking with me is the optimism for Joe Burrow and the dismissal of Sam Darnold and the relative age difference. 

People will cringe, but this move reminds me more of when we picked up David Carr, but we were about 2-3 seasons too late. We're due a good bounce. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, therealmjl said:

This is a really bad take. He’s one of the best QBs in the league and has been so for the past decade despite being in a miserable franchise.

https://sportsandfitnessdigest.com/matthew-stafford-record-against-winning-teams/

"Since entering the NFL in 2009, Matthew Stafford is 8-67 (.106) against teams that finished the season with a winning record."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

🤣

Remember that today when you judging Ole Sam though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, therealmjl said:

This is a really bad take. He’s one of the best QBs in the league and has been so for the past decade despite being in a miserable franchise.

Let’s see how he does in LA before we call it a bad take 

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


×
×
  • Create New...