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!

     

Who is QB3 in next years draft?


AU-panther
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm going to try and be positive here.

The Darnold experiment had 3 possible outcomes.

Option A:  He plays great, we pay him a lot of money and he becomes our franchise level QB for the next 10 years.

Option B:  He plays terrible, we eat next years cap hit and we look for a new QB.

Option C  He plays just good enough to win, when everything else goes well, and we pay him big money to be average.

Its looking like Option B, which is better than Option C.

There are some really bad teams this year ahead of us in the draft but I could see us drafting in that 8-12 range which might open up the possibility of QB 3 for us.  Who are we looking at?

 

Edited by AU-panther
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate UNC so it’s not easy for me to say but Howell is the best QB in this draft. He won’t go first. Corral is okay, Willis is below average, Hartman and Howell is where it’s at. 
 

I hope we get one of those two and that’s not easy to say being a Wolfpack fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, this year is a bad year for trying to draft a qb. Rattler looks like he needs another year. Howell plays a very simple one read offense. Corral has some interesting skills but im not convinced and ive watched him play about 10 times now. 

Malik Willis? Hes a lot better now, than at Auburn, but if he were a first riund draft pick it would have been obvious at Auburn that he had legit talent, it wasnt

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

    • It's honestly pretty interesting just seeing this pairing play out. Canales’ offenses (Seattle, Tampa) are run-first, under-center, play-action systems built around defined reads and intermediate/deep timing throws. That structure worked when he had QBs like Baker Mayfield or Russell Wilson in a system that created clear launch points and sightlines. His success has always been tied to a credible run game + play-action gravity. You can see that with the Panthers team building philosophy as well. Coker and TMac both are bigger receivers that won't get the best YAC production but thrive as possession receivers in contested scenarios. They're not the best in space and creating additional yardage in such, and would likely fair better systematically with a stronger armed QB who can create better opportunities on those boundary 1v1 matchups with stronger throws. Bryce, on the other hand, is a spread-native QB. His strengths are rhythm, spacing, quick processing, and off-script creation. Asking him to live in condensed formations with long-developing play-action concepts just hasn't been his forte. And well, his boundary throws are limited in velocity which takes a big chunk of the playbook off. And I mean a QB like Bryce can still work, it's just Dave's offensive philosophy and foundation is very much at odds with Young's physical limits and his own experience. So it's certainly still a learning experience for Dave to figure out how he can mesh his offensive philosophy with Young's strengths. He's very inexperienced with maximizing Bryce's strengths with his system. Would love to see us bring in an OC with spread experience and adaptability to implement a cohesive system with Dave to allow Bryce to thrive, as it's obvious we're sticking with him for a bit longer.   
    • Only thing I really agreed with is questioning why we didn’t take any timeouts on their last drive.  I know hindsight is 20/20, but I think it would’ve saved clock bc they were desperate to score as soon as the opportunity presented itself, but I also think it could’ve helped the defense regroup and maybe give us a better chance to stop them.
×
×
  • Create New...