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!

     

Upcoming Dilemna


DaveThePanther2008
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Ricky Spanish said:

If we Take an LT we need a QB other than Cam, because Cam just ain't it anymore. 

Cam is fine as a placeholder. I’d still bring in another vet to get that qb room solid and in case of injury. We need to draft the qb of the future for sure. But cam brings some stability and leadership that we need moving forward at that position.  We desperately need nfl coaching. That is the biggest need of the off-season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we think there's a potential franchise QB available, take him. Period. If you need a QB, that's your biggest need always. 

If not, then my preference would be the best OL available. If we don't think there's an OL available worth the pick, TRADE DOWN. Not having a 2nd and 3rd round pick this year HURTS. 

Honestly, if there's no one on the board who we think is a potential franchise QB or a potential franchise LT, I'm heavily entertaining any and all trade offers.

My biggest wish though is that Rhule and company are gone. If they aren't, all of this is moot. They'll continue to set this franchise back until fired.

 

 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Honestly, if there's no one on the board who we think is a potential franchise QB or a potential franchise LT, I'm heavily entertaining any and all trade offers.

The problem with this is that Rhule and Co haven't proven they know what a franchise QB or LT look like, so they'll look to trade back anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too early. Take either, whichever is better. We need both so it's easy and completely on the evaluation...which is what I fear from this group. 

If we keep Rhule, just play Sam into another top 10 pick. Trade back and get an OG or 2 and a C. If we get a new HC and keep the GM, it will be a QB (that guy doesn't know jack about olinemen). If we clean this stain away completely then anything could happen. 

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

This is a very weak QB draft. None of them are top 10 caliber guys. 

Definitely possible but we hear that most years. It's still very early. I guess it's just a matter of perspective. We've been kicking the can down the road on both left tackle and quarterback for years now. Should have made our move for one the last two years. It is insanity that we haven't. But there are no guarantees about who will be there available to us in 2023 either.

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...