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!

     

Article: Watson did not want the Panthers


WarPanthers89
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tepper, Fit and Rhule were ready to grab a guy with 22 unsettled lawsuits (weren't even worried about that), pay him another $10.5 million and be on the hook for $30+ million next year. And that guy has a history of not just sexual predation but of saying he'll sit at home rather than play for a coach/team he doesn't like.

What kind of fuging morons do that? Larry, Moe and Curly wouldn't come together and think that was a good decision!

We're stuck with Larry but Moe and Curly have got to go!

Edit to add: And let's not even talk about never having a decent draft pick for two or more years!

Edited by Khyber53
  • Pie 6
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, trueblade said:

We're going to have to draft a guy.

I'd truly commit to the rebuild this off-season, and sell off assets for 2023 draft picks, then draft OL. We'll win maybe four games in 2022, and then draft a QB in the 1st in the 23 draft.

 

Kenny Pickett come on down!  You're the next contestant on "Get your career destroyed behind the Carolina o-line"!

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

2 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

If this is an example of what we're to expect from Rhule in the future, Tepper would do well to cut ties with Matt in the coming weeks.  No way Panthers can afford such a reckless individual to have the keys to the kingdom.  Rhule will ruin this franchise for years if he is retained for 2022.

LOL you don't think Tepper was the one driving that train?

  • Pie 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, trueblade said:

We're going to have to draft a guy.

I'd truly commit to the rebuild this off-season, and sell off assets for 2023 draft picks, then draft OL. We'll win maybe four games in 2022, and then draft a QB in the 1st in the 23 draft.

 

In other words, do what they should have already done. Now we're two years into a rebuild with a bum coach and no end in sight

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, trueblade said:

We're going to have to draft a guy.

I'd truly commit to the rebuild this off-season, and sell off assets for 2023 draft picks, then draft OL. We'll win maybe four games in 2022, and then draft a QB in the 1st in the 23 draft.

 

Draft someone at QB? Hopefully there will be an answer elsewhere.  We've traded too many draft picks for the poo show we have now.  We need offensive line help.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 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

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...