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!

     

“If you have a QB you like, You take a shot there”


ncfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

 

He also states that CBs are a game changing position.  My guess, they thought Horn had a lot better chance of becoming a great CB than Slater did of becoming a great LT so they went with Horn.

In regard to Fields, they simply might not have liked him for whatever reason.  Teams can vary greatly on QB evaluations.  Also its possible they liked Fields but didn't feel like QB was a need because they had just traded for Darnold.

It sounds crazy to us fans, but I think once they traded for Darnold, drafting a QB was pretty much off the table, for all we know if the trade for Darnold hadn't' happened we might have took Fields or Jones. 

My guess is they convinced themselves (probably Fitts included) that none of the QBs that were likely to be there when we picked had as good, or better, chance of Darnold being successful.  

 

 

My guess (which has basically been confirmed by Rhule) is that Fitts has input but the ultimate decision is Rhule's to make.

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

LT are easier to identify. We had this year's 2nd team all pro LT identified as a guard. See how easy that was. 

Devil's advocate--It happens a lot to more than just us.  2 of the best LTs in the league (Dion Dawkins & Dave Bakhtiari) were supposed guards at the next level and didn't fit at LT.          

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AU-panther said:

but your chances of finding a good QB are less, you have to take those chances when they present themselves.  

It's easier to build a good enough line than it is to find a good QB.

 

That might be true.. But when your forcing it past the risk reward situation you're failing the rest of the team..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Interesting that there's one top QB prospect that he specifically DIDN'T mention... 

Corral is not at the senior bowl due to injuries.. So he might have been omitted for that reason..

The interesting part is he sees Wills in the same tier as Pickett..

Edited by WOW!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

 

He also states that CBs are a game changing position.  My guess, they thought Horn had a lot better chance of becoming a great CB than Slater did of becoming a great LT so they went with Horn.

In regard to Fields, they simply might not have liked him for whatever reason.  Teams can vary greatly on QB evaluations.  Also its possible they liked Fields but didn't feel like QB was a need because they had just traded for Darnold.

It sounds crazy to us fans, but I think once they traded for Darnold, drafting a QB was pretty much off the table, for all we know if the trade for Darnold hadn't' happened we might have took Fields or Jones. 

My guess is they convinced themselves (probably Fitts included) that none of the QBs that were likely to be there when we picked had as good, or better, chance of Darnold being successful.  

 

 

Man, weren’t they wrong. Horn will likely be a good CB, but woosh on the Sam Darnold thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WOW!! said:

You can also shorten a extornary MVP QB career effectiveness playing behind a bad Oline for years..

You don’t completely ignore the OL. QB is just more important. You can find competent OL in rounds 2-5 (especially interior and I know we are missing picks this is generally speaking) and free agency. A franchise QB behind a competent OL will take you further than a random QB behind a solid OL. The Colts had one of the best OLs and missed the playoffs by losing to the Jags… 

The Bengals have Burrow and plenty of weapons and are obviously competitive, but I guarantee you they are addressing their OL this offseason. 9 sacks in one game is Panthers bad…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, davos said:

Devil's advocate--It happens a lot to more than just us.  2 of the best LTs in the league (Dion Dawkins & Dave Bakhtiari) were supposed guards at the next level and didn't fit at LT.          

True. But most NFL coaches don't come out and openly say it making themselves look like even bigger jackasses. 

  • Pie 2
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

    • We've got another viral Panthers song The dab is back Jags Week 1, Ohio State National Title, JLo got divorced...   Nature is healing, it's Super Bowl time
    • Its too late for that.  Time has run out.  You dont give him a ext if he plays "decent".  He played "decent" at the end of last year and look what happened.  
    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
×
×
  • Create New...