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

By ncfan,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
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
davos Grand Master

davos

Posted
Posted
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
WOW!! Grand Master

WOW!!

Posted
Posted
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
WOW!! Grand Master

WOW!!

Posted
Posted (edited)
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
TLGPanthersFan Grand Master

TLGPanthersFan

Posted
Posted
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
ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted
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
SmokinwithWilly Grand Master

SmokinwithWilly

Posted
Posted
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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • Dave Gettleman's Shorts
      TIME TO SPECULATE

      By Dave Gettleman's Shorts · Posted

      adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...