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!

     

FA QB Options


Michael G
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://catcrave.com/2022/02/16/7-quarterbacks-carolina-panthers-target-2022-free-agency/3/

This Fansided (Catcrave) Article discusses 7 possible FA QBs that could be brought in to compete with Darnold. Let's assume we won't draft a young signal caller and we can't bag another more established signal caller via Trade.

The Players Mentioned were

1. Jacoby Brissette

2. Marcus Mariota

3. Jameis W.

4. Tyrod Taylor

5. Mike White

6. Mitch Turbisky

7. Brandon Allen

Which of these guys has the best shot of helping this team win some games. Explain your reasoning if you please and debate away. (Cam is not on this list but feel free to add him. I can't stop you!)

Edited by Michael G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would probably take Mitch if we found a way to trade Darnold. Besides that really no point. None of those are gonna move the needle, rather getting us another 8-6th pick; missing out on the most highly regarded QB’s next year.

Edited by shaq
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best shot? Eh....depends on how we build and how we run the offense.

Taylor/Brissett will not actively lose you games and will manage them relatively effectively. 

Winston/Trubisky are gambles on gunslingers. Gonna have some high highs and low lows. 

If you go deep passing offense:

1. Winston

2. Trubisky

If you go conservative, rush based offense:

1. Taylor

2. Brissett

 

Not interested at all in the rest other than for backup purposes.

Edited by kungfoodude
  • Pie 2
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Mitch signed with Buffalo because he wanted a stable situation to regroup. I highly doubt he's going to jump right back into another full blown poo show.

The writer seem to suggests a lot of these FAs would be intrigued because they are assured a shot to start going up against Darnold. I guess Mitch would have to decide if starting again is worth the risks of getting caught up in the Mess here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Mitch signed with Buffalo because he wanted a stable situation to regroup. I highly doubt he's going to jump right back into another full blown poo show.

Right, he'd rather be a backup on a playoff team and maybe get his Nick Foles moment at some point in the playoffs. Then get his one decent contract wherever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, parker said:

Doesn't he have consistent injury problems?

Mariota hasn't really played much the last couple of years. He did have some injury issues at Tennessee. If He's gotten better watching and learning he should be healed up. He might be worth a look. I guess injury is always a possibility though.  

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

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