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!

     

Jeremy Fowler: Panthers have done their due diligence on QB Jimmy Garoppolo

TheSpecialJuan

By TheSpecialJuan,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

ImaginaryKev Grand Master

ImaginaryKev

Posted
Posted

I'd be fine with him.

Panthers need someone to put Darnold on the bench. They also need someone just competent enough to get through the season but not win too much so they can adequately tank next year too.

I can't imagine wanting to try and take more shortcuts this rebuild. Sam can't be allowed on the field and they have to eat his contract a year. Jimmy would fit the bill and his contract would come off the books soon, too, meaning cap room with a rookie QB at that juncture.

This is the year to trade down and fix the offensive line, Rhule dug us this hole and they need to lay in it. 

  • Pie 2
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Centerfield Enthusiast

Centerfield

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, ImaginaryKev said:

I'd be fine with him.

Panthers need someone to put Darnold on the bench. They also need someone just competent enough to get through the season but not win too much so they can adequately tank next year too.

I can't imagine wanting to try and take more shortcuts this rebuild. Sam can't be allowed on the field and they have to eat his contract a year. Jimmy would fit the bill and his contract would come off the books soon, too, meaning cap room with a rookie QB at that juncture.

This is the year to trade down and fix the offensive line, Rhule dug us this hole and they need to lay in it. 

Glad you have no say, Jesus

Link to comment
Share on other sites
top dawg Grand Master

top dawg

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

That (Jettisoning Darnold) would be the only way I would do something like this, with the possible exception on Minshew on the cheap.  Even then, it would be only because we have zero QBs on the roster who are under contract after this season, and thankfully so.  

Oh yeah, I agree. I said as much if you read and understand what I said. Minshew would be one of the "journeyman" that I was referencing. I would think we'd have to keep Darnold in the case of Minshew because why would Philly take on his contract? Hell, we'd have to pay them additional resources just to take on Darnold, and that would likely lead to something unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, ImaginaryKev said:

I'd be fine with him.

Panthers need someone to put Darnold on the bench. They also need someone just competent enough to get through the season but not win too much so they can adequately tank next year too.

I can't imagine wanting to try and take more shortcuts this rebuild. Sam can't be allowed on the field and they have to eat his contract a year. Jimmy would fit the bill and his contract would come off the books soon, too, meaning cap room with a rookie QB at that juncture.

This is the year to trade down and fix the offensive line, Rhule dug us this hole and they need to lay in it. 

You're gonna end up paying $40M for Jimmy G when you combine his cap hit with Darnold's. That should be a complete nonstarter.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon Snow Grand Master

Jon Snow

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I care. I just don't have an answer.

Someone asked me in one of these recent threads who I wanted at quarterback, and I realized there isn't anybody available I'd say "yes" to.

There's not a single qb available out there that's going to change the trajectory of this team next season. 

My only hope is that whomever it is that they make it entertaining enough to tune in for each game. 

That's how low my confidence in this franchise has become. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
Posted (edited)

This season represents the lack of vision--they went after an underperforming Darnold without a backup plan.  They should have drafted Fields, tbh--even if they had Darnold.  Instead, they had to give Darnold his fifth year contract because he was doing fairly well and we did not have a backup plan.  Then it went south, and Rhule is now confronted with either another retread or a rookie---no vision.

Scott Fitterer wants a rookie, but this year? Who knows.  I keep thinking that Pickett will be Pick 6--and I hope that is not irony (Pick it at Pick 6).

They sure found themselves in a mell of a hess.

 

I get the feeling that Rhule lost his hope for success when Cleveland signed Watson.

Edited by MHS831
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sgt Schultz Grand Master

Sgt Schultz

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Oh yeah, I agree. I said as much if you read and understand what I said. Minshew would be one of the "journeyman" that I was referencing. I would think we'd have to keep Darnold in the case of Minshew because why would Philly take on his contract? Hell, we'd have to pay them additional resources just to take on Darnold, and that would likely lead to something unacceptable.

Yeah, I don't see anybody taking Darnold at this point.  He's ours this year, whether anybody likes it or not.  Roughly $18.5M reasons.  Luckily, unless we do something epically stupid, it is one year. 

While PT Barnum was correct (and probably an optimist), it is going to take a day's worth of suckers to find one big enough for Darnold's salary.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KillerKat Grand Master

KillerKat

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I hope their due diligence told them he sucks because he does. Take him off the Niners' great roster with a very good offensive coach and put him here and he's probably indistinguishable from Sam Darnold.

Qbs that suck don't go to a Super Bowl and another Conference Championship. They just don't no matter what team they're on. Yeah you can say his recent injury is something to stay away from, but to say he has sucked is inaccurate at best.

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

    • tukafan21
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      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.
    • CamWhoaaCam
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By CamWhoaaCam · Posted

      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?
    • CamWhoaaCam
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By CamWhoaaCam · Posted

      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...