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!

     

Panthers could have had a second rounder


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, stbugs said:

This is discussed in another thread right next to this one. 

Hence the line "from the same Albert Breer article linked in the 'Good Insight' thread..."

I'm calling out a sub point in the article that I think is worthy of its own discussion.

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

I'm glad they made the attempt to go up to the 2nd, but I'm sure what they were giving up was ugly. So ultimately, the choice to reconsider, be patient, and give up less for who could have been the targeted QB all along, worked out in the immediate and long term interest of the team. Great job by them.

  • Pie 4
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something this also tells me is that these quarterbacks could have very likely had early to mid 2nd round grades by a lot of teams and their falls were entirely situational. 

There were so many not needing to prioritize QB in the second combined with the fact the QB needy ones like ours didn't want to overpay in a trade up.  A lot of teams finally had their first draft pick come round 2 and didn't need to get a QB.  The Falcons, Titans and Rhules' Team stayed patient.  And the rumor that the Seahawks don't see a problem with their QB room of Lock & Geno was true (Athletic/Brugler's SEA intel was correctomundo)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, davos said:

Something this also tells me is that these quarterbacks could have very likely had early to mid 2nd round grades by a lot of teams and their falls were entirely situational. 

There were so many not needing to prioritize QB in the second combined with the fact the QB needy ones like ours didn't want to overpay in a trade up.  A lot of teams finally had their first draft pick come round 2 and didn't need to get a QB.  The Falcons, Titans and Rhules' Team stayed patient.  And the rumor that the Seahawks don't see a problem with their QB room of Lock & Geno was true (Athletic/Brugler's SEA intel was correctomundo)

 

Mayfield could conceivably still be an option in Seattle too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, XClown1986 said:

I'm glad they made the attempt to go up to the 2nd, but I'm sure what they were giving up was ugly. So ultimately, the choice to reconsider, be patient, and give up less for who could have been the targeted QB all along, worked out in the immediate and long term interest of the team. Great job by them.

That's kinda what struck me.

I'm not all that used to us being patient.

(or smart)

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Exactly. We need another thread for discussing one part that’s something we didn’t even do?

I mean, cool, I applaud them for being patient and not making a patently stupid mistake like they have previously. I just feel like this had already been discussed not only in the aforementioned thread but others as well. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

The team has a deal in place for a second round pick at a time when every QB but Pickett was available but ended up backing out of it.

From the same Albert Breer article linked in the "Good Insight" thread...

Which was what guided them midway through the night, when they had a deal worked out to acquire a late-second-round pick, with every quarterback but Kenny Pickett still on the board. Inside the war room, Fitterer leaned over to Rhule, sitting to the GM’s left.

“I had the card in my hand, and he looks at me and says, What do you want to do?” Fitterer said. “And we both just kind of took a moment, and we looked at the board, and we decided the right thing to do was to be patient. Let’s not overpay. Let’s be smart about this. Let’s not dig ourselves in a hole for next year. Let’s inch back on trading with these quarterbacks.”

At that point, he, Rhule and the group resolved to wait a little longer and, since they had enough conviction on a couple of the guys left, take another look when another quarterback came off the board.

 

So basically the thought process was “What would Marty Hurney do?”

Then do the opposite.

Solid thinking.

Edited by tiger7_88
  • Pie 2
  • 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

    • This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...