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 called about Mims...

Mr. Scot

By Mr. Scot,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

SetfreexX Mentor

SetfreexX

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, WOW!! said:

Douglas tried to trade rape us again.. Good Fitt don't fall for the trap...   Again!!

Rhule imo is the reason we gave up so much for Darnold. 

Fitt don't seem like the type to get fleeced, look at all the other trades. 

At that point Fitt had only been here since like Feb or March iirc, move was executed within a couple months. 

Look how well the Baker deal was navigated, limited draft capital, and we got Baker to give up almost 4M.

 

Edited by SetfreexX
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
top dawg Grand Master

top dawg

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Bet we trade some guys next offseason to try and get some of this back.

I hope we start to get ahead in these kind of moves. I am a little concerned that we kind of burn through draft capital and then scramble to get it back. 

I do think that is a potential Fitterer weakness. 

Could be a weakness...Could be a strength. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. All you can do is survey the situation and make your move (or not).

At this point, the only definitively bad deal that has been made is Darnold. 

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

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Could be a weakness...Could be a strength. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. All you can do is survey the situation and make your move (or not).

At this point, the only definitively bad deal that has been made is Darnold. 

Well we have had quite a few guys we have traded for that either didn't make the team or immediately didn't re-sign with us. 

I think Henderson and Mayfield could tilt that balance in our favor pretty heavily if they have good years and Baker ends up re-signing. 

Right now I would say we lose more than we win. They aren't dramatic losses but they seem fairly consistent. 

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

frankw

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

Rhule imo is the reason we gave up so much for Darnold. 

Fitt don't seem like the type to get fleeced, look at all the other trades. 

At that point Fitt had only been here since like Feb or March iirc, move was executed within a couple months. 

Look how well the Baker deal was navigated, limited draft capital, and we got Baker to give up almost 4M.

 

I understand it's easier to cope with one of the worst trades in recent memory by acting as if Fitterer was an errand boy but he was definitely very involved in the process. By the time the Baker trade went down very few teams were interested and Cleveland had lost significant leverage. It also helped we learned a few things from the fallout of the Darnold acquisition.

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
top dawg Grand Master

top dawg

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Well we have had quite a few guys we have traded for that either didn't make the team or immediately didn't re-sign with us. 

I think Henderson and Mayfield could tilt that balance in our favor pretty heavily if they have good years and Baker ends up re-signing. 

Right now I would say we lose more than we win. They aren't dramatic losses but they seem fairly consistent. 

The only person of note that I can think of is Gilmore, but he wasn't a lock to re-sign with us from the get-go. Anyone else that we traded for was a later day 3 pick (even Gilmore). I'm not gonna be bothered by fives, sixes and sevens. Those guys are generally easy to replace anyway (as are the picks a lot of times by dealing a player that you don't need).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

Beats me. I'm not a mind reader. Fitts and Rhule did say last year during the draft that you always need to churn the bottom of the roster and they wanted to use the draft to do so.

They have yet to trade down from their first round pick though.

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, jayboogieman said:

That might only be because they haven't received what they felt was the right offer for the pick instead of a lack of desire to do so.

They specified that they received offers last year but didn't feel they were good enough...which I'm fine with.

Heck, last year even when they did trade down they still wound up with guys they were targeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Luciu5 Veteran

Luciu5

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

They have yet to trade down from their first round pick though.

IF Baker is worth a longer contract, which would mean we are drafting mid 1st instead of top 10, I could see it worth trading back. Not a huge drop off from 15 to 20, let's say. If we don't need a QB and don't need a LT, there is more flexibility I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, jayboogieman said:

Maybe, maybe not. Just because they claim they got who they were targeting all along doesn't make it true. I doubt we'll ever know either way.

I don't think they were grandstanding for the cameras on Panthers Confidential.

To be clear though, I don't mind trading down. I'm less a fan of trading away future picks.

In both cases however, as long as you get good return I'm okay.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 minutes ago, Luciu5 said:

IF Baker is worth a longer contract, which would mean we are drafting mid 1st instead of top 10, I could see it worth trading back. Not a huge drop off from 15 to 20, let's say. If we don't need a QB and don't need a LT, there is more flexibility I feel.

That's the position the Seahawks always used to be in.

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

    • frankw
      An Offensive Tackle for the Long Term, but....

      By frankw · Posted

      Brother you've been WR driven for going on almost two decades now.  No need for us to discuss further.
    • TD alt
      An Offensive Tackle for the Long Term, but....

      By TD alt · Posted

      First, apologies @MHS831, I know you began this about tackles, and it was good. But... Frank, your post is just another Bryce sucks post. You obviously believe, like your buddy, that if we draft a WR it's all about evaluating Bryce Young or coddling Bryce Young. In short, it would be about improving the damned team. If anything, if Bryce is as destined to fail (or is already a failure right now... irredeemable), then another playmaker at WR would just seal the envelope and send him on his way. In my world, that's a good thing.  If some of you think that Bryce is a lame duck, then why wouldn't you want to set the offense up for the next QB to come in and be dropped into the offense to have success? Or, maybe you think it's all a moot point anyway because Tepper sucks, Dan Morgan sucks, Canales sucks, Ejiro sucks, Brandt Tilis sucks---everybidy sucks! If that's the case, then why does anyone care who or what we draft? Obviously some of you have all the answers and can run a gotdamn franchise better than the FO does now.
    • Swaggasaurus
      An Offensive Tackle for the Long Term, but....

      By Swaggasaurus · Posted

      Yeah man, idk. I’m not super big on looking at the position group overall and damning the group. I’ll do the same with less words for WR. I think Proctor is the ultimate fit because he could be your future left or right tackle or left or right guard. Guys a starter, how much Zavala, Christensen, Curhan, and Corbett did we see last year again? Mauigoa will not be there when we pick, but you take him for the same reason you take Proctor minus maybe the LT. Freeling *could* be an upgrade at LT for the future. You don’t take Miller or Iheanahor because the position flexibility isn’t there, likely RT only guys. Those Utah guys are light in the ass, don’t want. Now I do WR. All extremely unproductive when compared to previous Round 1 WR. Tate- Gone Lemon- Complete player, not a burner, would take at 19 Tyson- Made of glass, Colorado washout  Cooper- Not the best hands. Like 300 of his yards were lucky ass stumble blooper looking poo. Bernard gives you similar but better in the 2nd. KC- Slaps then catches the ball. Lightning fast for about 20 yards. Good return man. poo QBs probably more to unlock. Would take at 19 if Proctor, Freeling, Lemon were gone. Washington guy- Lumbers, the smoothness Canales hyped for TMac, not there with him. We need a different style player.    
×
×
  • Create New...