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!

     

The last 7 SuperBowl Champions

ncfan

By ncfan,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

ColumbusCounty Proficient

ColumbusCounty

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Captroop said:

But Frank Reich coming in, he doesn't need to prove anything right away, and losing future picks on a QB who busts would haunt him the rest of his tenure. So if this regime makes the move, it betrays a confidence and certainty in the guy they're going after that any fan would be a fool not to celebrate.

That's pretty much it. Exactly what I think. If he does trade up in his first CAR draft then he obviously has supreme confidence in that prospect. 

To potentially lose anywhere from three to six draft picks on a player your not 100% confident in would be insane. Esp for a "new" coach and staff coming in. 

It's also why I don't think we'd trade up for AR. If anything we'd trade down for him. Too much risk. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SCO96 Veteran

SCO96

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, ncfan said:


 

only 1 winner out of 7 had a offense Outside the top 5 (last years Rams 7th overall)

only 1 winner the last 7 years had a top 5 defense.

There are 32 teams in the NFL. Half of 32 is 16. According to your data, if interpreted literally, every team on this list finished in the top half of the league in points allowed. So defensive performsnce is still important.

You don't have to be great in all 3 phases of the pro game (O, D, ST), but you need to be good in all 3. If you're bad in any of them you won't win a championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
onmyown Grand Master

onmyown

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Captroop said:

Why trade up? None of those teams had a QB they took with a top 5 pick.

I agree with the premise we have to find a franchise QB. But the lesson from that list is you either 1) Trade for a proven star or 2) get lucky with your pick. Hell, even Mahomes could have been gotten with the #9 pick.

bc we need all odds possible

the GM Rhule hired is calling the shots. let that sink in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
heel31ok Experienced

heel31ok

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, ColumbusCounty said:

That's pretty much it. Exactly what I think. If he does trade up in his first CAR draft then he obviously has supreme confidence in that prospect. 

To potentially lose anywhere from three to six draft picks on a player your not 100% confident in would be insane. Esp for a "new" coach and staff coming in. 

It's also why I don't think we'd trade up for AR. If anything we'd trade down for him. Too much risk. 

Trading down makes more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SCO96 Veteran

SCO96

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, heel31ok said:

Trading down makes more sense.

In theory I agree. We could use the extra picks. But, that can be risky. Take a look at this link below in regards to Anthony Richardson. He's rated #3 on this list. This site and a couple of other feel he may be the QB with the highest upside in the 2023 draft.

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/2023-nfl-draft-top-10-quarterbacks/

If the first two guys are gone (Stroud and Young), and Anthony is sitting there at #9, you have to take him "IF" the coaching staff believes they can win with him. If you trade back you run the risk of having someone steal him from you before you're up again. I could live with that depending on the position, but not QB.

If we took Richardson and he pans out we're set for the rest of the decade at QB. We'd still have the following:

— our second-rounder

— San Francisco's second-rounder

— San Francisco's third-rounder

— Our fourth-rounder

— San Francisco's fourth-rounder

— Our fifth-rounder

We should come out of this draft with at minimum 3 starters after the 9th pick in the first round.

Worst case scenario, he bombs. In 2024 we go after another guy in the first round and move up if we have to.

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

    • Joe Bear
      Okay, now face the facta guyd

      By Joe Bear · Posted

      No, it will be a raw 6'7" 17-year-old European who just played basketball for the first time in March and who the idiot GM "had first on our board." He'll play the whole G-League season, get in 42 games for the Hornets and average 1.1 ppg on 35% shooting. Been there, seen that.
    • ForJimmy
      JJ Jansen on tanking

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      We missed on Burns at his peak value. That’s the problem with trading for picks 2-3 years away (which people were convinced the Rams would suck by now and these would be higher picks btw). Each year away the pick is the further in value it drops. Fitt was clearly hired based on turning us around quickly. It’s one of the many reasons tanking isn’t really a thing as our player JJ is telling you in this original article. It would take the whole organization from the owners down admitting they aren’t winning soon with Burns and picks 2-3 years away having more value because that’s when we are still rebuilding. It would only make sense if Fitt had a longer leash and would more than likely be the ones making these picks anyway which you wouldn’t want. The question is would you rather have those Rams picks with the strong possibility of Fitt still being here or would you rather Fitt try to “win now” like he did and expedite his firing? Altering the timeline would affect more than just the Rams picks. 
    • HaricotVert
      Potential changes to playoff seeding

      By HaricotVert · Posted

      I dont buy the idea that it would create more competitive games Given this: Seed Current Format Record Proposed Open Seeding Record 1 Lions 15–2 Lions 15–2 2 Eagles 14–3 Eagles 14–3 3 Buccaneers 10–7 Vikings 14–3 4 Rams 10–7 Commanders 12–5 5 Vikings 14–3 Rams 10–7 6 Commanders 12–5 Buccaneers 10–7 7 Packers 11–6 Packers 11–6 That would mean Wild Card round would have been Eagles (14/3) v  Pack(11/6) Vikings(14/3) v Bucs(10/7) Commanders(12/5) v Rams(10/7) Instead of Eagles (14/3) v  Pack(11/6) Bucs(10/7) v Commanders(12/5) Rams(10/7) v Vikings(14/3) Then with the reseed it would mean that highest remaining seed would always draw the lowest remaining team.
×
×
  • Create New...