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!

     

Poll: What do you want Panthers to do for QB?

NAS

By NAS,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

What do you want Panthers to do this offseason?  

217 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you want Panthers to do regarding QB situation this offseason

    • Draft best available QB at current draft position (#9)
      59
    • Trade up with Bears (#1) and draft a QB (whatever it takes)
      47
    • Trade up with Cardinals (#3) and draft a QB (whatever it takes)
      58
    • Sign Derek Carr and draft best available player at #9
      51
    • Trade for Lamar Jackson, fully guaranteed contract (Watson like trade)
      2

Recommended Posts

mountainpantherfan2 Explorer

mountainpantherfan2

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, WOW!! said:

Mahomes was a QB traded up for… Just saying..

Yes he was. But not a trade into the top 5.  What the Chiefs gave up for that pick was really not that much. They had the 27th pick that year. They traded that with a 3rd rounder and their 2018 first round pick to move up.

 

That’s reasonable. Compare that to what other teams have traded to move up into the top 5 for a QB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WOW!! Grand Master

WOW!!

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, mountainpantherfan2 said:

Yes he was. But not a trade into the top 5.  What the Chiefs gave up for that pick was really not that much. They had the 27th pick that year. They traded that with a 3rd rounder and their 2018 first round pick to move up.

 

That’s reasonable. Compare that to what other teams have traded to move up into the top 5 for a QB. 

Just saying that’s a lot of criteria to make a point.. When in reality depending on the situation trading up has worked for teams and is a necessity when you are convinced that player is a difference maker..

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mountainpantherfan2 Explorer

mountainpantherfan2

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, WOW!! said:

Just saying that’s a lot of criteria to make a point.. When in reality depending on the situation trading up has worked for teams and is a necessity when you are convinced that player is a difference maker..

Completely agree.  My point was to say trading into the top 5 for a QB isn’t the sure fire way to win a Super Bowl the way some seem to feel it is. Plenty of teams have found success throughout the draft and through free agency and trades. 
 

 Another note to consider is the influences on Fitterer and Reich. Seattle was able to get to three Super Bowls and win one in the last 20 years with a 6th round and 3rd round QB.  Philadelphia won a Super Bowl with a 3rd round QB and just got to another Super Bowl with a 2nd round QB. 
 

Of course that doesn’t mean that is the only option. But I don’t think Fitterer and Reich will be locked in on only looking at QBs in the top 5 of the draft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glenwo2 Grand Master

glenwo2

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Why is nobody suggesting Aaron Rodgers?

 

Im like the only person who has discussed the idea. A 2 year run with Rodgers would be worth it. Would be like the Brady/Bucs run. We have enough pieces to win the NFC with Rodgers. Maybe get him a TE in FA and we are set.

Because Rodgers may wind up with the Jets.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Green-Ghost Proficient

Green-Ghost

Posted
Posted

My thought is to trade up for the #1 draft choice, assuming the Bears are gullible.  ( I do not recommend a Mike Ditka style, trade away the future.  ). Leave that for the Saints.

my 2nd choice is to bring in Carr if available.  (There are several teams trying to bring in Carr.)

3rd Choice is to go with the draft,  

Jackson has too much baggage.

Jamis Winston would be ok,, only if he came with tranquilizers to keep him from panicking and throwing to the other team.

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

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      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
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      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...