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!

     

would you be opposed to moving back up for Bijan Robinson?

micnificent28

By micnificent28,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

micnificent28 Mentor

micnificent28

Posted
Posted (edited)

Huge hypothetical here. It's a given QB is our biggest need and many things can happen there from a Carr signing to a Fields trade all the way to us moving up for Stroud or so. but say wr stayed at 9 and selected say Richardson, and kept all our ammunition. Would you be on board with selecting bijan robinson if he slipped into the 20s?

Let's remember Hubbard is the only other returning option as our current starter isnt under contract. RB is a need. Guy is hugely talented being compared to Barkley and given our questionable returns at RB i think it could be considered. What say you?

https://youtu.be/5Mmtfmqb0MI

 

Edited by micnificent28
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted

Honestly, it's hard for me to think of a reasonable price that would be accepted in that scenario. 

Robinson is arguably the best player in the draft regardless of position but there is absolutely no way I would take another RB in the top 15 unless it was literally the only thing lacking on my football team.

It's just such an insanely devalued position. Just look at the playoff teams.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
micnificent28 Mentor

micnificent28

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, kungfoodude said:

Honestly, it's hard for me to think of a reasonable price that would be accepted in that scenario. 

Robinson is arguably the best player in the draft regardless of position but there is absolutely no way I would take another RB in the top 15 unless it was literally the only thing lacking on my football team.

It's just such an insanely devalued position. Just look at the playoff teams.

Not top 15. I'm saying he slips to say 20 or so. we keep number 9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrianS Veteran

BrianS

Posted
Posted

We just traded away (arguably) the best RB in football.  And you want us to draft another?  Come on man.

The leading rusher in the SB was a seventh round pick for heavens sake.

If we trade up, it better be for a QB - regardless of what round we're talking about.  It's the only position in football worth trading up for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

Not top 15. I'm saying he slips to say 20 or so. we keep number 9.

Yeah but I can't think of any trade scenario where we aren't giving up next years first or multiple picks(2nd and 3rd/4th or whatever). 

I would rather have a cheaper running back in the 2nd-5th round that I can get away with because we might have a pretty good OL. 

We gotta get away from this strategy of having an elite RB. It really doesn't matter anymore. Doesn't mean it isn't nice to have but it just doesn't win games in the modern NFL. If we can get an elite talent at a not 1st round price, all in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CashNewton22 Experienced

CashNewton22

Posted
Posted

Yes. We’ve seen what we can do with solid mid/late round/undrafted backs if we were a team like the Bills or Chiefs it makes sense however with our roster construction a highly drafted rb let alone trading up for one should be so low on our priority list. IF we’re not trading up for a QB unless it’s for a DE WR CB OT (if we trade Moton) it’s not the move. I’m of the belief that you only trade up early for premium positions then maybe if a rb falls in the 3rd/4th you consider it if you have him rated highly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
micnificent28 Mentor

micnificent28

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, BrianS said:

We just traded away (arguably) the best RB in football.  And you want us to draft another?  Come on man.

The leading rusher in the SB was a seventh round pick for heavens sake.

If we trade up, it better be for a QB - regardless of what round we're talking about.  It's the only position in football worth trading up for.

We did trade away the best in the NFL and a lot of people are saying we didnt get enough for CMC. He helped carry the 49ers in the playoffs and the best friend of a young qb is a strong running game. I'm not saying trade up for just any RB. this is one of those Generational talents. Getting a sure fire stud at the position where we only have hubbard returning is very viable.

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

    • 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.
    • Dave Gettleman's Shorts
      TIME TO SPECULATE

      By Dave Gettleman's Shorts · Posted

      adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...