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 actively shopping for a WR


ncfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Shocker said:

I couldnt even start to imagine what he would cost us

Multiple first round picks lol. You can kiss the 2025 1st and 2026 1st away to go along with not having a 2024 first for the Bryce trade. 

That would be the ultimate move to bury this franchise for a good decade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Agreed. Imagine trading up for your franchise QB then trading his only weapon on offense.smh

 

They should have traded Burns, now they can't even pay Burns the money he wants. This franchise is ran by some idiots.

Yes, it was always better to trade Burns because of the exact issues faced now: 1: No true #1 for Bryce and 2: Having to pay Burns #1 money without being convinced that he's actually a #1.

I also recall most here thinking that Burns was a more valuable piece than DJ. It is revisionist history now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

That's what Fitts said. Meanwhile, look at our history at DT and edge rusher. Now look at our history at WR. Now tell me which one we've struggled most at.

We put all our chips on the table for a young QB. You gotta commit to building around him and the commitment should've started with parting with a key young defensive piece rather than our only proven receiver.

Agree with this point and made the same at the time. This franchise can almost fall out of bed and acquire game breaking D-Linemen--it's actually probably the one good thing that it has been consistent at.

Finding a receiver though? Cam went to a Super Bowl with cast-offs Cotchery and Ginn as his main receivers with Olsen. I just remember when DJ was drafted, Smitty said, "they've been trying to replace me...until today". Says all we need to know, and CMC might actually be the 2nd best receiver in franchise history after Smitty. Speaking of Olsen, the franchise list of names for TE's is also short with just Walls and Olsen. Shockey was a shadow of himself and everyone else has basically been a bunch of JAGs.

Pass catchers has just not been a strong suit for this franchise from the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BrisbanePanther said:

Agree with this point and made the same at the time. This franchise can almost fall out of bed and acquire game breaking D-Linemen--it's actually probably the one good thing that it has been consistent at.

Finding a receiver though? Cam went to a Super Bowl with cast-offs Cotchery and Ginn as his main receivers with Olsen. I just remember when DJ was drafted, Smitty said, "they've been trying to replace me...until today". Says all we need to know, and CMC might actually be the 2nd best receiver in franchise history after Smitty. Speaking of Olsen, the franchise list of names for TE's is also short with just Walls and Olsen. Shockey was a shadow of himself and everyone else has basically been a bunch of JAGs.

Pass catchers has just not been a strong suit for this franchise from the beginning.

In terms of WRs, we have Smitty, Moose, and DJ as our top three. But after those three it absolutely falls off a cliff. Mark Carrier our 4th leading WR barely had over 2500 receiving yards for us. That's a terrible history for the position.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrisbanePanther said:

Yes, it was always better to trade Burns because of the exact issues faced now: 1: No true #1 for Bryce and 2: Having to pay Burns #1 money without being convinced that he's actually a #1.

I also recall most here thinking that Burns was a more valuable piece than DJ. It is revisionist history now.

Burns probably was a more valuable piece on the open NFL market, pass rushers with his potential just do.

But in that specific trade, DJ was the more valuable player that the Bears really wanted.  They needed to get Fields a weapon and there wasn't anyone great in free agency this summer (as we well know, seeing as we don't have a true #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

    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
×
×
  • Create New...