Who impressed & who needs to get his ass cut (Preseason week 1)

[MHS831]

About Plummer--I saw a lot of indecision/confusion.  My first thought?   how many reps has he been getting?  I did notice, however, that he made some bad decisions--he did not move in the pocket, protect the football, or show leadership.  His delivery seemed like a wind up. 

[MasterAwesome]

15 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I'd be a little cautious though.  They were playing against guys that might not make our team and our depth sucks.  Zappe should have picked them apart given his experience.  Milton hit a nice open WR with about 4 seconds in the pocket, he almost threw a pick 6 too.  I wouldn't be championing for their QBs so soon.  I would imagine Zappe is the odd man out and I'm not sure if he brings much to us as QB3.  A higher upside QB would make more sense.  The Pats QBs are just the Huddle's crush of the week.

I think it's also kinda an "anyone but Bryce", "grass is always greener" thing.  If you are really opposed to the starting QB, you're going to grasp to any other alternative as a replacement and often hyper-inflate that QB's value in the process.  That's why we were seeing things like "what if Jack Plummer kills it" or w/e.  I thought Milton had a promising first preseason game, but if Bryce made that throw that Milton made for the long touchdown, people would be nitpicking the hell out of it - "pass was thrown to the outside...receiver had to slow down and turn around...ball should've been thrown in stride to the inside...etc.".

[MHS831]

11 hours ago, Jmac said:

My bad on that post. Had high hopes that maybe something positive could happen for this team. Obviously not.

Silly you! I mean, vs. 2s and 3s, he had a chance to show us something--nothing wrong with a positive approach.  I have just seen it too many times.  My problem with Plummer was his fire/leadership.  Seemed slow to process--nearly all throws were a split second late, which is why (in part) there were drops.

[ForJimmy]

12 minutes ago, strato said:

I am talking potential starters, yeah. Knowing the low success rate.

You can find ST players all day though. Maybe a particular year there is a need for a ST guy that you know really would never be a starter but fills a role that season.. sure. I think every pick you have you hope to turn into a starter. 

This isn’t me saying it is blindfold and swing at a QB every year just because he is a QB. I am saying if you see something think you can work with it is worth a shot. Especially with an offensive minded QB centric staff that has some QB coaching ability. 

I’m cool with you not thinking it is the way to go. I’m sticking to it though. 

 

It's just all about value IMO.  If you have a spot at QB3 and a QB you had ranked has dropped to a lower round vs other positions, I'm all for it.  If we had a 4th round round on Milton and he is sitting there in the 6th for us, I'd be more than ok with drafting him.  Same goes for most positions though.  

[strato]

16 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I think it's also kinda an "anyone but Bryce", "grass is always greener" thing.  If you are really opposed to the starting QB, you're going to grasp to any other alternative as a replacement and often hyper-inflate that QB's value in the process.  That's why we were seeing things like "what if Jack Plummer kills it" or w/e.  I thought Milton had a promising first preseason game, but if Bryce made that throw that Milton made for the long touchdown, people would be nitpicking the hell out of it - "pass was thrown to the outside...receiver had to slow down and turn around...ball should've been thrown in stride to the inside...etc.".

For me it was anyone but Bryce. When it got to that point.

It was always, regardless of the player, anything but giving up future 1st round. Multiples.(oops not multiples) And the whole bounty they got from us for anybody we chose, not specifically Bryce. 

It isn’t a reaction against him specifically, it is a call to stop doing stupid poo with your most precious assets because you are fuging impatient. To not do business like that. 

 

Edit: and I will tell you what really kills me, and not recalling if this was you or who else but people were happily lining up to give those assets away and the value was massive, it was a huge gamble. People are all over it. Yeah! It’s worth it! DO it!

I suggest a gamble that you could do almost every year to the year 2100 and you would still not approach the value spent in that single move. I am thinking.

But people start talking value. 

Edited August 9, 2024 by strato

[PNW_PantherMan]

1 hour ago, MasterAwesome said:

I think it's also kinda an "anyone but Bryce", "grass is always greener" thing.  If you are really opposed to the starting QB, you're going to grasp to any other alternative as a replacement and often hyper-inflate that QB's value in the process.  That's why we were seeing things like "what if Jack Plummer kills it" or w/e.  I thought Milton had a promising first preseason game, but if Bryce made that throw that Milton made for the long touchdown, people would be nitpicking the hell out of it - "pass was thrown to the outside...receiver had to slow down and turn around...ball should've been thrown in stride to the inside...etc.".

Milton is a 6th round pick who arguably flashed more times in less than a quarter of preseason action than our first overall pick did his entire rookie season.  Thats the issue.

Yeah Milton's probably never going to be a starter.  He's 24 years old and he has a metric poo ton to improve to be viable.  He has to figure it out before he gets too far past his physical peak.  Time is not on his side.

You can say its the grass is always greener on the other side, but ya know.. sometimes it is really greener. 

Edited August 9, 2024 by PNW_PantherMan

[Johnstonny]

I'd just put TMJ and Mingo on PUP....cause neither can catch...

[MasterAwesome]

1 hour ago, strato said:

So I am a lowly fan unsophisticated in the building of .500 teams on a good day.  Let’s see what happens with Rattler, with some of these guys that were projected third rounders and go to freefall. 

The idea, where in this discussion it went another way, is that this is an asset development game. QBs are top currency. Develop some. Trade them. Pats did it successfully more than once.

I think we're millennia away from the point where we are developing and trading late round quarterbacks for assets lol.  Unless I'm missing someone, then I think the Patriots did it one time with Matt Cassel?  And I think we'd agree that it was less that they "developed" him but that they made him look good in their system and then tricked another team into trading for him, only for him to never live up to what they gave up.  Otherwise I'm assuming you're thinking of Garoppolo?  He was drafted in the 2nd and later traded for a 2nd.  The only other QB I can think of was way back in the day with Drew Bledsoe, but he was drafted 1st overall, played ~10 years, then traded for a 1st.  So only Cassel would fit what you're saying about drafting a guy late, developing him, then trading him.

99.9% of the time (my unresearched guesstimate) it goes in the opposite direction where a team drafts a QB and then trades them for a huge loss.  Like Mac Jones and Justin Fields going for a 6th round pick each, after costing their drafting team a mid-1st.

Trust me I understand the idea conceptually.  I just think it's an idea that sounds better on paper than it is in practice.  If it was an untested theory, I'd be on board and say yeah sounds good let's try it.  But there is a mountain of evidence already to the contrary.  I'm not even by any means saying let's never draft QBs in the later rounds, I'm just in favor of following your draft board which is a culmination of months and months of scouting. 

tl/dr: If a QB you are intrigued by falls in the draft and is available in the 6th round when you're on the clock and his value lines up with your draft board, then hell yeah let's take him.  Otherwise just grabbing a developmental QB every year late in the draft hoping one of them pans out just reeks of desperation IMO.

[strato]

18 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I think we're millennia away from the point where we are developing and trading late round quarterbacks for assets lol.  Unless I'm missing someone, then I think the Patriots did it one time with Matt Cassel?  And I think we'd agree that it was less that they "developed" him but that they made him look good in their system and then tricked another team into trading for him, only for him to never live up to what they gave up.  Otherwise I'm assuming you're thinking of Garoppolo?  He was drafted in the 2nd and later traded for a 2nd.  The only other QB I can think of was way back in the day with Drew Bledsoe, but he was drafted 1st overall, played ~10 years, then traded for a 1st.  So only Cassel would fit what you're saying about drafting a guy late, developing him, then trading him.

99.9% of the time (my unresearched guesstimate) it goes in the opposite direction where a team drafts a QB and then trades them for a huge loss.  Like Mac Jones and Justin Fields going for a 6th round pick each, after costing their drafting team a mid-1st.

Trust me I understand the idea conceptually.  I just think it's an idea that sounds better on paper than it is in practice.  If it was an untested theory, I'd be on board and say yeah sounds good let's try it.  But there is a mountain of evidence already to the contrary.  I'm not even by any means saying let's never draft QBs in the later rounds, I'm just in favor of following your draft board which is a culmination of months and months of scouting. 

tl/dr: If a QB you are intrigued by falls in the draft and is available in the 6th round when you're on the clock and his value lines up with your draft board, then hell yeah let's take him.  Otherwise just grabbing a developmental QB every year late in the draft hoping one of them pans out just reeks of desperation IMO.

I said every year only for the purpose of illustrating the actual cost compared to what we actually did (annual carnage in that pursuit). The trade value reference: 15.4 for the 6th vs 1050 in the 1st. That’s nothing.

I think if you have a staff that can you can actually develop, why not keep trying to find QB talent? The salary alone is prohibitive to keeping an ordinary one for the long term. 

At the end of this day, isn’t worth all this typing we are not going to see this the same. 

[frankw]

Milton is only a subject at all here because our first overall pick has had red flags about his deep ball or lack thereof going back to Alabama. Mac Jones who wasn't even activated last night had a better deep ball in college. The defensiveness is unnecessary. The facts are what they are until proven otherwise.

[frankw]

I will say Zavala for all the ire he's gotten when he was a rookie could end up being a good lineman for us. What I saw of him in the draft interviews indicated a hard worker and a smart kid.

[TheSpecialJuan]

https://x.com/pff_panthers/status/1822005084470771951?s=46&t=xeIgh_-Vr2aKxBkBJdfnKA

[Basbear]

27 minutes ago, frankw said:

Milton is only a subject at all here because our first overall pick has had red flags about his deep ball or lack thereof going back to Alabama. Mac Jones who wasn't even activated last night had a better deep ball in college. The defensiveness is unnecessary. The facts are what they are until proven otherwise.

Its hard to keep up with all the movement, jones was traded to jags @LinvilleGorge missed as well. Loads of QBs were on the move this past year. 

[MasterAwesome]

17 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Milton is a 6th round pick who arguably flashed more times in less than a quarter of preseason action than our first overall pick did his entire rookie season.  Thats the issue.

Yeah Milton's probably never going to be a starter.  He's 24 years old and he has a metric poo ton to improve to be viable.  He has to figure it out before he gets too far past his physical peak.  Time is not on his side.

You can say its the grass is always greener on the other side, but ya know.. sometimes it is really greener. 

You know who else flashed a lot?  Justin Fields, on his way to a 10-28 record as he was shipped off for a 6th round pick.  Like I already said, it was an encouraging first preseason game for Milton.  I just hear over and over and over from this board about "flashes" this and "flashes" that and it seems like that word is used to connotate exciting/wow plays, which I understand because this is supposed to be entertainment at the end of the day.  I also understand the frustration because Bryce gave us neither winning nor excitement last year.  I just think the whole "flashes" thing is so overplayed because obviously elite physical traits are going to naturally yield more flashes, and Milton is quick with a big arm.  I also think NFL coaches don't care as much about flashes as they do consistency - I think they'd rather have a boring but consistent QB like Brock Purdy or Dak to an extent, over someone who wows you one play and has you pulling your hair out the next.