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!

     

Is it to early to revisit the Corral vs Malik Willis debate?


micnificent28
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

No Willis definitely played well and has been grinding and it shows. He deserves his flowers. He has shown more as a QB than anyone we've traded for or drafted in the past 8 years.

But he's still a backup and will be back on the bench once Love is healthy. It's a bit of an apples and oranges situation. We needed a good starting QB. We whiffed on getting one forever. Willis seems to be a solid backup QB. We don't need one of those.

To me his performance is irrelevant because he isn't the long term answer. You don't tend to kick yourself for missing on drafting a backup.

He has played well for the past 2 weeks. Sure he's a backup for now* not saying he's supplanting love. But could he reemerge like darnold and Geno and Mayfield why not? I haven't seen anything to show that he can't be a starter in this league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

I am thrilled for the win and happy with Andy Dalton in the short term. But banking on a 36 year old QB of the future is fools gold. 

Really. Kirk Cousins is 36 years old and the Falcons just signed him to a 4 year, 180 million contract. Aaron Rodgers is 40 and just signed for two years at 75 million. Matthew Stafford is 36 and I think the Rams are still pretty happy with him.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him simply because of his age. QBs are protected much more than they used to be, health science is more developed and he has less wear and tear from sitting than all the other QBs listed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

Too early? Corral is out the league and Willis was gone when we picked. 

Yea more like too late.  My problem was always trading up for Corral when Howell was on the board.  Yeah he's not exactly franchise QB material right now, but we didn't need to trade up for him and he's the best in the class.  Unlike Corral, he could have at least been a serviceable backup.  Something you shouldn't be trading up in the draft to get.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, micnificent28 said:

I am thrilled for the win and happy with Andy Dalton in the short term. But banking on a 36 year old QB of the future is fools gold. I'm still looking at potential franchise guys that we failed to identify. We passed on Willis a few times and even chose Corral over him in the 3rd. 

Yes his rookie season didn't look well coming out of liberty and needed time to develop and green bay got him on the cheap for what a 6-7th round pick? But he has already proven to be better than Corral easily.. and these past 2 games have been better than Bryce easily early into there careers.. can we discuss how we have failed to identify guys who are plus athletes and have the traits to be good vs. taking guys who are "football players" with less talent.

He's looked okay, he's only attempted 100 passes in the regular season in his career.... he isn't lighting it up throwing, I think he could be good but he barely as 5 games of film total on him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, csx said:

If revising history why not suggest trading a 7th instead of picking him.early in the draft?

 

I brought that up as well. The point is more so at how we view QBs.. what traits are we looking at? What makes you take one guy over another. My point was these guys showed elite traits and we settle for guys who might have went to bigger programs but didn't show the same physical ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, PantherChris said:

He's looked okay, he's only attempted 100 passes in the regular season in his career.... he isn't lighting it up throwing, I think he could be good but he barely as 5 games of film total on him.  

the point is he looks like a football player. A team has won 2 games with him at the helm which is all Bryce has done in 18 games. He would have come significantly cheaper as well and has more physical ability than anyone we have on the roster right now. Talent vs investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CRA said:

Willis is a bad QB

he happens to be playing on a good team with a coach he can make it work for a couple weeks 

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. Bad QBs make the team around you worse or look bad. Look at Skyler Thomas tim Boyle in Miami with those weapons. Levis looks bad. Even Bryce looked bad here and made our weapons look bad. But inserted Dalton and we look like a different team.

Willis hasn't thrown an interception and has benefit the weapons around him with his legs. He a plus instead of a hindrance. I think what you will see if he keeps playing solid a team come calling to give him a shot as a starter maybe mami.

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

    • Hello, soccer fans [crickets, tumbleweed flies by]. The World Cup kicks off in less than 2 weeks and, well, 🇺🇸USA USA USA🇺🇸 and all. We beat Senegal 3-2 yesterday in a tune-up friendly at BoA, with Christian Pulisic finally entering the scoring column.  How will we do in the World Cup once our tournament kicks off on the 12th? Well, there are 48 teams (assuming Iran is there) and it feels like one of two thing happens: we get grouped for the first time since '98, or we make it to the Round of 16 for the third time in the last four World Cups. I tried out the lottery for an Atlanta game and struck out, so yesterday was as World Cup as I'll get for in-person ($285/ticket for like Norway vs $39/ticket for USMNT right beforehand was a layup).  The U.S. has a travel-heavy schedule in group play, playing in LA, Seattle and LA. Real road warrior mentality being built. Glad the east coast gets worse kickoff times for a NA World Cup than a Qatar World Cup.
    • Well, that's the thing. Drafting players only for their physical measurables as you are suggesting only really happened during 2024, and X unfortunately has become the poster child for that. To be clear, it's not necessarily about drafting RAS over skill, but RAS over NFL-readiness and/or a solid body of work. Lots of players show skill in college, but those skills don't necessarily translate to the NFL for a multitude of reasons. But, getting back to the main point, to be clear, I believe that our FO is still enamored with physical gifts (who wouldn't be?), but now they're letting Dr. Eric Eager's proprietary system--his "secret sauce" prioritize the players that the Panthers draft, and it seems like it weighs not only a solid body of work, relative to a college career of course, but consistent gradual improvement as evidenced by production pretty highly. 
    • Its a good article about how pathetically bad our past drafts ('23 and '24) have been. Building the team in '23 since we weren't ready yet and taking your qb in '24 made so much more sense in hindsight. Ladd McConkey over XL is pretty much a given but not sure it does as much to change Bryce's trajectory as the author suggests.  As bad as '23 and '24 drafts were, the '25 and '26 really give me hope.  
×
×
  • Create New...