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 trading for John Kitna be a good move?

PhillyB

By PhillyB,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

PhillyB Grand Master

PhillyB

Posted
Posted

My apologies in advance if this has already been discussed.

Kitna had a pretty decent season in Dallas after Romo's injury - they're likely to put him on the trading block, as several teams will probably show interest. the guy's about as good of a veteran stopgap as you're going to find out there, and without a blockbuster trade, there's no way we're going to find our franchise quarterback this year - stopgap is our best bet.

Kitna would be cheap and a significant upgrade over pickles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tutto Newbie

Tutto

Posted
Posted

I do like Kitna, although it depends on what they are asking. They just said on NFL network that Denver may be willing to part with Orton for a 3rd. If thats true, Id jump all over that, and Ortons contract apparently is very tradeable, not sure the exact amount.

Orton is solid, maybe not elite, but for the first half of last year he sure looked like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bleys Newbie

bleys

Posted
Posted

the main knock, IIRC, was Kitna's arm on the deep ball.. he did a good job leading that team..

at this point where we sit.. if we can get any decent QB in here, it's a good move. it's only a stopgap, but one we need..

he won't deserve a high pick, so the Cowboys better be realistic.. then again, maybe they want to keep him around and ask something ridiculous..

I do like Kitna, although it depends on what they are asking. They just said on NFL network that Denver may be willing to part with Orton for a 3rd. If thats true, Id jump all over that, and Ortons contract apparently is very tradeable, not sure the exact amount.

Orton is solid, maybe not elite, but for the first half of last year he sure looked like it.

I'd pull the trigger in a second for Orton if all they want is a 3rd.. and it won't be this years either..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gotsmart? Newbie

gotsmart?

Posted
Posted

the problem witha third for Orton is that it is a temporary solution while we set up a young QB to take over for the future. This isn't normally that bad of a trade off, but since we do not have a 2nd round pick this offseason, at this point at least, it would hurt us. IMO, we need to be able to pick up as many quality young players early as we can. No 2nd is going to hurt us. Having no 2nd or 3rd and getting orton is not a beneficial trade off for us at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bleys Newbie

bleys

Posted
Posted

the problem witha third for Orton is that it is a temporary solution while we set up a young QB to take over for the future. This isn't normally that bad of a trade off, but since we do not have a 2nd round pick this offseason, at this point at least, it would hurt us. IMO, we need to be able to pick up as many quality young players early as we can. No 2nd is going to hurt us. Having no 2nd or 3rd and getting orton is not a beneficial trade off for us at this point.

that isn't going to be the case at all.. No FA can happen until the CBA is reached. if ANY trades are done this year by ANY team it will be for picks in next years draft..

Any FA QB is going to be a stop gap.. we need 3-4 years of decent QB play to develop either Clausen or a new rookie prospect.

No FA will provide that and help us stay competitive like Orton. whether people want to knock him or not, his stats tell a different story and was the case before Denver.. people get something stuck in their head and can't get it out..

If we get any FA QB, he will be the best bet and if we can get him for next years 3rd, you make that happen..

bringing in anyone else to teach Clausen is useless if they aren't expected to start for at least 2 years.. Clausen needs to sit the bench and learn his craft.. he should have been allowed to do that last year but wasn't able to due so for many different circumstances. reason being because then people see how bad he is and can't fully wrap their mind around that's what a lot of rookie QBs look like..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Edward Teach Newbie

Edward Teach

Posted
Posted

I think that Orton would do well here. A third in next year's draft? Sure...we should do that.

Kitna? Man, he's long in the tooth. He would be a good teacher and is the solid stand up kind of guy that Richardson would like. Clausen could sit behind Orton a little bit longer, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toker Smurf Experienced

Toker Smurf

Posted
Posted

My apologies in advance if this has already been discussed.

Kitna had a pretty decent season in Dallas after Romo's injury - they're likely to put him on the trading block, as several teams will probably show interest. the guy's about as good of a veteran stopgap as you're going to find out there, and without a blockbuster trade, there's no way we're going to find our franchise quarterback this year - stopgap is our best bet.

Kitna would be cheap and a significant upgrade over pickles.

He's okay but I'm sick of losing draft picks (unless it is a real steal). There are free agents available. Go get one Hurney!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...