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!

     

Trade down for Newton/QB?

Tutto

By Tutto,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Tutto Newbie

Tutto

Posted
Posted

I don't mean to beat a deadhorse, but I have a question. I hear some people say they like Newton, and others say they don't like him at all. Also, there are some people that may like Newton or not, but don't like the idea of taking him at #1.

How would you guys feel if we traded down, grabbed some extra picks, and took Newton say around #10?

Personally, I like Newton, I think he could be a franchise QB in 2 years or so, but #1 overall is a reach. So how would you feel if we traded down, and took Newton? And got a vet in for the 1-2 year period to start and mentor Newton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tutto Newbie

Tutto

Posted
  • Author
Posted

i think that is still high for him, but I have no doubt someone will reach for him in that area.

hell he could be gone by then if the Tenn. rumors are true.

Yeah, He didnt have a very good NC game. That hurt him, but if you look at the body of work, he had an amazing year.

I think it wont be a "reach" around #10 after the combine happens. Thats where he will shine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
House Newbie

House

Posted
Posted

If it was one of those things that the FO is dead-set on getting a QB while also trading down, I would rather trade down, grab BPA, then if someone like Locker fell to the bottom of the first or into the second trade up to get him.

Newton in the first is still too high at this point. Locker in the first is also kind of high, as of right now. Actually if any team drafts a QB in the first rnd, at this point, it is reaching. Things could change with the combine and pro-days but I don't think they will that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JawnyBlaze Grand Master

JawnyBlaze

Posted
Posted

I think the only QB that really should go in the first (late mid-late) is Mallett. The recent Gabbert love is insane, Newton is a sky-high-ceiling, long-term project, and Locker had a bad year and is a little lacking on some measurables (namely, height). Mallett at least has the amateur production, arm strength, height, to go in the bottom end of the first round. His biggest deficiencies I've heard of is lack of pocket awareness (got tired of that poo from Clausen, this year) and love of the alcohol. Well, on the second one, he was at college. It's what you do at college....college isn't about book learning, it's about doing as much crazy poo as you can so you can get it out of your system and settle down afterward and start being a real grown up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DirtyMagic97 Newbie

DirtyMagic97

Posted
Posted

It's what you do at college....college isn't about book learning, it's about doing as much crazy poo as you can so you can get it out of your system and settle down afterward and start being a real grown up.

It shouldn't be for a FBS player on a top 10 team in the country. What's he going to do when he has money?

But I agree about his talent. Mallet is the only QB, in my opinion, worthy of being taken in the first round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pdandy1994 Newbie

pdandy1994

Posted
Posted

There were throws in the NC game where he had great protection, would step up in the pocket and throw it in front, or behind, or just over shoot his receiver...besides, he made plays with his feet that helped open the passing game and would hit little bubble screens and roll out little dump offs

not to say the guy doesnt have talent, i just dont think its worth the risk of trading the first overall pick for a project.

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

    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Yep, like I said, I don't mind guaranteeing them money, but make the contracts smaller amounts in order to minimize cap implications. I don't know about "half," the actual amounts, whether more or less than half, would have to be determined by the NFL and NFLPA (which will probably be highly contentious, if not "impossible").  I'm just for whatever leads to the best product on the field while also unaffecting my wallet. As an aside, the NFL owners are greedy bastards in my estimation. They're trying to keep a larger portion of the pie, but players' agents are greedy as well, and they've sewn seeds of greed among the players. It's not all their fault; we all know what our society has evolved into, but the NFL wants a bigger piece of our smaller pocketbooks and refuses to "negotiate" with us (that's why we don't have cheaper and more reasonable à la carte options to view games that they're gradually trying to migrate to paid TV), so fu<k 'em. And then on top of that we have guys trying to water down the product even more by feeding greed. Change the way things are done so that we can at least see players prove themselves on the field without throwing wrenches into the engine that pays guys that have proven they can play on a pro level.
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Teddy Checkdown in trouble

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      So if one of the parents wants to buy the theatre group or the band lunch they should get banned?
    • TD alt
      Teddy Checkdown in trouble

      By TD alt · Posted

      OK, I didn't realize this was about high school, but...if I'm spending my personal money trying to help some kids out, then no one is going to tell me how to spend my money. I get enough of the government spending my money--allocating my tax dollars--to children who don't really need anything, and now they're trying to tell me how to spend my personal money? Sure, there are many other issues to consider and rabbit holes that we could go down due to ethical concerns because it concerns kids, and the need for transparency is extremely important, but maybe as opposed to trying to stop kids from benefitting in darkness, we need to open up the blinds (and blinders) a little bit so that they can benefit in the light. I get where you're coming from, but this is a loaded and layered issue, and I'm just trying to give you some food for thought. 
×
×
  • Create New...