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!

     

Albert Breer: Panthers turned down trade down offers from 49ers and Rams


TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Yeah like the Rams never tried to trade for Burns and the 49ers didn't trade up for Lance. Even the better teams still do big stupid things at times.

Should have taken that trade IMO. Both of those teams are desperate for rookie talent with their cap issues. This will be interesting to look back on too.

 

 

giphy (9).gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Yeah like the Rams never tried to trade for Burns and the 49ers didn't trade up for Lance. Even the better teams still do big stupid things at times.

Should have taken that trade IMO. Both of those teams are desperate for rookie talent with their cap issues. This will be interesting to look back on too.

I wonder what the offers were? I get the feeling that not too many teams would want to break the bank with the long list of similarly ranked players out there after the 3-4 blue chip guys. Dropping back to 26 seems too far IMO without their next year's #1 being in the mix.

Now dropping from #8 to #11 intrigues the crap out of me! Assuming that the offer was at least #11 and #75.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Yeah like the Rams never tried to trade for Burns and the 49ers didn't trade up for Lance. Even the better teams still do big stupid things at times.

Should have taken that trade IMO. Both of those teams are desperate for rookie talent with their cap issues. This will be interesting to look back on too.

Debbie Downer Snl GIF

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, shaqattaq said:

I wonder what the offers were? I get the feeling that not too many teams would want to break the bank with the long list of similarly ranked players out there after the 3-4 blue chip guys. Dropping back to 26 seems too far IMO without their next year's #1 being in the mix.

Now dropping from #8 to #11 intrigues the crap out of me! Assuming that the offer was at least #11 and #75.

I woukd have loved droping back late. That's where the value was this year with the top lacking so much talent, end of the first and top of the second. I was also fine with taking future picks which teams devalue too much. 11 sounds great but then I would have hoped for another trade back personally.

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Yeah like the Rams never tried to trade for Burns and the 49ers didn't trade up for Lance. Even the better teams still do big stupid things at times.

Should have taken that trade IMO. Both of those teams are desperate for rookie talent with their cap issues. This will be interesting to look back on too.

Both teams seem to know WR talent.  How can you say we should have accepted the trade when we don't know what was offered?  The Niners weren't far behind us, I doubt they threw in a future premium pick.  

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Both teams seem to know WR talent.  How can you say we should have accepted the trade when we don't know what was offered?  The Niners weren't far behind us, I doubt they threw in a future premium pick.  

Both of those teams are well run but not infallible. I get it. Some people like the pick and some people don't. That seems to surprise you and my take is hardly incendiary or reactionary.

The future picks was about going to the end of the round, where I wish we moved...like I stated about where I saw good value in this draft.

I would have taken most trades at a discounted value in this draft. I hope the details leak. I would like to know what they passed on.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was 100% ready for us to not take T-Mac the last few weeks as all the smoke was that we were going defense, just as I was probably expecting to see us trade back than use the pick as well.

But if we traded back and the team that took our pick then used to to take T-Mac, I'd have been legitimately devastated, I'd rather have seen us just pass on him than do that, it would have hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like there was a good chance of Jacksonville taking TMAC at 5 had they not traded up. Schefter was making the rounds in the day or 2 before the draft saying the Jags wouldn’t be taking Mason Graham. I know it’s hard for people to come off of what the media big boards said, but TMac appears to have been one of the small group of coveted players this draft. Morgan and Canales said in their presser they were happy when the Browns took Graham because that meant there was a good chance Tmac would fall to them. Not bummed Graham went off the board, excited. They said it would have taken extra to entice them to trade out of that spot when Tmac was available, not a discount but a premium. Very encouraging.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

Seems like there was a good chance of Jacksonville taking TMAC at 5 had they not traded up. Schefter was making the rounds in the day or 2 before the draft saying the Jags wouldn’t be taking Mason Graham. I know it’s hard for people to come off of what the media big boards said, but TMac appears to have been one of the small group of coveted players this draft. Morgan and Canales said in their presser they were happy when the Browns took Graham because that meant there was a good chance Tmac would fall to them. Not bummed Graham went off the board, excited. They said it would have taken extra to entice them to trade out of that spot when Tmac was available, not a discount but a premium. Very encouraging.

You're the first person I've seen mention them say they were excited when Graham got taken, they actually said something like "we thought it meant we'd get our guy"

So everyone who was saying things about how it sounded like we wanted Graham but when he was taken, T-Mac was the pick, I'm not so sure, it might have been T-Mac the whole time and they were afraid off him going there at 5 since the Browns need WRs and that's what they really meant in that press conference.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

You're the first person I've seen mention them say they were excited when Graham got taken, they actually said something like "we thought it meant we'd get our guy"

So everyone who was saying things about how it sounded like we wanted Graham but when he was taken, T-Mac was the pick, I'm not so sure, it might have been T-Mac the whole time and they were afraid off him going there at 5 since the Browns need WRs and that's what they really meant in that press conference.

Based off their comments, I absolutely think it was Tmac the whole time and the only thing they weren’t sure of is whether he would even be there at pick 8.

  • Pie 2
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

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...