Scourton - Collapsed Lung, Week-to-Week

[ECHornet]

2 hours ago, frankw said:

Doesn't matter. 31 other teams didn't draft an already seriously injured player in the second round. We did. So far we've wasted two years of his lower cost rookie contract. Either way it was a waste we can't afford. Is it the players fault? Of course not. But our FO has to use better judgment. It looks like they've learned something so that's at least a plus.

We picked him 2.14, so only 13 teams passed on him in the 2nd.

Why was it a waste? We weren’t ready to compete for a Super Bowl the last two years. So invest in the future. He’s still a part of that. 

Edited August 30 by ECHornet

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, ECHornet said:

We picked him 2.14, so only 13 teams and passed on him in the 2nd.

Why was it a waste. We weren’t ready to compete for a Super Bowl the last two years. So invest in the future. He’s still a part of that. 

wait, you dont think the brooks pick was a waste? 

[ECHornet]

2 hours ago, mrcompletely11 said:

and yet he wasnt drafted until pick 46

Correct. We got him at a discount due to the injury. 

[ECHornet]

Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

wait, you dont think the brooks pick was a waste? 

Not yet. He still has two years on his rookie contract, and I’ve yet to see him play. Why jump to a conclusion when he could show up next year looking like J Gibbs lite? Unless you’re just predisposed to jumping to negative conclusions. 

[mrcompletely11]

1 minute ago, ECHornet said:

Correct. We got him at a discount due to the injury. 

discount is certainly an interesting way to put it

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, ECHornet said:

Not yet. He still has two years on his rookie contract, and I’ve yet to see him play. Why jump to a conclusion when he could show up next year looking like J Gibbs lite? Unless you’re just predisposed to jumping to negative conclusions. 

He could look like Barry Sanders and it still means we burned 3 picks on a dude that will only play 2 years on his rookie deal.  Dude, there is no jumping to negative conclusions, it was a stupid pick at the time and to this day remains a stupid pick.  RB was not a need, trading up for said injured RB was beyond moronic

[ECHornet]

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

discount is certainly an interesting way to put it

He was consensus RB1. We were able to draft him in the mid 2nd bc of his injury. Without it, we would have never had the chance in that spot. Call it whatever you like. 

[frankw]

3 minutes ago, ECHornet said:

We picked him 2.14, so only 13 teams passed on him in the 2nd.

Why was it a waste? We weren’t ready to compete for a Super Bowl the last two years. So invest in the future. He’s still a part of that. 

If you want to take a glass half full perspective that's certainly your prerogative. But by the literal definition of the term waste as of right now that is what the pick was.

[ECHornet]

2 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

He could look like Barry Sanders and it still means we burned 3 picks on a dude that will only play 2 years on his rookie deal.  Dude, there is no jumping to negative conclusions, it was a stupid pick at the time and to this day remains a stupid pick.  RB was not a need, trading up for said injured RB was beyond moronic

I’m so shocked that you could watch a RB look like Barry Sanders in a Panthers jersey and call them a wasted pick. Shocked, I tell ya. 

[ECHornet]

2 minutes ago, frankw said:

If you want to take a glass half full perspective that's certainly your prerogative. But by the literal definition of the term waste as of right now that is what the pick was.

You put the disclaimer, “as of right now”, in there for a reason. 

Edited August 30 by ECHornet

[frankw]

5 minutes ago, ECHornet said:

You put the disclaimer, “as of right now”, in there for a reason. 

Realistically what is your expectation? Do you envision him coming back next year and suddenly running roughshod over defenses in 2026 and 2027 and then getting a big new contract? Of course it is theoretically possible. I wouldn't bet anything of value on it though. Being out of football your first two years in a new league at a different level is not something that can just be dismissed. There are very few rare football players who would go on to establish a really good to great career following such circumstances. I'd love to see Brooks become one of them. But those odds are not in his favor.

[ECHornet]

4 minutes ago, frankw said:

Realistically what is your expectation? Do you envision him coming back next year and suddenly running roughshod over defenses in 2026 and 2027 and then getting a big new contract? Of course it is theoretically possible. I wouldn't bet anything of value on it though. Being out of football your first two years in a new league at a different level is not something that can just be dismissed. There are very few rare football players who would go on to establish a really good to great career following such circumstances. I'd love to see Brooks become one of them. But those odds are not in his favor.

Good question. He looked good in the extremely limited looks he’s had in a Panthers uniform. My hope is he becomes a knockoff J Gibbs in relief of Hubbard. 
 

My realistic thought is he’ll be a threat in the passing game over the next two years and then, if he is an asset, take a reasonable deal on a second contract due to his limited play and extensive injury history. 

Edited August 30 by ECHornet

[frankw]

3 minutes ago, ECHornet said:

Good question. He looked good in the extremely limited looks he’s had in a Panthers uniform. My hope is he becomes a knockoff J Gibbs in relief of Hubbard. 
 

My realistic thought is he’ll be a threat in the passing game over the next two years and then, if he is an asset, take a reasonable deal on a second contract due to his limited play and extensive injury history. 

The issue is in that timespan we should know what we have in our 4th round pick Trevor Etienne and if he is looking the part and then some would you prioritize Brooks over him who is making considerably less? There will be multiple factors to consider. But the biggest will be has Dave Canales become a successful head coach? That's the gamechanger for all of it.

[ECHornet]

1 hour ago, frankw said:

The issue is in that timespan we should know what we have in our 4th round pick Trevor Etienne and if he is looking the part and then some would you prioritize Brooks over him who is making considerably less? There will be multiple factors to consider. But the biggest will be has Dave Canales become a successful head coach? That's the gamechanger for all of it.

Need at least 3 RBs. Hubbard/Brooks/Etienne has a lot of potential. Dowdle will be gone. He’ll either play well and price himself out of our range or not and we wouldn’t want to resign.