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!

     

Panthers possibly trading Thielen?


philit99
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, tukafan21 said:

Totally different situations, those teams were ready to move on from those players and were shopping them.

We aren't looking to trade Thielen, the Vikings are in serious need for a WR who can play a meaningful role Week 1 and have a significant connection with Thielen of course.

Honestly, if the Vikings were to announce to the league that they are trading their 3rd rounder for the best WR offered to them, how many better players than Thielen would they get offered?  

It's not like teams are usually trying to trade away startable WRs at this time of the year.  We just happen to also be in a unique situation where yea, Thielen is our starting slot WR, but Renfrow might just be more effective this year anyways and the hope is that either of them are our 4th best WR this year as well.

Thielen is the leader of our very young WR room, I'm not trying to trade that away for a fair value trade, you need to make it worth it to us, and a 4th rounder next year really isn't a ton of value, it's hopefully a backup player in 26 who might be able to carve out a role in 27.

I'm not saying he's worth a 3rd, I'm just saying that unless it's that high, I don't see the value in trading him for a draft pick.  But a LB or DB that will play meaningful snaps this year is still my preference, if we're giving up a player who will play meaningful snaps for them on offense, give us one on defense for him.

I don't understand why everyone keeps saying renfrow might be our starting slot when I would be shocked if it isn't Coker...

Agreed though. I might consider a 4th, would love a 3rd, and would turn down anything worse than a 4th

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, carpanfan96 said:

Superstar receivers are only going for 3rds. I mean Pickens went for a 3rd, 5th and 6th. 

DK went for a 2nd, 6th and 7th. 

Adams was a third... Etc. 

 

Just cause Carolina fleeced Dallas and Baltimore for crappy WR doesn't mean AT is worth a 3rd all of a sudden. lol

I get your argument, but I think most of those higher level WRs either had a pretty big contract or wanted big bucks. Thielen isn't and you could easily get out of it unscathed if he did suck 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, PleaseCutStewart said:

I don't understand why everyone keeps saying renfrow might be our starting slot when I would be shocked if it isn't Coker...

Agreed though. I might consider a 4th, would love a 3rd, and would turn down anything worse than a 4th

If AT is gone, Coker will 100% be the guy that gets elevated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, PleaseCutStewart said:

I don't understand why everyone keeps saying renfrow might be our starting slot when I would be shocked if it isn't Coker...

Agreed though. I might consider a 4th, would love a 3rd, and would turn down anything worse than a 4th

I think there is a difference between lining up in the slot and being a slot WR.   Renfrow is a slot WR.   You can line up TMac, XL or Coker in the slot. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on this is basically this: why give up a quality player for the NFL equivalent of a half-empty bag of peanuts and a $1 scratch-off ticket? An aging player, yes. In a contract year? Yes. But still a quality player that can help us win.

If they come with a serious offer that provides good value for us then it should be considered, but 5th and 6th rounders are cut every day. Even 4th rounders are coin-flips most of the time.

Now, if we get closer to the trade deadline and are floundering and have little to no shot at the playoffs, then you have to consider even a lowball offer at that point, if for no other reason than giving a respected veteran player a chance to play meaningful football in what could be his last year. But right now? Teams that trade away starting WRs a week before opening day for crumbs aren't serious about competing, let alone winning.

We traded Christian McCaffrey for below market value; we were forced to trade Brian Burns for less than market value because Fitterer threw any leverage we had out the window when he turned down the Rams insane offer and then failed to get an extension done. This after we traded away D.J. Moore as part of the Bryce Young trade instead of Burns, who we'd end up trading for just a 2nd rounder anyway.

We've seen way too many talented starters traded away by this team over the last several years. Is Adam Thielen in the same category as McCaffrey, Burns and Moore? Obviously no, based on his age alone. But he's a good and dependable player who has been penciled in as a starting WR all offseason and if nothing else is a very good slot receiver.

Why give a player like that up for a late-round pick that will most likely end up being used a player who will end up being a backup at best?

Not only does it send a horrible message to the locker room, but it sends a message to the rest of the league: we'll trade our starters for peanuts. Give us your worst offer!

Edited by Jay Roosevelt
  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jay Roosevelt said:

My take on this is basically this: why give up a quality player for the NFL equivalent of a half-empty bag of peanuts and a $1 scratch-off ticket? An aging player, yes. In a contract year? Yes. But still a quality player that can help us win.

If they come with a serious offer that provides good value for us then it should be considered, but 5th and 6th rounders are cut every day. Even 4th rounders are coin-flips most of the time.

Now, if we get closer to the trade deadline and are floundering and have little to no shot at the playoffs, then you have to consider even a lowball offer at that point, if for no other reason than giving a respected veteran player a chance to play meaningful football in what could be his last year. But right now? Teams that trade away starting WRs a week before opening day for crumbs aren't serious about competing, let alone winning.

We traded Christian McCaffrey for below market value; we were forced to trade Brian Burns for less than market value because Fitterer threw any leverage we had out the window when he turned down the Rams insane offer and then failed to get an extension done. This after we traded away D.J. Moore as part of the Bryce Young trade instead of Burns, who we'd end up trading for just a 2nd rounder anyway.

We've seen way too many talented starters traded away by this team over the last several years. Is Adam Thielen in the same category as McCaffrey, Burns and Moore? Obviously no, based on his age alone. But he's a good and dependable player who has been penciled in as a starting WR all offseason and if nothing else is a very good slot receiver.

Why give a player like that up for a late-round pick that will most likely end up being used a player who will end up being a backup at best?

Not only does it send a horrible message to the locker room, but it sends a message to the rest of the league: we'll trade our starters for peanuts. Give us your worst offer!

Vikes looked at our trading history and thought they could clown us too

Can't really blame them tho

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jay Roosevelt said:

My take on this is basically this: why give up a quality player for the NFL equivalent of a half-empty bag of peanuts and a $1 scratch-off ticket? An aging player, yes. In a contract year? Yes. But still a quality player that can help us win.

If they come with a serious offer that provides good value for us then it should be considered, but 5th and 6th rounders are cut every day. Even 4th rounders are coin-flips most of the time.

Now, if we get closer to the trade deadline and are floundering and have little to no shot at the playoffs, then you have to consider even a lowball offer at that point, if for no other reason than giving a respected veteran player a chance to play meaningful football in what could be his last year. But right now? Teams that trade away starting WRs a week before opening day for crumbs aren't serious about competing, let alone winning.

We traded Christian McCaffrey for below market value; we were forced to trade Brian Burns for less than market value because Fitterer threw any leverage we had out the window when he turned down the Rams insane offer and then failed to get an extension done. This after we traded away D.J. Moore as part of the Bryce Young trade instead of Burns, who we'd end up trading for just a 2nd rounder anyway.

We've seen way too many talented starters traded away by this team over the last several years. Is Adam Thielen in the same category as McCaffrey, Burns and Moore? Obviously no, based on his age alone. But he's a good and dependable player who has been penciled in as a starting WR all offseason and if nothing else is a very good slot receiver.

Why give a player like that up for a late-round pick that will most likely end up being used a player who will end up being a backup at best?

Not only does it send a horrible message to the locker room, but it sends a message to the rest of the league: we'll trade our starters for peanuts. Give us your worst offer!

Historically anything outside of the early first round is a coin flip. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, frankw said:

It's crazy the level of value the Panthers place on veterans like Thielen and Dalton. And folks look at our win percentage the last several years and can't figure out what's gone wrong.

Keeping good players surely isn't the problem. Neither is not having more late-round draft picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jay Roosevelt said:

Keeping good players surely isn't the problem. Neither is not having more late-round draft picks.

You seem to have a very loose definition of good. Understandable being a Panthers fan.

But turning down draft compensation for aging veterans with no future is a move perpetual losing franchises make.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frankw said:

It's crazy the level of value the Panthers place on veterans like Thielen and Dalton. And folks look at our win percentage the last several years and can't figure out what's gone wrong.

 

24 minutes ago, frankw said:

You seem to have a very loose definition of good. Understandable being a Panthers fan.

But turning down draft compensation for aging veterans with no future is a move perpetual losing franchises make.

It's crazy that you don't understand the value of having those type of players when the rest of those position rooms are as young as they are.

Coaches coach, on the field and in the film room.

But players need vets to teach them the ropes about how to go about being a professional football player at their position.  They need the locker room mentorship, a place the coaches are only in on Gamedays.

Coaches run the drills, they can only coach up so many players between reps when they're also running the drill.

Vets like Thielen pull the young player aside and help coach them up between reps.

Thielen is one of the most "a pro's pro" guys of his generation, he had a hall of very good type of career as an undrafted D2 player who had to make his way in the league by out working and being more precise than the other players.

If Renfrow wasn't here to take on that role, this wouldn't even be a starting discussion for me, 4 of our Top 6 WRs are rookies or in their 2nd year, they need a Thielen and/or Renfrow around to help them reach their potential.

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

    • 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...