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!

     

Report: Richardson “not sold” on Cam Newton, but will likely defer decision

eViL jEsTeR

By eViL jEsTeR,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

eViL jEsTeR Newbie

eViL jEsTeR

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Smokescreen:smilewinkgrin:

what would be the purpose of saying we don't want him, if we're really going to pick him? what purpose would a "smokescreen" serve? i see a lot of people saying smokescreen but it would only be a smokescreen if we said we wanted him, in an attempt to get someone to trade up and take him instead. if we're saying we're not as interested as everyone thinks, that wouldn't be a smokescreen. we have the #1 pick. nobody can hurt us because nobody picks ahead of us so there is no reason whatsoever to do a smokescreen and pretend we like someone we don't. it only works on the opposite so no, it's not a smokescreen. wanting to trade down for a 2nd rounder isn't smoke screen.

are we going to say, "HAHA, we made you think we didn't want Cam Newton but we picked him anyway! Fooled you!!!"

what would that accomplish?

I think some of you just like posting "Smokescreen" in every thread possible. :beatdeadhorse5:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
teeray Collaborator

teeray

Posted
Posted

what would be the purpose of saying we don't want him, if we're really going to pick him? what purpose would a "smokescreen" serve? i see a lot of people saying smokescreen but it would only be a smokescreen if we said we wanted him, in an attempt to get someone to trade up and take him instead. if we're saying we're not as interested as everyone thinks, that wouldn't be a smokescreen. we have the #1 pick. nobody can hurt us because nobody picks ahead of us so there is no reason whatsoever to do a smokescreen and pretend we like someone we don't. it only works on the opposite so no, it's not a smokescreen. wanting to trade down for a 2nd rounder isn't smoke screen.

are we going to say, "HAHA, we made you think we didn't want Cam Newton but we picked him anyway! Fooled you!!!"

what would that accomplish?

I think some of you just like posting "Smokescreen" in every thread possible. :beatdeadhorse5:

It is a reverse smokescreen. Duh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Millions Newbie

Millions

Posted
Posted

Newton news reports are so inconsistent its crazy :lol: I still would be very surprised if he wasn't our pick at this point. Either they jump on the norm what everyone else is reporting, if he's being talked up or trying to be different and hoping something sticks come April 28th who knows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

what would be the purpose of saying we don't want him, if we're really going to pick him? what purpose would a "smokescreen" serve? i see a lot of people saying smokescreen but it would only be a smokescreen if we said we wanted him, in an attempt to get someone to trade up and take him instead. if we're saying we're not as interested as everyone thinks, that wouldn't be a smokescreen. we have the #1 pick. nobody can hurt us because nobody picks ahead of us so there is no reason whatsoever to do a smokescreen and pretend we like someone we don't. it only works on the opposite so no, it's not a smokescreen. wanting to trade down for a 2nd rounder isn't smoke screen.

are we going to say, "HAHA, we made you think we didn't want Cam Newton but we picked him anyway! Fooled you!!!"

what would that accomplish?

I think some of you just like posting "Smokescreen" in every thread possible. :beatdeadhorse5:

yeah, it is a smokescreen of epic proportion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpeedOFLight Collaborator

SpeedOFLight

Posted
Posted

At this point, they can draft Snowflake the Dolphin as long as he gives us a chance to win. No seriously, I just can't wait to get this draft over with. I am tired of the speculation. Whoever we pick, I just hope it is the right choice and that we can move on with gearing up for the season (if there is one).

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

    • Jackie Lee
      OTA's

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

    • Jackie Lee
      OTA's

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

    • electro's horse
      Myles Garrett Traded to Rams

      By electro's horse · Posted

      I feel like this trade just lives rent free in people's heads and keeps morphing into different things. First thing is that the rumored trade was for future firsts. They wouldn't have any extra picks in 2023; the firsts would have been for 2024 and 2025. With very few exceptions, NFL GMs don't value picks that far away. You have to have a lot of job security to pull that off. Like Chiefs, Eagles, Rams kinda stability. That's obviously not the case with David Tepper, especially since he'd just fired his head coach. No GM except for like Howie Roseman is going to trade an asset you have now for a future asset you probably get to use.  Second, at the time you'd have to assume these are first rounders late in the first round. Obviously currency is currency and the panthers need young players, but these weren't slam dunk top ten picks. At the end of the day there's one pick that separates a first and second round pick.  Lastly, the only place that ever reported this trade was the Rams. All the reporters just repeated what McVay said and it became gospel. We have no idea how serious the negotiations were, if they ever really happened, if the offer was real, etc. And I personally believe McVay and Sneed are the kind of guys who would make up rumors like that to fug up other teams, mostly because I assume if I've thought of it someone smarter than me has.  I don't know how you'd call it the greatest draft haul of all time. Firsts quickly lose their value the farther out they are and Burns had 16.5 sacks last season. And anyway those picks would probably just been tossed into the burning inferno of the Bryce trade up so it's a moot point anyway. 
×
×
  • Create New...