kungfoodude

Yeah but we are talking about an entire class, not just a player. That takes time unless it is an amazing class or a giant bust.

Yeah and I can understand wanting to get some players reps too. Ultimately, I don't think one side is more or less wrong than the other. It's just different philosophies. Rhule obviously is very worried about injuries in the preseason and he has lots of reasons to worry because our 2nd and 3rd teams haven't done a tremendous amount to show that we will be okay if we starting losing starters. Once we get our "dress rehearsal" game against Pittsburgh, I think a lot of the discussion will finally die off and we can focus on the season. I am already pretty over the preseason games. It rarely takes me more than one game to be over it but with basically little to no starters playing, I ready to get this show on the road now. Meaningless football games are only better than no football games, and barely that.

Darnold was an extremely polarizing player(even more so than Bridgewater), so I think you have more people that are staunchly anti-Darnold. Don't get me wrong, I have little to no faith that this experiment will work out but I am not going to jump off a cliff until we start seeing him play actual games, and quite a few of them. There is no reason to be getting this worked up over the preseason. It rarely matters for veteran players(unless they get injured) and this preseason is the first of the "new" preseason format, so it actually has even less meaning than ever before. I suspect that it will continue to decline in relevance as the NFL schedule expands(18 regular season games is all but an inevitability). I imagine eventually there may be almost no starters playing when it cuts down to two preseason games.

Week 1 is too early to draw a conclusion. As Panthers fans we should know that better than anyone after the Kyle Allen and Teddy Bridgewater fiascos in recent memory. I'd be reticent to pass judgement on Darnold until at least half a season of play, unless it is all bad or all good.

Yeah, I mean from the "bang for the buck" perspective, it definitely sucks to not see more of the starters. That is a very valid point to bitch about, especially if you are a season ticket holder

Only 3 weeks from the start of finding out....

Yeah, I don't know about "excellent." We've gleaned some minimal information about how they might look. Some good, some bad, some in between. If we get 2+ starters out of this and 3-4 of these guys make the end of their rookie deals, it was a damn good draft.

Yeah, we will have plenty of time to re-hash that issue if we are still dealing with QB issues and Fields is a star in 3-4 years. We may as well stop beating that dead horse until at least towards the end of this season. I gotta be honest, the "they" isn't super relevant to me. It doesn't really matter what each individual person on the staff thinks, nor how much of the picks were Fitterer's, Rhule's, Tepper's or whoever's decision. They will all get some credit or blame depending on the result. We have no idea what the offensive staff thought of Fields or Darnold or whoever. Nor will we probably ever know. That ship has long since sailed anyway. It just is what it is.

I think they just didn't like Fields as a prospect and it just boiled down to that. All the Horns+Darnold/2^3 nonsense was just that, nonsense. They just didn't like him as a prospect.

Just looks like a busted play to me. Hard to say.

I literally cannot believe anyone bought into how insanely ridiculous that statement was. Pure BS.

We are gonna see him for the bulk of the regular season. You'll get enough/too much of Sam Darnold soon enough.

He isn't a rookie. He did this for three years in the largest TV market in the country. He doesn't need to adjust to stuff like that or if he does, we're already fuged anyway.

I would agree about the OL if we had any idea what our starting lineup is going to be but that doesn't appear to be the case. I suspect that we will struggle with chemistry all year as we keep trying to find a competent starting five. I agree about the rookies and younger players in general. The earlier they start getting reps, the better. It is hard to understand why they want to limit those guys, starting role or not. But, much like last season, the worst impact will just be that their preseason games will be during the regular season. It just makes it tougher in the beginning of the season.

Yeah, we are not going to be high on the list for veteran players that want to win. Maybe guys looking for a paycheck. We have to build the team before we can make ourselves a destination for "win now" guys.

Well we got sold the idea that a sport psychologist would fix him. I distinctly remember some of the Huddle buying into that hogwash, in spite of his entire college and NFL career performances. They did bring in another kicker that promptly got shown shown door early in camp.

Highly unlikely. I would think he isn't coming back unless it is for a starting role and probably for a contending team.

Yeah, I mean, I am not saying there isn't any value but I don't find the depth of preseason reps to be anything I am worried about how it will impact his overall season here. And, credit to him for the joke he made in the press conference, but he does have plenty of experience getting hit. Not lacking in those reps. I am sure we just aren't going to agree about this issue but I just don't really find enough fault in limiting his reps in the preseason that I think it will ultimately matter. Definitely not what I personally would have done were I the head coach, but Rhule wants to roll that way so it just is what it is.

How is anyone judging this draft class on two preseason games? Positively or negatively. You judge a draft class maybe 4 or 5 years down the road. That's when you actually know if what you did worked, save some outliers(CMC, Greg Little, etc).

He technically took a discount to be here his first contract. We will see how that works out for contract #2

Yeah but you are kind of making my point for me with the second half of your post. I am not concerned about his lack of preseason reps for that very reason. He's either gonna be the same bust he has always been or he'll work out. That would happen if he missed the preseason due to injury, illness, hold out, whatever this weird situation is, etc. This is where I fundamentally disagree with the "He's a rookie" crowd. He has been a professional football player for three full seasons. He knows how to go about being a professional football player or he wouldn't have even made it to this point(those guys usually get jettisoned quickly). So, his biggest hurdles are learning our system(has had a full offseason in it) and getting over whatever poo is rolling around in his head that makes him unable to process the field correctly. That would be the case no matter how many reps he takes in preseason games.

Not saying reps don't serve a purpose but it isn't going to make or break a QB's season. Remember last year when we didn't have ANY preseason? Was that why Teddy didn't work out? If anything, it just means it may take a couple of games to shake off some rust. That's about the extent of it. If he doesn't get it by halfway through the year, it will have nothing to do with lack of preseason reps.

That was a screen of some sort, it looked like.

Definitely confused.

I don't see either of those scenarios being linked to the preseason. He's either going to thrive or he won't. Fake games aren't going to determine that. He isn't a rookie.