-
Posts
84,172 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Huddle Wiki
Forums
Gallery
Everything posted by LinvilleGorge
-
C'mon man. You're not actually this obtuse. Everyone is always unwilling to trade a guy until they get the price they want. The fact of the matter is that we negotiated this trade for weeks and landed on a 4th and future 2nd and 6th. If we actually really wanted him we wouldn't have let this linger for weeks negotiating over relative peanuts risking another team scooping him up out from under our nose. We wanted Darnold only at the relatively low price we paid.
-
You're asking for proof but where's yours? As mentioned before, what we gave up in trade is peanuts for the QB position. Honestly, Darnold's trade value is better evidence AGAINST that. We wouldn't have been negotiating for weeks over a relative pittance if we REALLY wanted him. Verge has also said that if Darnold was black he wouldn't even be in the league right now.
-
Agreed. We wanted Watson. We legit tried for Stafford. We sniffed around Russell Wilson just for due diligence. We called Miami about #3. We obviously projected the draft and didn't see #8 working out for us at QB, thus here we are. If the leaves fall in a way that #8 works out, you don't let Sam Darnold, a 4th rounder, and a 2nd and 6th next year slow you down.
-
This is a key reason why I'm hoping we don't draft a CB in the 1st. I like the CB prospects likely to be there at the top of the 2nd better than I do the OT prospects likely to be there.
-
I think we traded relative pennies considering the position for a guy who has some talent to work with (more than Teddy) but who is probably a lon shot to actually work out and the trade compensation tells that story. 23 year old former #3 overall pick QBs don't get traded for a 4th and future 2nd and 6th unless the rest of the league has pretty much given up on him. The most recent close comp to this situation is Josh Rosen.
-
Yeah, that's what concerns me. Teddy first, now Darnold. If Darnold goes no better then there's a serious question on whether or not Rhule knows how to evaluate NFL QB talent. I don't think they think he sucks. I do think that they think he was their best option available at the time and none of them were fantastic.
-
You keep saying that Darnold is basically a rookie but that's just hilarious. He's started more games in the NFL than any of these college prospects we're talking about have started in college. He isn't basically a rookie. He's IS a bust looking to resurrect his career. Let's not gloss over three years of terrible play and pretend like he's basically a rookie.
-
You have it all figured out but you're wrong. My opinion is that Darnold is highly unlikely to be good. History isn't kind to the idea of top pick bust QBs bouncing back elsewhere. People love the Tannehill como but it isn't a comp. Tannehill was MUCH better in Miami than Darnold was in NY. I don't know whether Fields will be good either. What I do think though is that if we have him valued as a franchise QB prospect, then he likely has a much better chance of being good than Darnold. The trade is a sunk cost. If you pick Fields, having Darnold means you don't have to force Fields into action too soon. It also means that if Darnold plays well, now you have your choice of the two and you can trade the other. That's a great problem to have.
-
Take Cam off of those teams and you have an absolutely terrible run of football for the Panthers. Cam is a great example of the impact of an elite QB. Most of those teams pretty much sucked minus Cam. The fact that people still immediately go all the way back to the Dilfers and Johnsons of the NFL is exhibit 1A on why that philosophy of roster building no longer works on today's NFL where the rules are continually tweaked to create advantages for the offense - particularly the passing game.