jayboogieman

Yep. The current FO has some work to do before they look competent when it comes to QBs.

I'd take the 90% LT so he could protect the 30% QB and whoever takes over for the QB if he fails.

Bringing in a guy when they knew Cam would not be the same would have made sense. Too bad they didn't. Brady was a late round flyer. Favre was an established vet starting the slide to the downside of his career with a good team around him. The Packers were in a position to be able to take a young QB and let him sit and learn. Same for Montana and Young. The Colts did the same with Manning and Luck. The current Panthers are not even in the ballpark that those teams were. Once again, Cam Newton franchise QB equaled 3 winning seasons with the current rules. It takes a lot more than a QB to be a perennial contender. A young QB needs weapons, coaching, and protection. The Panthers failed to give Cam that repeatedly. The current contending and superbowl teams had good teams built and then got their QB. The Panthers should follow the examples of those winning teams.

Yeah, it is and I'm not a baseball fan.

I'm surprised a team didn't take that page from the NBA and make the Panthers pay to trade him. If I was a GM I would. Otherwise I wait for the Panthers to cut Teddy and then sign him later if I wanted him as a backup.

Walker is still there I think. Besides, even if they don't go QB in the first, they'll probably take one to develop in the mid rounds or maybe even Mond or Trask in the second.

Has to be Marty. He dragged the team down for a lot longer...twice!

I've watched that movie several times last year just because it was playing.

Not to the Panthers. The FO made that more than clear with how they have handled him this offseason.

I didn't say new coaching, I said what should be better coaching. Even if the Panthers' coaches are bad, they shouldn't be worse than what Darnold had last year. Because if they are, the team has much bigger issues than picking a QB or not. As I stated in another reply, playing if never works well. I think the best option this year is to surround Darnold with talent and see what happens. If he sucks, he sucks and the team can pick another QB next year.

By going QB, the Panthers could be missing out on a possible franchise tackle, WR, or whatever else. Playing what if never works well. Lets just hope they make the best decision for the team no matter what it is.

The Panthers might. Won't know until he hits the field with the team. Unlike other positions, teams only play on QB at a time. So, yeah, you can have too many good ones on the roster. If they are good enough to start, they are going to want to play. It happens in college all the time now. It would be worse in the NFL where millions are on the line. Is it fair to judge the current FO by what previous regimes did?

I'm not all in on Sam, but think he should get a chance to show what he can do with what should be better coaching and surrounding talent.

Or Darnold is bad enough to lead the Panthers to another top ten or better pick next year while they used this year's draft to improve other areas of the team. Then they use next year's pick on a QB.

Person has started to make sense? I don't know how I feel about that.

The Falcons had a guy that played TE that won or helped them win a lot of games over the years. The Panthers have had a couple themselves. Then there was a guy in NE that helped win a ring or three. I'm not saying Pitts will be like those others, but he has a chance to be a game changer despite just being a TE.

A lot of guys that are for Fields will tell you that you can trade him for a pick or picks later on. Counter to that idea is that all picks are not equal. Just because the Panthers spend a top ten pick on a player doesn't mean they'll get the same or better value in return if said player is traded.

Never hurts to try once in a while.

A rocket scientist or brain surgeon are generally the smartest guys in their rooms. Would you want them giving you invest advice or doing each other's jobs? Just because you are smart doesn't mean you have the expertise to contribute to the process.

Going vet QB with a young and rebuilding team is a way to try and cut the rebuild short. That's the sort of thing Jordan used to do with the Bobcats/Hornets when he would get impatient. Trying to compete when the team isn't ready is never a good thing and leads to longer or more rebuilds and losing. Trading for Stafford wouldn't give me hope. Signing Teddy didn't give me hope. Trading for Watson and having to give up the biggest deal in NFL history wouldn't give me hope either. We've seen what happens when you have a franchise QB and not much else. It isn't pretty.

Fair enough

I don't like making multiple posts because it feels too much like spamming.

Jake was closer to winning a superbowl than Cam. I'm willing to take that for Darnold. Hopefully there won't be a bad kick and a Patriots victory again though. It was reported the Jets refused to negotiate until after the QB pro days. That doesn't mean the negotiations took weeks, it just means the Jets weren't ready to do business at that point.

This is how I feel about it. If you think Watson was a realistic plan A you are living in a fantasy world. You can't trade for someone that wasn't being offered for trade. Thanks to the legal mess, it doesn't appear as if we'll know how things would have turned out between the Texans and Watson. If/When they pick up Darnold's option, he won't be a one year rental. Completely forgot about them being interested in Haskins. Maybe we shouldn't trust them to pick a QB at all.