For those wanting to draft a QB.... here's an interesting article in PFT

[Basbear]

I think Stafford is the most underrated QB of the 2000s, he should have been elite. Lions have one of worst reps for star players treatment. I know Golden Tate said he was the best QB he played with was Stafford. Reminder he played with Russ Wilson, Eli Manning, BD Foles, and prebenched Wertz. Ive also say had he's highly ranked among GMs and some coaches. Just had rotten luck of being drafted by the Lions, but he's gotten paid super well. I think he was the last rookie QB to get that insane contract given to 1st overall rookies. Weighed with the position you play, since he was a QB, he got every penny. Hes also been the highest paid player at times, so the Lions at least had that respect. 

Id love to have him, just think this current panther team is a BAD fit. We're still rebuilding in 2021 and everything has to go right for a small chance at 2022 playoffs. Staffords been stuck rebuilding phrases for 10 years, thats beyond tiresome. 

[stirs]

We will have our choice of Fields, Sewell or Wilson.

 

Not a bad place to be

[Mr. Scot]

This article kind of reminds me of the old story about four blind men describing an elephant.

Thing is, if you're drafting a quarterback high, there's a pretty good chance you're doing so because you're a lousy organization. Lousy organizations tend to get plenty of high draft picks and they do frequently use them to draft good players. They just don't know how to build around them.

As a side note: This is one reason why the illusion of Marty being a good drafter exists, because he was pretty consistently drafting high due to putting together losing teams.

But I digress...

That doesn't mean it's a bad thing to draft a quarterback high, or that highly drafted quarterbacks can't be effective. Drawing that conclusion from the history of bad teams is a reach.

In the end, all it really means is that bad organizations are bad.

[jackson113]

[LinvilleGorge]

40 minutes ago, stirs said:

We will have our choice of Fields, Sewell or Wilson.

 

Not a bad place to be

We'll see. I think two of those guys you listed will be gone (Sewell and one of Fields/Wilson). I think everyone will be shocked if we end up having our choice of the three.

[stirs]

33 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

We'll see. I think two of those guys you listed will be gone (Sewell and one of Fields/Wilson). I think everyone will be shocked if we end up having our choice of the three.

Well, my grammar is actually pretty bad post Christmas.

 

what I meant was that at least one of these guys will be there for us.

saying we have our choice was totally not what I meant.

[JawnyBlaze]

12 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

That was an atrocious article.

aka a PFT article 

[OldhamA]

15 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Haskins is a dummy. I don't think bringing him here is a wise idea. Let the Redskins figure out if he is ever gonna mature.

Lock is a league minimum kind of player, not someone you trade draft capital for.

Wentz would be interesting but his price is steep. You better be 100% sure if you make a move like that. Also, he is pretty injury prone.

Stafford is another injury prone guy. Plus, does it make sense to bring in a veteran like that during a rebuild? If so, why not just keep Teddy?

Trubisky would be interesting option on one year deal. Maybe you get a decent quality backup option with him.

Darnold would have to be a trade and I don't think it makes a lot of sense to trade draft picks for a QB on a 1 year deal.

Y'all talk about wanting a Franchise QB then question bringing in Stafford.

If he's available I'd cut your right arm off for him. Dude is elite. 

[nctarheelreincarnated]

15 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

Y'all talk about wanting a Franchise QB then question bringing in Stafford.

If he's available I'd cut your right arm off for him. Dude is elite. 

LOL. Your definition of elite is a lot different than the actual definition. 

[pantherclaw]

I can see why the huddle doesn't like it. It's truth, and it doesn't support their narrative. 

[kungfoodude]

18 hours ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

It's odd but Lock would be similar to Jake, A gunslinger.   The guy loves showing off his arm.  He likes the deep ball.  We have deep ball receivers but no one to get it to them.   If we didn't draft a QB and could obtain him at a reasonable cost.  I'd give it a whirl.  

I doubt we could get him at a reasonable cost. Mainly because....his cost is so reasonable. He still has two years left at leas than $2.5 mil, so I highly doubt Denver would trade him unless we pony up some serious draft capital.

[Khyber53]

21 hours ago, WarHeel said:

I guess we have to define “transformed.” Does two winning seasons of a nine season tenure equate to transforming a franchise?

Maybe not, but getting to the Super Bowl and turning in a 15-1 regular season should be seen as some kind of transformation, shouldn't it? Especially for an up and down team like ours.

Of course, by that, Jake Delhomme was a transformational QB and honestly, he was. But he's the complete opposite side of the high-draft pick coin.

[WarHeel]

1 hour ago, Khyber53 said:

Maybe not, but getting to the Super Bowl and turning in a 15-1 regular season should be seen as some kind of transformation, shouldn't it? Especially for an up and down team like ours.

Of course, by that, Jake Delhomme was a transformational QB and honestly, he was. But he's the complete opposite side of the high-draft pick coin.

I think by definition when something transforms it takes on another state. One would assume it wouldn’t immediately revert back to mediocrity and that’s essentially what we did in 04’ and 16’.

 

I love both JD and Cam and what they did for the franchise and both prove that we can go all the way if the right pieces are in place. Jake had a more talented offensive cast around him and Cam had to do a lot of the dirty work in his tenure here but Cam also had a top ten defense for most of his time here as well. We didn’t have to reach for either of them so it’s apples to oranges with the former discussion but I see your point. 

[musicman]

Could the reason we went with Teddy was more related to; they knew they would have a limited off-season, and he knew Brady and his system along with Cam's health in question? Nobody knew then that the OTA's would be cancelled, a limited training camp and preseason would be wiped out. I believe they thought they could maybe steal lighting in a bottle and find a really good QB in Teddy and build around him. I still think that's there plan. 

The 49ers are proving having a lot of good, young players in the right system, no matter the QB, can win. That to me is the plan. I wouldn't doubt if they roll with Teddy next year and even try PJ a little more (he did play decent in his one game vs what Grier did the year before). To build a long term winner (in today's NFL) you need many good players in a good system with good coaches.