I'd give Haskins a look this offseason.

[Mol3m4n]

Did Jeremy forget to login to his chuck account? 

[Mr. Scot]

Booger McFarland talks about where he sees Haskins (and young players in general) failing.

Mike Davis disagrees, but doesn't specify with what (theoretically McFarland tossing in the racial element).

Setting the racial comments aside though, does he have a point? Are a lot of today's players more about marketing themselves than being the best players they can?

[MHS831]

Come on folks--this is hilarious.  All he said was "bring him in" to assess the situation.  You all only know what you saw on TV and the pressers--it looks bad, but Jeremy never said, "To be the QB of the future."  Buy low, sell high?  Has no QB ever benefited from a change in scenery?  Instead of the overly-impulsive "HELL NO!!" respond intelligently--what harm would it do to confirm what you saw on TV? 

If you could meet with a former first round selection to see if you want him and if he could  possibly be your third stringer to see if he can get it together, you would say "HELL NO?"  

He had a bad game, bad year, and maybe a bad career if that is ever applicable to a 23-year old--but he has some skills that you cannot find just anywhere.  I would want to see if he would go by the rules, was willing to change, and how dedicated he will be to turning his life around.  We have the perfect staff for this kind of project, and if it costs us nothing but a roster spot---if he checks all the boxes--then why the hell not?

I have not heard the argument that explains (objectively and logically) what would be hurt by bringing him in for a visit.  Not one good point--aside from the COVID 19 concerns---I would hate it if my front office reacted with a "HELL NO!" instead of exploring every possible opportunity to make us better in the long term.

[blackcat]

Get them clicks!!!!

[Sgt Schultz]

2 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Come on folks--this is hilarious.  All he said was "bring him in" to assess the situation.  You all only know what you saw on TV and the pressers--it looks bad, but Jeremy never said, "To be the QB of the future."  Buy low, sell high?  Has no QB ever benefited from a change in scenery?  Instead of the overly-impulsive "HELL NO!!" respond intelligently--what harm would it do to confirm what you saw on TV? 

If you could meet with a former first round selection to see if you want him and if he could  possibly be your third stringer to see if he can get it together, you would say "HELL NO?"  

He had a bad game, bad year, and maybe a bad career if that is ever applicable to a 23-year old--but he has some skills that you cannot find just anywhere.  I would want to see if he would go by the rules, was willing to change, and how dedicated he will be to turning his life around.  We have the perfect staff for this kind of project, and if it costs us nothing but a roster spot---if he checks all the boxes--then why the hell not?

I have not heard the argument that explains (objectively and logically) what would be hurt by bringing him in for a visit.  Not one good point--aside from the COVID 19 concerns---I would hate it if my front office reacted with a "HELL NO!" instead of exploring every possible opportunity to make us better in the long term.

The reports about his downfall in DC are pretty consistent, and most also conclude it was not one incident that did him in.  Given the coaching staff is in its first year, more likely than not the multiple incidents are limited to that time period.  What do we think will prevent him from rinsing and repeating in Charlotte?

We are not talking about a guy that was prone to throwing interceptions, and we think we can fix that.  His downfield passing numbers are awful.  Maybe we we can fix that.  But, the big thing that needs to be fixed is maturity, and there are a lot of guys out of the league that could not get over that.  Why would we think he will be different, and what makes him worth the effort more than other options we may have?

He was in a situation Sunday to redeem himself.  The team's season was basically on the line, as bad as it has been.  Win, and they are the division winner and HE helped achieve that.  For him, a chance to prove he is worthy of something more than being the #3 QB on the depth chart there and to pull himself out of the doghouse.  He apparently did not take that seriously.  Even if he was convinced his time in DC was over, it only takes about six firing brain cells to understand Sunday was then an audition for the next gig.

What exactly did we see on Sunday that would make us believe he did well enough on that audition and is worthy of another look?  What did we see that would make us believe what happened before Sunday, over the last two seasons, has changed?  What did we see that would cause us to believe that even bringing him in for a look is not a potential distraction or assurance he will not destroy whatever chemistry this team has built?

Maybe if we were a veteran team, ala the Saints, it would be intriguing to bring him in and see what happens.  But, I am trying to see the upside of doing that with a young team.  Color me puzzled.

 

[MasterAwesome]

3 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

He hasn't had a real chance because he hasn't deserved a real chance. Rhule basically all but said that this year when a reporter asked. 

He is just another in a long line of Hurney busts. 

If you’re talking about that Rhule quote that was along the lines of “We already know what we have in Grier” that sounded like a damning indictment, that was pretty misleading out of context. Here’s the full quote:

"Will has deserved to have a chance to play, it just hasn't timed out right for him. He's practiced really well and prepared really well. We could go the whole year not getting Will in the game and I would know exactly what we have with him because I see it day in and day out. I have no doubt about what he can do. He just has to go out and do it when the time comes. But I want to make sure I say it again, I think Will has a fantastic future and if he plays this week I have no doubt that he can play well and help us win."

Ironically he even says in his quote that Grier has deserved a chance to play lol. I’m not saying Grier isn’t a bust, but that his feelings on Grier were mischaracterized by a snippet of a quote being tweeted out by Alaina or whoever it was. It sounded bad initially, but the entire quote is pretty complimentary...not that I would expect him to trash Grier publicly or anything.

[MasterAwesome]

3 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah, he is a bust. Pretty clearly not a guy worth trading draft capital up to get and would have likely been available with our 4th round pick. He was overdrafted by a bad GM. 

It isn't his fault he was set up in a position to be a bust.

Also, another point of clarification: we didn’t trade up for Grier. He was taken with our original 3rd round compensatory pick (100th overall). You’re probably mixing up the Greg Little trade-up.

[Verge]

He is a cancer, no thanks.

[TN05]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Igo said:

Yeah well I did too . It's washington.

And they can make the playoffs next week.

[Tinamedina]

8 hours ago, GoPanthers123 said:

Walker is better.  If we don’t draft QB just start Walker.

Finally,  some sense. Also, this is a real possibility considering the fact that Rhule is not getting a QB. 

[Cary Kollins]

No but we should sign Colin Kaepernick.

[Davidson Deac II]

I don't care if we bring in Haskins for a look as a third stringer.  To be honest, I don't care who the third string is.  I will say though that where he was drafted at shouldn't matter, especially to us.  If he can't play, then he can't play and being drafted first or last is irrelevant.  

But for those of you saying he has never had a real coaching staff.  Kyle Allen and Taylor Heinieke both had the same or a similar coaching staff, and for a longer period of time, and they are both significantly better than Haskins at this point.  

[TheSpecialJuan]

sure

[kungfoodude]

2 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Booger McFarland talks about where he sees Haskins (and young players in general) failing.

Mike Davis disagrees, but doesn't specify with what (theoretically McFarland tossing in the racial element).

Setting the racial comments aside though, does he have a point? Are a lot of today's players more about marketing themselves than being the best players they can?

That also might be an "old guy" take on the way social media has wormed it's way into the modern lives of young people. I don't know that I would necessarily blame it solely on the social media element, but he is completely correct about some of the guys just not taking it seriously. I think not every player that comes into the NFL had to have the sort of work ethic that it takes at the professional level. You can't just show up and be better than everyone else like you did in high school or college. Everyone is good in the NFL. You need to approach the game as if it is your job and you need be passionate about being the best you can be at your job. 

I think that a lot of the guys that don't make it that are clearly lacking that kind of passion for the game. I don't think that is anything new or modern.