Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Panthers confirmed to be in Stafford discussion

Mr. Scot

By Mr. Scot,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, ladypanther said:

Don't see Stafford wanting to come here over some other teams much more likely to make a playoff run. He will have some say in this. If he does not like the trade he retires (so said a friend of his on Sirius).

Breer addressed that, saying he thinks Stafford might want to go to a team in the west like San Francisco or Los Angeles, but doesn't think those teams are in position to make the best offer and Stafford doesn't really have leverage like a no trade clause or any such thing.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AceBoogie Veteran

AceBoogie

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Jackofalltrades said:

I’d rather have him than Watson just because of the cost. You don’t have to mortgage the next 2-3 years but can still have some capital to add other pieces. 
 

I love Watson, but the price I’ve seen speculated is insane. Matt’s used to shoddy OL but at least he’ll have options at the skill positions. 

He has that now lol. Y’all need to stop with the “he’s been on bad teams his whole career crap” he’s always had decent options to throw the ball too, ALWAYS. He’s just never gotten it down. He’s Jay Cutler that cares about football a little more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AceBoogie Veteran

AceBoogie

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Breer addressed that, saying he thinks Stafford might want to go to a team in the west like San Francisco or Los Angeles, but doesn't think those teams are in position to make the best offer and Stafford doesn't really have leverage like a no trade clause or any such thing.

He does have the leverage of he’s been the face of their franchise for a decade he’s not just going to allow them ship him anywhere. I’m sure that was part of the trade request discussion. 
 

I know we treat or great players like trash here on the way out but that’s not most teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mage Grand Master

Mage

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, AceBoogie said:

He has that now lol. Y’all need to stop with the “he’s been on bad teams his whole career crap” he’s always had decent options to throw the ball too, ALWAYS. He’s just never gotten it down. He’s Jay Cutler that cares about football a little more. 

I agree with you his weapons haven't been bad (although not sure it makes up for his horrendous run game) but Stafford is way better than Cutler.  

LIS the best comparison, not just player-style but where they rank in the NFL, is Carson Palmer.  A good quarterback who could very easily be great if the team around him is good enough.  The Bengals were to Palmer like the Lions are to Stafford (and Palmer's weapons and run game were generally better than Stafford's).  We'll see if Stafford can find his Cardinals.

I see no reason though why Stafford can't be a playoff winning QB.  Lions just were never all that good.  

Edited by Mage
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Breer's mid Senior Bowl Periscope...

Besides the things already mentioned, at about 9:30 in someone asks "Stafford goes where?"

Breer thinks for a second and answers "Washington or Carolina maybe".

Mentioned earlier he's also heard Washington would be very interested in Sam Darnold if the Jets decided to go in another direction from him.

 

Edited by Mr. Scot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, AceBoogie said:

He does have the leverage of he’s been the face of their franchise for a decade he’s not just going to allow them ship him anywhere. I’m sure that was part of the trade request discussion.

Disagree but unless he actually decided to fight over his destination, it doesn't matter.

There's been zero indication he's planning to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
onmyown Grand Master

onmyown

Posted
Posted (edited)

I just don’t understand why? We already have a TB for a year for a rookie to sit behind. Is our FO that inept they can’t scout a good QB with a top 10 pick in a QB heavy draft?

I’d rather risk a rookie and long term success than maybe 5 years of a aging QB I don’t see going to a super bowl.

Edited by onmyown
  • Beer 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted
12 minutes ago, Shocker said:

Agree...the more I think about this I really don't want #8 involved.  If not, this deal becomes a very good deal for us.

I think if it happens it includes #8, Bridgewater and probably a little more.

Mind you, nothing along the lines of what we've been discussing for a Watson trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...