Albert Breer also has us taking Fields, believes Tepper is pushing for it.

[cookinbrak]

Denver jumps in front of us and takes a qb. NE begs to trade with us to get whatever is left. Smokescreen complete.

Edited April 28, 2021 by cookinbrak

[jayboogieman]

19 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

People aren't ready for this level of honesty, there's so MANY sold on Darnold and the ''he was on the Jets'' now that he's here he should be better rhetoric. 

You know who else was on the Jets, and was Darnold's back up....Teddy, and a lot of y'all anointed him too. We have not SOLVED the QB issue yet, having a LT is great, BUT uhhh, who's throwing the ball?

There are more competent LT prospects than QB's not to mention we can spend FA money for one moving forward with a rookie QB contract in place for 4 years, with the 5 year option in 2026 -- THINK ABOUT THAT POO!

Darnold is 23 and mostly just a kid still. He may not ever be more than he is now, but the way to find out is by giving him a fair chance. Give him better coaching and a better supporting cast than he had in New York. Having a first round QB looking over his shoulder would not be a fair chance. The pressure to start the rookie would be too great. The fans would be calling for the rookie to start the second he is drafted. Even if the coaches wanted to use Darnold, they would have Tepper's pressure to start the rookie too as he would want to see his new rookie out there.

The only LTs that hit the market are those that are past their prime or not worth what they want to get paid. Having a franchise LT on a rookie contract with a fifth year option would be beneficial to the team as well.

[Raskle]

Sorry guys, but where in that article does it state Tepper is 110% lock-controlling the pick? The author just mentioned that he's stated he wants to throw resources at the QB spot - that's it. You could make the argument that he has done that by having Fitts trade for Darnold. I also don't quite get the whole idea of a person owning and managing their own business being somehow 'meddlesome.' It's their toy to play with how they want. If that's an issue for you, you're welcome to go buy your own toy too.

 

I personally would love to see Fields as our pick. I am doubtful he would land at #8, because too many other teams need a QB and most likely are willing to leapfrog us for one, but I can still be hopeful. Grabbing Darnold lets us adjust our draft as necessary, and gives another option for camp if we do draft Fields, who we could sit a few years. Once he's ready, we could then trade Darnold for more resources.

 

I was big on grabbing an OT earlier this year too, but just because we picked up a QB in FA doesn't mean we should automatically grab an LT in the draft R1. There's plenty of good players in the 2nd-3rd rounds this year for OL. I think it's very likely, depending on who falls where, that we pick QB 1st and OT 2nd, because the reverse just doesn't have the same value. If we decide to pass on a potential franchise QB in the draft and roll with Darnold only, you halve your chances of finally getting that QB spot right, which has been stated by our BMOC is a top priority. Therefore, I just don't see us passing on Fields if he's there.

[SteveSmithTD89]

Really think there's 1 of 3 things ultimately happens and I think the beauty of the Darnold trade sets us up for any of these 3.

This gets out and a team behind us panics and moves up to 4-7 for a QB which only pushes talent down. We'd be guaranteed 1 of Sewell, Chase, Pitts or Slater. We get a blue chip player and roll with Darnold.

The above happens and spot 8 is now seen as the last spot to move up and get the last of the 5 qbs making it far more valuable likely netting us at minimum a future 1st offsetting any capitol lost in the Darnold trade.

Or we simply take Fields because of genuine interest and had no way thought he'd be available without moving up to 3 to secure him. If NY was offered a 1st for Darnold I'd imagine worst case he'd be flipped for at least the 2nd we traded for him if we wanted to jump ship immediately although id imagine they play out the season with Darnold the starter and move one of the 2 in the future for a bigger return.

 

[KatsAzz]

We don't know how the Panthers brain trust has currently rated the supposed top five quarterbacks in the 2021 NFL Draft and this certainly would be a major factor if their evaluations have shifted.

They might have Darnold ahead of all the QB’s except  Lawrence. In that case, they certainly wouldn’t be drafting an inferior QB. I don’t think it’s unanimous that everyone believes Darnold looked his best with the Jets.

History shows many super bowl winning QB’s were given up on by their original teams, but became winners when they went to good teams. Steve Young. Brett Favre. Jim Plunkett. Kurt Warner. Drew Brees. It will, happen again.

Unless you’re out there thinking the Jets are a sound organization. I’d say they are the exact type of organization that would get rid of a great QB, and then watch him win elsewhere.

I don’t remember anyone’s jaw hitting the floor when Tampa Bay gave up on Steve Young, and most people had never heard of Brett Favre when Atlanta gave up on him. New England was the worst franchise in the NFL when they gave up on Jim Plunkett. Everyone thought all those QB’s were busts.

[frankw]

It is a quarterback driven league. These threads are reminiscent of ten years ago. Now the position is even more important. Some people will never get it.

[ForJimmy]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

We're not talking about the decision. Tell me who's making the decision.

If it's Fitterer and Rhule, I'm on board.

If it's Tepper, not so much.

Fair. I’m not sure we are going to know, but I’m afraid Tepper isn’t the type of guy to not give his input...

[Little Goody Two Shoes]

1 hour ago, BurnNChinn said:

I just can’t believe it why do u give all those picks for someone if ur just going to draft one. I really hope it’s a smokescreen. I mean if we didn’t trade for Darnold I would be all for it but now I think that would be crazy with all the value with all these other guys especially LT

Because you don't know. There have been half a dozen threads about how most QBs drafted in the first round don't work out. We don't know if Darnold can be the guy. If we draft fields, we don't know if he can be the guy. If we have them both, make them compete. If we pick up Darnolds option then we can trade one next year. I get the wasted draft pick thing, I thought they gave up a bit much but they are trying to find the guy. Until you know you have him you keep searching. 

That said, I'd take Sewell or trade back or take Slater. But I get it.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Little Goody Two Shoes

[SetfreexX]

25 minutes ago, firefox1234 said:

The trade for Darnold was just to give us flexibility entering the draft. So no matter how the draft falls the Panthers are in a good position to either select BPA, trade down for more picks, or maybe even select a QB we believe can be our guy if he falls to #8. Also those picks we gave up was nothing. In the NFL if you do no believe you have a franchise QB and you are not actively looking for one then you are doing something wrong. The cardinals are good example of this.

People really act like they didn't take Rosen at #10, then Kyler at #1 the NEXT YEAR! But, but Steve Wilkes wasn't a good coach, he didn't have anyone around him...

Arizona got Kyler and flipped the offensive personnel in just two seasons...and given Kyler's size may have had more questions in NFL transition than a guy like Fields or even Lance who are every bit as mobile, but 225+ and each is 6'3'' or taller.

We are not, and should not be married to the idea that Darnold is the answer. Also without google, can ANY of you name the LT for the Cardinals....I'll wait. 

If you care about PFF they finished 12th, and we finished 18th. -- https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-final-2020-offensive-line-rankings -- And we did that with a revolving door at LT, and started a UDFA the majority of the season at LG. 

 Erving / Rookie / Little / Scott -- gives us options at LT that we didn't last year

Elflien / Rookie -- Gives us options at LG that we didn't have last year

C, RG, RT -- all return starters from last season, I feel good about where we could go on the OL, and in the training camp / post camp FA market. 

--------------------------------------------------

If our draft looks like this after 3 rounds I'd be fine:

• QB / LT / G

I could also see trade backs at the top of the 2nd / 3rd to add additional picks to take fliers as well to help increase our draft capitol. 

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, Raskle said:

I also don't quite get the whole idea of a person owning and managing their own business being somehow 'meddlesome.' It's their toy to play with how they want. If that's an issue for you, you're welcome to go buy your own toy too.

Tepper has every right to play with his "toy", just like Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones, Mike Brown and the Spanos family do. Everybody understands that.

The problem with the "running your business" scenario is what if you're lousy at it?

You can keep stubbornly running it yourself if you want to, but if you have any brains you'll step back and let somebody who knows what they're doing run it for you.

[frankw]

Tepper is not setting the draft board. But he has some input like pretty much every other owner. And if you think every owner who does not have a franchise qb isn't in their front office personnel ears telling them the obvious you are living outside of reality. You can't make money off a team without the central piece that brings it all together and that's what this is about. It's a business.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Fair. I’m not sure we are going to know, but I’m afraid Tepper isn’t the type of guy to not give his input...

The last input he gave was suggesting that Rivera go to a 3-4.

Didn't go so well.

I'm perfectly fine with him giving his input as long as he doesn't demand that his decision makers agree to it.

[Raskle]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Tepper has every right to play with his "toy", just like Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones, Mike Brown and the Spanos family do. Everybody understands that.

The problem with the "running your business" scenario is what if you're lousy at it?

You can keep stubbornly running it yourself if you want to, but if you have any brains you'll step back and let somebody who knows what they're doing run it for you.

I'm pretty positive he knows what's best for his business is to let the guys he hired do their jobs. The man knows how to make money. I'm also of the belief he will have some input into the selection process, and not to degree of Snyder/Jones levels. More like, I'd really like us to grab a QB to solidify our offensive core the next few years by doing so, rather than naming specific players or draft spots. Some of the huddlers are making it out that he's handing out his big board memo and telling Fitts and Rhule to just follow it, no questions asked or something. I just don't see that from him or his personality as being the way he runs things. Suggestions and asks for what the plan is, yes.. absolute domineering on decisions, not so much.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Raskle

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, Raskle said:

I'm pretty positive he knows what's best for his business is to let the guys he hired do their jobs. The man knows how to make money. I'm also of the belief he will have some input into the selection process, and not to degree of Snyder/Jones levels. More like, I'd really like us to grab a QB to solidify our offensive core the next few years by doing so, rather than naming specific players or spots. Some of the huddlers are making it out that he's handing out his big board memo and telling Fitts and Rhule to just follow it, no questions asked or something. I just don't see that from him or his personality as being the way he runs things. Suggestions and asks for what the plan is, yes.. absolute domineering on decisions, not so much.

At Fitterer's introductory press conference, Tepper stated that he's not an evaluator and he's not going to try to be one.

I'm absolutely hoping he sticks to that statement.