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!

     

Some good roster analysis from Gantt

Zod

By Zod,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted

Put it this way. They went all in on Darnold. If he plays bad or gets hurt this year we have no plan B. We had an opportunity to draft a top QB, but went with Horn. If we take Fields having a potent CB1 in Horn would be our risk/cost. Our risk/cost in Darnold is potentially the picks it cost for him, the potential of Fields/Jones minus Horn, and whatever it will cost to get another guy next year plus missing a year of development and the salary of his next two years. It’s not necessarily “mortgaging our future” but it will set the team back if he struggles like he has so far. It became much more of a risk/gamble now that the draft is over and our only other options are PJ and Grier.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
amcoolio Mentor

amcoolio

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

You've badly misrepresented my posts.

If if's and buts were candies and nuts. What if Darnold plays better in Carolina? Is it "a good look" for the franchise?

Do you know how many times a team has passed on a QB and they ended up sucking? Or traded up for one and they ended up sucking?

It goes both ways. Just because the Panthers passed on Fields doesn't mean the franchise is in bad shape. Like what are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
amcoolio Mentor

amcoolio

Posted
Posted
Just now, ForJimmy said:

Put it this way. They went all in on Darnold. If he plays bad or gets hurt this year we have no plan B. We had an opportunity to draft a top QB, but went with Horn. If we take Fields having a potent CB1 in Horn would be our risk/cost. Our risk/cost in Darnold is potentially the picks it cost for him, the potential of Fields/Jones minus Horn, and whatever it will cost to get another guy next year plus missing a year of development and the salary of his next two years. It’s not necessarily “mortgaging our future” but it will set the team back if he struggles like he has so far. It became much more of a risk/gamble now that the draft is over and our only other options are PJ and Grier.

Or....if he plays bad...they just draft.... a QB.... in the top 5... next year?

This board has lost their minds

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, SCO96 said:

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you are making a big assumption that Justin Fields or Mac Jones will be franchise QB's. Based on their school pedigree, both have a greater chance of being bad to average than true "franchise QB's". I just can't see us all looking back on this draft 5 years for now saying, "We missed out on franchise greatness when passed on Fields and/or Jones in the 2021 draft. 

I know the same can be said of Darnold after the failed experience in NY, but that CB selection was exactly what we needed in a division where we face Michael Thomas, Chris Godwin, Mike Evans, Julio Jones, Calvin Ridley, and now Kyle Pitts twice a year. Besides, I don't see any of the QB's selected after Horn at #8 significantly outplaying Darnold this year.

We got enough draft capital to move up next year if we need to take a QB or trade for one, and whoever we would be getting is going to be in lot better situation than Bridgewater was when he came to the team.

Good reasonable response. I'd disagree on the draft capitol though. Trade values at the top of the draft have skewed big time over the years since the rookie wage scale was implemented. Those picks have become a lot more valuable now that they also don't come with massive contract that pays a rookie like an automatic future HOFer. Those picks allow you to make a bet on elite talent without the contract that type of elite talent normally requires.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, amcoolio said:

Or....if he plays bad...they just draft.... a QB.... in the top 5... next year?

This board has lost their minds

If he plays like Teddy or worse and we finish with a better record because our roster is better. 
When you are drafting in the top ten the hope is you want be there next year if you believe in what you are building. You should always look at a QB unless you have a solidified person already throwing the ball.

People are acting like this is just coming from this board. Any of the negatives reviews from our draft question us banking on Darnold and not drafting one. It was a bold gamble by our staff and I hope it pays out, but if it doesn’t it clearly sets us back.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, amcoolio said:

If if's and buts were candies and nuts. What if Darnold plays better in Carolina? Is it "a good look" for the franchise?

Do you know how many times a team has passed on a QB and they ended up sucking? Or traded up for one and they ended up sucking?

It goes both ways. Just because the Panthers passed on Fields doesn't mean the franchise is in bad shape. Like what are you talking about?

If Darnold resurrects his career here then it's a GREAT move. It's just that we've bet heavily against the odds relying on that. Now we'll see whether or not that bet pays off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon Snow Grand Master

Jon Snow

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

People lost their minds when I said the Panthers have mortgaged their future on Sam Darnold, then Gantt of Panthers.com writes...

The Panthers did a lot of things over the weekend to make Darnold's life more secure. That's good news, but it also puts the bright light back on their quarterback.

By not drafting one, and picking up Darnold's fifth-year option, they've cast their lot with the former Jets first-rounder, and done their best to insulate him. Now it's on him to prove that he can grow into the job and earn that trust. It may not be New York, but there's still plenty of pressure.

That's NFL political talk for "mortgaging the future".

That's not mortgaging anything.  Passing on Fields or Jones is not mortgaging the future. It amounts to using that pick plus a 2nd next year at most for a QB and a CB.  It does not prevent them from taking either going forward. Let's not make this into something it's not.  SF mortgaged their future.  We took a flyer. 

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
amcoolio Mentor

amcoolio

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ForJimmy said:

If he plays like Teddy or worse and we finish with a better record because our roster is better. 
When you are drafting in the top ten the hope is you want be there next year if you believe in what you are building. You should always look at a QB unless you have a solidified person already throwing the ball.

People are acting like this is just coming from this board. Any of the negatives reviews from our draft question us banking on Darnold and not drafting one. It was a bold gamble by our staff and I hope it pays out, but if it doesn’t it clearly sets us back.

I doubt that. If Darnold is bad then we are in prime position for a top 5 pick. And every year there are QB's that come out of nowhere. I mean we had pick #3 in our grasp before winning a meaningless game against WFT.

 

As far as "banking on Darnold"....I think it was more that the Panthers didn't want to take the 4th or 5th best QB with the 8th overall pick, which is absurd and I'm glad they didn't do that

  • Pie 1
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...