Looks like Stafford not wanting to come to Carolina is the reason he wasn't traded to the Panthers.

[RJK]

Meh. Not saying Darnold is the answer but an old beat down stafford isn’t what this franchise needed 

[dxpanther]

1 hour ago, jayboogieman said:

 

took one look at the oline and noped.

[top dawg]

I'm not mad at him. He wants to go to Super Bowls! Anyone being objective will look at us and say that we aren't ready yet. Hopefully in a couple of years, we'll make him look back and reflect about how he missed a great opportunity.

[Jon Snow]

34 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I wish I could believe that.

I wish I could believe that too.

Believe it. 

[kungfoodude]

Just now, Jon Snow said:

Believe it. 

[Jon Snow]

18 minutes ago, RJK said:

Meh. Not saying Darnold is the answer but an old beat down stafford isn’t what this franchise needed 

He would've been a better place holder to allow us to compete while they searched for a better option.  They are still looking for that guy from what I can tell. 

I get the impression they think the odds are better to find a competent place holder than a franchise qb right now.  The thinking would be that it will buy them time to develop someone. That's my perception any. 

[TheMostInterestingMan]

1 minute ago, Jon Snow said:

He would've been a better place holder to allow us to compete while they searched for a better option.  They are still looking for that guy from what I can tell. 

I get the impression they think the odds are better to find a competent place holder than a franchise qb right now.  The thinking would be that it will buy them time to develop someone. That's my perception any. 

This is probably true. The problem with Stafford and why I was against getting him was the cost. If the idea is we are still rebuilding and looking for our guy, giving up a future 1st seems counter productive. And that’s coming from a bigger Stafford fan than most. 
 

If you are trading away a 1st, it better be for a proven player in the mid 20s. And if you are trading away multiple 1sts for a single player then you are just begging for punishment imo. Between the value of rookie contracts and the likelihood of getting 3 starters with those three picks, I’m not sure anyone in the league not named Mahomes is worth that kind of haul.

I’m glad we found a solution that didn’t cost us a 1 even if it’s temporary 

[1usctrojan]

Stafford’s best friend is Dodger great, Clayton Kershaw, they are very close.  Been reported, he had something to do with the L.A. choice.

“Kershaw attended nearby Highland Park High School, where he played baseball and was also the center for future NFL quarterback Matthew Stafford on the varsity football team.”

[therealmjl]

1 hour ago, Smithers said:

He’s gonna feel like an idiot when we end the season with a better record than the Rams

Lol

[Jon Snow]

3 minutes ago, TheMostInterestingMan said:

This is probably true. The problem with Stafford and why I was against getting him was the cost. If the idea is we are still rebuilding and looking for our guy, giving up a future 1st seems counter productive. And that’s coming from a bigger Stafford fan than most. 
 

If you are trading away a 1st, it better be for a proven player in the mid 20s. And if you are trading away multiple 1sts for a single player then you are just begging for punishment imo. Between the value of rookie contracts and the likelihood of getting 3 starters with those three picks, I’m not sure anyone in the league not named Mahomes is worth that kind of haul.

I’m glad we found a solution that didn’t cost us a 1 even if it’s temporary 

I get the feeling they looked at that future first as a low first, which is essentially a second based on talent available most years.  It was a ballsy gamble for a first year GM.  

Based on how they manipulated the last draft I do not doubt they had a plan to compensate for the loss of the pick.

[TheMostInterestingMan]

9 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

I get the feeling they looked at that future first as a low first, which is essentially a second based on talent available most years.  It was a ballsy gamble for a first year GM.  

Based on how they manipulated the last draft I do not doubt they had a plan to compensate for the loss of the pick.

I feel the only way it’s lower than mid draft is if Darnold ends up being pretty decent. If he’s really just bad then I’ll be surprised to see us picking below the top 12.

Who knows? Ultimately I was just in favor of hanging onto early draft picks. We didn’t have to give up a first. And I believe Darnold can still be salvaged. So that was really an ideal trade from my perspective.

[BigCat#1]

Didn't he get beat by our 5-11 squad 20-0 last year. Enjoy LA 

[GEM]

Going to kick their a..!

[Jon Snow]

7 minutes ago, TheMostInterestingMan said:

I feel the only way it’s lower than mid draft is if Darnold ends up being pretty decent. If he’s really just bad then I’ll be surprised to see us picking below the top 12.

Who knows? Ultimately I was just in favor of hanging onto early draft picks. We didn’t have to give up a first. And I believe Darnold can still be salvaged. So that was really an ideal trade from my perspective.

I meant that they thought that with Stafford on the team the could possibly contend last season meaning the 1st round pick surrendered would be a low first.  That is not so bad.

This season its Sam's turn to show he can be that guy.  We are either drafting a QB or a LT in the first this coming draft, unless it's traded for one.  Either way we should have a good idea which one or both is drafted by seasons end. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Jon Snow