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!

     

Baker may be happening today.

Zod

By Zod,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

This makes no sense at all to me because its too much of a reactionary move.  So we are going to give up draft capital for an average qb that is probably going to hurt your draft status in the long run when you just drafted a qb that you had a first round grade on.   Baker would literally be a one year rental and that doesnt do jack poo in the grand scheme of things.  Also I seriously doubt Baker is the mentor that Smith was.  There are dozens of articles detailing the relationship of mahomes and smith and how smith knew what the big picture was and was okay with it.   You think poo head Baker is going to have the same mindset? 

 

Again trading for Baker may be a slightly less

retarded version of trading for darnold.   Its fuging insanity

Well I am starting from the assumption(which is not wise considering the Darnold move) that the draft capital we are offering is pretty low(5th round or later). 

The one year rental makes sense if you are about to get fired. There is a level of everyone involved here probably realizing that the end may well be nigh if they keep losing at the rate they are. It doesn't move the needle as far as actual future of the franchise but it might buy you a little bit more breathing room if it works out.

The mentor thing is completely overblown by just about every fan in existence. Darnold isn't there to mentor anyone. Baker wouldn't be here to mentor anyone. You are there fighting for your job. Doesn't mean that you don't learn because you are in the same QB room but the idea that you keep a QB around to specifically teach a younger QB for the future doesn't work as well in reality. I'd say it's much more akin to a "learn by watching."

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Kinda hard to buy the notion that the guy who was pounding the drum to draft a rookie and build around him is the same guy pushing for Baker Mayfield.

Yeah but he was also the "spray and pray" at QB guy, so it doesn't necessarily NOT fit. Remember that we almost took two QB's in the draft. 

My guess is that Fitterer views this as a situation where having multiple shots at a QB increases the chances of getting a hit. That is if he indeed is the primary guy pushing for Baker.

Which, if Rhule is once again pushing for another QB, this is just shades of the past and there isn't any real change in the power dynamic between Fitterer and Rhule, as was rumored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
poundaway Grand Master

poundaway

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

We don't even know who the source is on that other than that it's been repeated on the Huddle.

We don't know who the source is for Pearson's stuff.  For all we know, its late night security guards.  Watching panthers confidential, listening to Tepper, Fitterer and Rhule, nothing has changed.

The same braintrust that brought in Darnold, hired last year's FA OL, did last years draft are the ones who  hired this year's FA OL, this years draft and is now playing footsies with Baker.  Even Pearson's source said the whole thing was collaborative.  But that gets lost here on the Huddle.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, poundaway said:

We don't know who the source is for Pearson's stuff.  For all we know, its late night security guards.  Watching panthers confidential, listening to Tepper, Fitterer and Rhule, nothing has changed.

The same braintrust that brought in Darnold, hired last year's FA OL, did last years draft are the ones who  hired this year's FA OL, this years draft and is now playing footsies with Baker.  Even Pearson's source said the whole thing was collaborative.  But that gets lost here on the Huddle.

Sources keep reporting that there is disagreement in the building on Baker. Some want him and some don't. I think the question is who is pro-Baker and who is anti-Baker? If we do or don't get him, it's not really going to matter. It's just a matter of trying to discern who has the most stroke on the personnel moves(and if it has actually changed). Also speculating on motivations for the move. Even if we knew who was more pro or anti Baker, it wouldn't come close to the complete picture. 

It's the offseason, so it's just conversation fodder, basically. It's not going to mean anything until after next season is over anyway. Once we know the actual results of whatever happens.

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

    • Waldo
      Dan Morgan is an awful GM

      By Waldo · Posted

      We don't need to know what % was his fault last year because it was all bad enough to know to not sign up for more of it. Look at the stuff he was directly responsible for being the point man on, the pro-personnel, and the stuff he was involved in should tell you enough. If you have to discount it to make it look better than you already knew the answer. It's just making excuses for all of those people. Hoping something changes while discounting the work they already done here has proven to be a losing strategy every time so far. Maximus Copius Bulshitetus i think is the Latin name for that phenonium. 
    • SmokinwithWilly
      Dan Morgan is an awful GM

      By SmokinwithWilly · Posted

      1) Signed 2 high profile guards to big contracts. Did we need guards? Yes. But there's a reason you draft guards and pay tackles. It's easier to find solid guards in the draft. Now we have the most expensive line in the league and still can't get 100 yards passing before halftime.  2) Traded up to get a RB when we didn't really need one. Chuba is one of the better RBs in the league right now and while it is a contract year, we had a crap ton of holes all over. Brooks was a luxury pick we didn't have the luxury to make. 3)Spending a small fortune to build a supporting cast for BY. Bryce didn't even put the work in himself during the offseason by his own admission. We didn't need to build an offense specifically for BY. We brought in DJ and drafted XL. These guys need a QB with a live arm. That's not BY. Speed kills but not when your QB can't legitimately make an accurate, deep ball strike without putting a ton of air under it and floating it.  4. Not looking for a true center. There were several available and it's been a position of need for years. We could have had our choice but we rolled with Corbitt, who did look good at the spot, but had an injury bug that struck again this year.  5) He didn't bring in any serious competition for Bryce. Now you can say that BY needs time to develop and we needed to show we had faith in him, blah blah blah. But the simple matter of fact is Bryce looked like a PS QB last year, Andy has one foot in the QB grave, and there was never an attempt to actually compete for the job. If he genuinely believed that BY was going to magically make it all come together watching YT and chillin for 4 months to unplug, then there's nothing else that needs to be said.  The goal of every GM should be to build a winning team. Players are commodities and loyalty leads you to an early walk out the door. We've tried to build a system to work around the most limited QB in NFL history. 60 years of history should have told him it was never going to work. And benching BY after 2 games is the real truth, he never should have been starting anyway. And either Dan should have known that as the great MLB that he was after watching BY's game tape, or someone else is making the call and Dan is just rubberstamping that decision.  Either way, doesn't matter. We're screwed because we've devoted 2 years of resources to build around a player that didn't put in the work in the off season after one of the worst NFL QB seasons ever. 
    • BrianS
      Offensive Starters (Where are they found in the draft)

      By BrianS · Posted

      Something I find interesting is that you are more likely to find successful players as UDFA's than you are to find them with a single pick in any round past 3.  Those 3rd round compensatory choices?  Largely worthless.  Yes, I get it, there are a lot more UDFA's than there are drafted players in later rounds.  Basically, if you're fishing for starters you are simply not going to find anything in Rounds 4 - 7 with any regularity.
×
×
  • Create New...