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!

     

REPORT: Panthers to aggressive pursue trade up to get a QB

TheSpecialJuan

By TheSpecialJuan,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

CamWhoaaCam Grand Master

CamWhoaaCam

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

Last time I will explain this because you do not understand it at all. 

Football is a team sport. Carr may not be better than Rodgers or Lamar, but his cost to acquire could end up being significantly less and the net gain by signing Carr and adding 2 or 3 big weapons could be greater than by simply signing Rodgers or Lamar. 

How much better would Joe Burrow be without Chase and Higgins? If the Bengals had traded assets for Burrow like either of these 2, especially Lamar, they wouldn't have had the picks to get either one. You've been bitching that the Ravens haven't surrounded Lamar with elite talent. It's hard to do that without cap space and draft picks like the situation would be here if we made a move for him. And Rodgers wants more money than LJ. Cap space can be manipulated to a point, but if you aren't ready to make a SB run today, Rodgers is a bad move. 

I liked Carr on a 2-3 year deal at about 30m per season. I wouldn't have been happy with the deal he got from NO. But, that would have let us keep our picks and load up on offensive talent that we desperately need, possibly take a QB in the 1st, but not act out of desperation. It also gives us salary cap room to keep guys like Burns, Chinn, Brown, DJ, Horn, Bozeman. But Carr was not my 1st choice. He did however, give us options.  

You have to be able to put other players on the field. It doesn't matter if you have the greatest QB in the history of football if your defense can't stop an opposing offense. All their defense needs to do is stop your offense a couple of times and you lose. KC kept Hurts off the field in the SB. He didn't have a chance to win it at the end because he was on the sidelines. There has to be some semblance of balance when building a team.

If you want to go all in on Lamar or Rodgers, that's your prerogative. But you can't whine and complain we're not putting talent around them when you gave that ability away just to put them on the field. Personally, I think we need to build through the draft, but again, you have to measure and calculate what you're getting vs what you're giving up. Stroud could be the best QB in the draft, but if you take away your ability to build around him you're not doing yourself any favors either.

I prefer logical, well thought out, strategic team building focusing on maximizing gain for the least amount of cost. I like having the ability to be flexible instead of being stuck all in and hoping for the best. Guys can get knocked out of this game and their careers in an instant. You have to have some room to work around it. 

Carr has been in the league for 9 years and has 1 playoff appearance.

 

Lamar wins 75% of his games as a starter and he does it with even less weapons than Carr has. If Lamar had the best WR in football and a top 5 TE he has a SB by now.

 

Rodgers is one of the greatest QB's to ever play this game. He's still a top 10 QB even at his age.

 

It's a shame we even putting these QB's in the same conversation.

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

CamWhoaaCam

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, stratocatter said:

That’s unfair. And is an effort to demean the intellect of people who don’t agree with YOU. 
 

And it is intellectually disingenuous to ignore unequal situations to make your weak ass argument. 
 

Why should people have to spend time to correct you? Just come correct in the first place. Be honest in your sales pitch’s and arguments at least. 
 

Lamar will cost a fortune Both in picks And salary. It is literally the worst deal going if that is the cost. 

Because they are franchise QB's!

 

My goodness you have to pay big money to get an elite QB. Rodgers makes 60mil this year. Great QB's are paid high.

 

My question is why do you guys like holding onto draft picks and going after bridge QB's?

 

Either you trade up for your franchise QB in the draft or you trade for an actual franchise QB's.

 

These mid tier QB's get you nowhere. Saints aren't going anywhere with Carr as QB.

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

SmokinwithWilly

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Carr has been in the league for 9 years and has 1 playoff appearance.

 

Lamar wins 75% of his games as a starter and he does it with even less weapons than Carr has. If Lamar had the best WR in football and a top 5 TE he has a SB by now.

 

Rodgers is one of the greatest QB's to ever play this game. He's still a top 10 QB even at his age.

 

It's a shame we even putting these QB's in the same conversation.

Like I said, you don't get it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martin Grand Master

Martin

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, OldhamA said:

Playing it 'safe' = playing it smart.

The smart teams are consistently the best ones.

Just have to agree to disagree on this one. Playing it smart is to do a blend of safe and taking calculated risks. 
 

Btw, what is your safe and smart QB solution outside of kicking the can down the road?

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...