Could this be us?

[TruCatzFan]

I agree with the last several people. makes no sense... now if we traded first rounders, and got a 2nd rounder, and 2012 first rounder, i'd say we take that. but thats not the deal.

[Mr. Scot]

I am pretty sure if we pass on Cam Newton and trade next year's pick to draft a QB at the top of the first round there will be a Panther fan riot.

I'd agree.

Regardless of whether we pass on Newton or not, it is pretty tough to imagine it being us if (if) King has the correct terms.

But with that said, I've seen pre-draft reports like this get the general gist of what was happening but miss on details plenty of times before. That's why I allow it could be us. That, plus you have to admit, this sounds an awful lot like exactly the kind of deal Hurney loves to do.

[mav1234]

it sure does, but his reluctance to do it last year (he refused to trade a first rounder to get Clausen) tells me he is unlikely to do it this year for a QB they are likely not sold on.

[TerriblePizza]

Did we work out Jake Locker?

[Cavscout]

I would love for us to trade down in the first round for a 2nd and an 2012 1st...

maybe someone (Redskins?) would do it

[teeray]

And if it is, what would you say about it?

From Peter King: Ten Thoughts on the Draft

Keep in mind, the team on the receiving end of the deal being the Patriots is purely King's speculation.

My own speculation is that if this were us, it could mean we're taking someone like Dareus, Green or Peterson first and then trading back into round one to take one of the lower rated QBs like Dalton, Locker or possibly even (shudder) Mallett.

This thoroughly fits Hurney's MO. Anyone who remembers the draft that netted Stewart and Otah knows that.

NOTE: If King has the terms correct, it couldn't be us because we don't have a second round pick this year, but I'm allowing for the possibility he doesn't have the exact terms. lf it actually involves a third rounder this year - or something else - then it indeed could be the Panthers.

I doubt it is us. But if it were it could just as easily be us taking Newton #1 and trading back in to get a Marvin Austin or someone like that.

I really hope that we don't get a Ponder or a Locker.

We would have a lot more value trading into the second to try and get Mallett and I think Mallett will be a better QB than Locker or Ponder if he gets his head screwed on straight.

[TruCatzFan]

Did we work out Jake Locker?

I see your thought process and i like it! I dont think we did, but it doesnt mean that he's not a possibility.

[teeray]

Plus there was a report earlier in the draft season that our FO thought there were only two QBs in this draft that are better than Clausen (Newton and Gabbert).

Of course as always that could have been deceptive.

[Mr. Scot]

it sure does, but his reluctance to do it last year (he refused to trade a first rounder to get Clausen) tells me he is unlikely to do it this year for a QB they are likely not sold on.

Valid point.

That plus the second rounder involved in the trade, plus the possibility of it being the Pats, is why I dismissed the idea of our involvement at first (was gonna post it as a general "who do you think it is").

But then I asked myself...

"What if he has the terms wrong?"

"Who else has a reason to trade back in to the first?"

"Doesn't it sound like a Marty Hurney type deal?"

And ultimately decided "awww, what the heck?" :lol:

[pantherfan49]

If you trade with the Patriots, you get screwed.

[Mr. Scot]

Did we work out Jake Locker?

Not that I know of, but we also didn't work out Von Miller and his name's popped up in speculation for the #1 a time or two (another reason why I was willing to consider us as a possibility).

If you put a gun to my head though, I'd say it is Locker, but I think the team on the other end of the deal is actually the Cardinals. They're going to wait to see if the Seahawks pass on Locker and if they do, then they grab him.

I allow for the Bills and Bengals as team possibilities too, and the QB target could be Dalton, Ponder or Mallett. I just choose Locker because the "will they or won't they" speculation about the Seahawks fits uncertainty of the story best.

[teeray]

Not that I know of, but we also didn't work out Von Miller and his name's popped up in speculation for the #1 a time or two (another reason why I was willing to consider us as a possibility).

If you put a gun to my head though, I'd say it is Locker, but I think the team on the other end of the deal is actually the Cardinals. They're going to wait to see if the Seahawks pass on Locker and if they do, then they grab him.

I allow for the Bills and Bengals as team possibilities too, and the QB target could be Dalton, Ponder or Mallett.

Just out of curiosity why do you think we would trade back in for a QB and not a DT??

To me it would make more sense if a Marvin Austin was still sitting there or someone like that.

Instead of trading a future 1st round pick for Jake Locker.

Also keep in mind that when we made the trade for Otah we were trying to win that next season. Right now we are trying to somewhat rebuild.

[TerriblePizza]

Not that I know of, but we also didn't work out Von Miller and his name's popped up in speculation for the #1 a time or two (another reason why I was willing to consider us as a possibility).

If you put a gun to my head though, I'd say it is Locker, but I think the team on the other end of the deal is actually the Cardinals. They're going to wait to see if the Seahawks pass on Locker and if they do, then they grab him.

I allow for the Bills and Bengals as team possibilities too, and the QB target could be Dalton, Ponder or Mallett. I just choose Locker because the "will they or won't they" speculation about the Seahawks fits uncertainty of the story best.

True. I'd love for us to take Locker. He looks like he could beat the poo out of Clausen in a fist fight. Something about him just screams "Badass"

[teeray]

It is like some people are saying (not you Scot) it would be smarter to use two highly valuable picks on Locker but too risky to use one pick on Newton or Gabbert.