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!

     

Realistic off-season trade scenarios

BigBeezy

By BigBeezy,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

BigBeezy Newbie

BigBeezy

Posted
Posted

Although you rarely see a lot of trades in the NFL, what are some realistic trades you wouldn't mind seeing the Panthers make this offseason?

Here are a couple I wouldn't mind seeing:

Trade #1: Jon Beason for Giants WR Hakeem Nicks

Reasoning: It's no secret Beason would prefer to stay in the middle and he probably won't get that opportunity here. The Giants are in desperate need of a middle linebacker and Beason is one of the best middle linebackers in the game, when healthy. Nicks is one of the best young WR in the league, who is often injured but still produces at a high level. Nicks is going into a contract year and both he and Cruz will want #1 WR money (think Antonio Brown, VJax contracts), which may make Nicks expendable. Might even be willing to include a late round pick to get this deal done because of the players' current contracts.

Trade #2: Deangelo Williams for Packers CB Tramon Williams

Reasoning: The Panthers could definitely use some help in the secondary, especially with Gamble likely being cut, and Tramon Williams is one of the better corners in the game. But the Packers have some young talented CB in Casey Hayward and Sam Shields, which could make Williams expendable. This trade would also give the Packers a legit starter at RB, which they've desperately seeking for quite some time.

These trades may never happen but neither is out of the realm of possibility. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Marguide Newbie

Marguide

Posted
Posted

I think you are way overvaluing Beason/DWill.

It wouldn't be terribly surprising to see Gamble given a chance to test the waters, or at least tell his agent that you would entertain trade offers because he wasn't in our future plans. If Chris was willing to sign a new deal with a potential new team, he would have some value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigBeezy Newbie

BigBeezy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

#2 is definitely out of the realm of possibility, I think

#1 is probably out of the realm of possibility.

Why do you say that?

There's been rumblings that the Giants may be willing to part ways with Nicks. I agree, the Packers may not want to get rid of Williams, but they definitely want some better talent at RB and also have younger, cheaper options at CB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JawnyBlaze Grand Master

JawnyBlaze

Posted
Posted

Yea, the Packers definitely need a RB, but they can get one in the draft. One that's young and doesn't have a top 10 contract. If they did want Deangelo, we wouldn't get an outstanding CB in return.

I haven't heard these rumblings about Nicks, but even if they did we'd have to sweeten the pot. As much as I love Beason (and Deangelo), no team is going to trade a young blue chip #1 WR for a MLB coming off two early season ending injuries with a top 10 contract.

It's just a matter of value. WR has more value in today's NFL than MLB and CB has more value than RB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frizzy350 Apprentice

Frizzy350

Posted
Posted

Ok your scenarios make sense but the value just is not on point. Beason has been on IR the past two seasons and has an extremely high cap number to go with it. Nicks may be expendable but he's a big, fast young receiver, they could get a much better offer than Beason.

I don't think the Packers have any intentions of bringing in a very talented running back. People look at their offense and say, oh well they NEED a runningback, because their running game stinks. I have a funny feeling that the Packers really don't give a damn about their running game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigBeezy Newbie

BigBeezy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yea, the Packers definitely need a RB, but they can get one in the draft. One that's young and doesn't have a top 10 contract. If they did want Deangelo, we wouldn't get an outstanding CB in return.

I haven't heard these rumblings about Nicks, but even if they did we'd have to sweeten the pot. As much as I love Beason (and Deangelo), no team is going to trade a young blue chip #1 WR for a MLB coming off two early season ending injuries with a top 10 contract.

It's just a matter of value. WR has more value in today's NFL than MLB and CB has more value than RB.

Fair enough. I did mention adding a late round pick in the Beason/Nicks deal to make it work, which I wouldn't mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Swaggasaurus Rising Star

Swaggasaurus

Posted
Posted

James Anderson for a 5th...we are stuck like glue with 52....Dwill for a 4th maybe. Those are the two trades that could possibly happen. If we have any player for player trades you guys will be like who??? Aging big time players don't get traded for other aging big time players in the NFL....just does not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigBeezy Newbie

BigBeezy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ok your scenarios make sense but the value just is not on point. Beason has been on IR the past two seasons and has an extremely high cap number to go with it. Nicks may be expendable but he's a big, fast young receiver, they could get a much better offer than Beason.

I don't think the Packers have any intentions of bringing in a very talented running back. People look at their offense and say, oh well they NEED a runningback, because their running game stinks. I have a funny feeling that the Packers really don't give a damn about their running game.

There are definitely teams that may give up more for Nicks i.e. Dolphins and like I mentioned before I would be willing to include a pick, if needed. Nicks numbers were down a bit this season and he battles with injuries, so that could bring down his value a bit as well.

I think the Packers definitely want to strengthen their running game. It would make their offense more balanced. It would also limit some of the hits on Rodgers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigBeezy Newbie

BigBeezy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

James Anderson for a 5th...we are stuck like glue with 52....Dwill for a 4th maybe. Those are the two trades that could possibly happen. If we have any player for player trades you guys will be like who??? Aging big time players don't get traded for other aging big time players in the NFL....just does not happen.

I agree, you don't usually see a lot of player for player trades but I thought this was a little more interesting than the player for pick scenarios that you typically see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Icege
      PFF ranks the 2025 starting QBs

      By Icege · Posted

      Just to clarify: I'm not arguing that height or footwork can’t affect QB play. I'm asking how those concerns translate into measurable, consistent outcomes. That’s the standard we should be applying to all QBs, not just Bryce. If height is such a limitation, then we'd expect to see elevated batted passes or poor pressure evasion. Yet none of that shows up in the data. Bryce was one of the lowest in the league for batted passes and his 16.9 pressure-to-sack ratio is good enough for 9th out of all QBs with 300+ dropbacks. So if you believe footwork tied to height is a meaningful issue, what metric shows that because two that would aren't doing so? This isn't about denying flaws. It's about applying fair, consistent standards because otherwise we’re not evaluating performance which means that it's not analysis taking place... it's just going off of the vibes that somebody has consciously decided on. Citing one red zone play you remember doesn't provide that consistent standard. I don't say that to dismiss your memory, but to emphasize that anecdotal evidence (especially from an avowed skeptic) shouldn’t carry more weight than consistent tape or analytics. For example, there was recently dissonance over Bryce's deep ball accuracy where it was implied that he was inaccurate throwing 20+ yards. Yet, the data and film show otherwise. And I unfortunately have to still ask since you won't directly answer: What specific metrics do you believe matter when evaluating whether a QB is top-10? You've mentioned YPA and passing yards per game, and that's fair. If that's what you're prioritizing, then let's call that your criteria but clarity matters because it prevents moving goalposts when the data doesn’t match one's expectations. I appreciate the response and hope that your holiday weekend goes well also. ❤️
    • KillerKat
      Canes vs Panthers Rd 3 Gm3 8pm

      By KillerKat · Posted

      Me too. I got other things I can do. Tie it up 2-2 and I will be back, but Im tired of watching us get swept.
    • carpanfan96
      First goal 25 Playoff Series

      By carpanfan96 · Posted

      Svechnikov and I'm voting cause I'm pissed. 
×
×
  • Create New...