pantherj

I just want them to move BC to LT and Icky to LG. Until get a look at that situation I don't want to spend on a LT. If BC can do it when we're sitting pretty, but we need to give him a chance imo.

I was worried Fitt would try to trade away future picks to try and save his job because the team wasn't winning. Then he did it, and now he's gone. Thanks again Fitt. We're ruined and there's nothing to be excited about any time soon.

I didn't even go to any games. The wine and cheese crowd was doing more than me. I wasn't making a judgement as to the fanhood of the wine and cheesers, and they were justified in leaving in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd imo.

Hurney and Fitt were basically doing the exact opposite of what I wanted QB wise in recent years. While I was saying we needed to cycle through QBs and look for a star, Fitt and Hurney were taking in QBs other teams were discarding for being game managers or worse. For instance: Teddy Bridgewater was a QB the Saints cycled out of and Hurney snapped him up. He was a known game manager with limited upside. He had peaked as a QB. The proper move would have been to trade up for Justin Herbert. We easily could have moved up. Sam Darnold. The Jets were dumping Sam because he was playing at a backup quality level, and we massively overpaid for no reason. We were not up against any other teams making offers. Unreal. Take that 2nd and 4th you paid for Sam and draft two QBs, or move up for one. We were doing all the wrong things. Baker Mayfield. He cost 5 million and didn't have a multi-year deal, and cost zero draft picks from what I remember. This wasn't a terrible move because of the low cost, but by this point the fan base was dead and the owner's confidence in his staff was zero. Mayfield was the best of the bunch, but he's not the type of QB who should make you stop looking for a better option. Bryce Young. I think when you have a 5'10" QB who has a weak arm by NFL standards you don't want to trade up at a huge expense. The reason is because his ceiling is likely to be a game manager. Could we not have obtained a game manager QB at the #9 pick without trading up? It doesn't matter now because Fitt was fired, so he can't make that mistake again for the Panthers. Making QB mistakes is how you end up with a franchise that is an embarrassment to your owner, state, fan base, and the NFL. Moving forward I see Young as a game manager who shouldn't prevent us from looking for other QBs. If Dan and his staff think they spot an upgrade over Young then I want them to pull the trigger. I don't this "but we spent so much on Young we have stick with him" mentality. No. If you spot a special QB and he's in our reach, then make a move. Like when Herbert went one pick ahead of us. Don't hesitate just because we have Young. I don't mind a QB controversy. They can compete for the starting spot. Decide things on the field, and if they're both really good, then trade one. It's not a problem. If they're both ass, then dump them and reload.

The words you use like "never" and "perfectly exemplifies" in your inner thoughts don't represent my views overall. I hope I clarified my views in my previous post. No one, literally no one on Earth, would use one game to decide to adopt a strategy of cycling through QBs. Yes the topic was the SB game, and to some degree, when taken in with everything else that's happen in the last 20 years in the NFL, that SB game adds some weight to the strategy. When taken in context with reality. In context with the rest of the NFL's history over the last 20 years. I didn't state that in the original post as I thought it was implied. I'm stating it now. I'd rather have Tyreek obviously, but I don't want to go down that rabbit hole.

This version of the Chiefs had a weak offense. Imagine Tyreek Hill out there, and a KC offense not depleted by free agency. SF would have been roasted imo. Now the quotes you are using are made up by you just to be clear. You're not quoting me up there in your post for anyone wondering. I would 100% take on a plan of cycling through QB until we hit on a elite QB. Why? Not just because of this one close SB game where KC had a weak offense. No. I'd do it because of what we see in the NFL nearly every season. Is this one SB game enough to make a case to cycle through QBs, no, but added to all the other games it helps somewhat.

Had to be a scapegoat.

We'd be way lower if it wasn't for the wine and cheese crowd that leaves in the 3rd quarter and doesn't watch the game.

Ok so either you think Purdy isn't a game manager, or you think Mahomes won't make the HoF, or both. Is that correct? I didn't call Purdy a JAG as that is a little too vague.

February 30th and we're going to dominate.

I'm going to be so stoked when we win the High Character Bowl.

When a game managing QB faces a HoF QB the team with the game manager has to have an "A" game to win. You can't have major mistakes and expect to beat a team with a HoF level QB. CMC fumbled and the other guy fumbled as well among other major mistakes. A game manager QB needs near perfect play from everyone to defeat a HoF type QB. That's why I don't really want a game manager, and I'd rather just cycle through QBs until we hit on an elite guy. Otherwise we're kidding ourselves if we think we're beating Mahomes for a SB trophy. If our fan base just wants to be at the middle of the pack, then any game managing QB will do if we have good coaches and a great GM. Eventually we'll construct a "one shinning moment" roster where we face Mahomes in the SB and lose. Then the roster will erode due to free agency, and the process of trying to piece together another mega roster beings, and the next thing you know you're in a old folks home and the Panthers never won a SB. I'd rather not go that route. I say cycle though QBs until you hit on a total badass, or die trying. Both are risky, but I'd rather go for it all.

Well we were all on the outside looking in and trying to figure things out. I wouldn't go so far as to say that about yourself, but Fitt on the other hand...

Fitt signing Darnold and picking up the 5th year was a back breaker. I couldn't understand why we gave up so much. No other teams were interested. Fit and his staff thought Darnold was like Sam Bradford and all he needed was the right support. I will never live down that idiotic move. The Burns offer from the Rams was amazing, and it came at time when we desperately needed first round picks for the future. Fitt's mindset was that the team was complete and all we needed to do was drop a QB into place and we'd have a winning team. That's how big of a moron Fitt was as our GM. I wouldn't trust to do anything in the Panthers front office. We dropped a QB into place, the one he sold the farm for, and we won 2 games. Unreal. Hire him back and re-fire him.

I'd like to add that a lot of the Huddle was supporting Fitt along the way. Not me. God I hated him and he's been proven now to be a moron. I was ready to explode when he passed on the Burns deal, and the Darnold deal nearly cost me my soul. Hated him as a GM at the time and I hate him now.

Funny story I was at the UNC vs Miami game and I missed the 4k broadcast. Damn it.

If it were up to me 4k HDR discs would be MOD (made on demand) for any NFL game. So let's say the Panthers win the SB next year, then you could pre-order a 4k HDR disk of that Super Bowl, and they'd burn it and ship it to you minus the commercials. Then you'd have something you've never seen before, football in 4k HDR from a physical disk. It would be way better than anything you'd ever seen sports wise. Streaming looks ok, but for special games I want a 4k disk. It's the best picture quality money can buy other than 8k on a physical disk. There is no reason why they can't upgrade the cameras and film the games and burn them to disc on demand. However, most people don't care about picture quality and are happy to watch the streamed copy they have from the original broadcast.

We'll fine out on the 11th, or some of us will.

I wouldn't know if I wanted it or not as I've never seen football in 4k.

Yeah I've never seen anything over native 4k, but in the coming years 8k blu-ray discs will be available. Older movies will have 6.5k resolution, and some newer movies will have 8k resolution. I doubt I'll eve see 8k streaming sports unless I watch a Japanese broadcast as they can manage it.

For the longest time it was only 720p so they must have moved up to 1080p in the last couple of years.

Right now I have Paramount+, Hulu, Netfrix, Peacock, and I just cancelled Disney+ because their Marvel and Star Wars shows are terrible. I had Max for a couple of years and I'll subscribe to that once Game of Thrones returns.

4K on a small tv is pointless. On a large tv, say 65", you need to be about 6ft or closer to really take in the increase in resolution. The bigger the tv the better when it comes to 4k. Also, 4k that is broadcasted, say over a streaming service, will not look as good as a physical media source due to compression. Streaming 4k is second rate which is why I have a physical media collection.

It's always been in 720p because many broadcasting companies don't want to pay to upgrade to 1080p. I've actually never seen a sporting event in 4k, but I've heard of Japan broadcasting in 8k. I've never seen anything in 8k but there are 8k tvs on the market. I have a 65" 4k OLED CX10 and I watch 4k HDR movies on a regular basis as I have a 4k blu-ray collection, so I'll be interested to see what football looks like in 4k. Hell I'll be interested to see it in full HD as it's always been 720p, or 1080i which is lame.