top dawg

You said he was looking like a shadow of his former self. You said he was "decking hard"

My thing is, if you couldn't take down Mahomes this year, when are you going to do it? I fully expect them to load up next year with a receiver or three (one of them being Kelce's eventual replacement). We're just lucky they didn't pick LaPorta last year.

How sweet it is for him.

You made a statement to that effect. Most players in their mid thirties are "absolutely on the decline," so that's really not saying anything.

LOL @ the Huddlers that said Kelce had fallen off a cliff. You know who you are. Kelce is still one of the most effective TEs in the league. He may not be as good as he once was, but he's as good once as he ever was. (RIP Toby Keith)

Stop being a bitch @4Corners. Your time is coming.

I really don't care who wins. I like Mahomes, Andy, Kelce and Taylor, and I like my man CMC as well. I can't say that people are irrational for not liking him, or what they perceived that he did or didn't do while here, but he DID NOT want to be traded and didn't force his way away. All that crap side, CMC has been an exceptional back when on the field. He has had amazing productivity, even in a day and age when RBBC is increasing with every season. Per game, yards from scrimmage, CMC is historical. That's excellent company.

I appreciate you, and I hear you, but I just don't believe that that type of behavior should be a part of the Huddle experience, no matter how small it is perceived to be. I mean, poo here and there, but just gratuitously pooing the same poster for no reason is uncalled for. We should know when it when we see it. Don't get me wrong, I poo people sometimes, and sometimes the same poster, but I think that it's beyond the pale to just repeatedly poo everything someone posts. It's juvenile and unbefitting of a Huddler. Currently, warning and banning is the way to combat that, but perhaps there needs to be a function to take away that specific function from specific Huddlers---for a time, or forever---if exploitation of it becomes an issue. That's my $.02.

Don't be so judgemental of yourself. Like I was saying, when you have a semblance of a triumvirate of power where no one guy is seemingly responsible for making football moves, it's hard to know who actually made the call. Some of us may have raised an eyebrow at the Darnold trade, but it turns out that at the end of the day it paled in comparison to the value lost in the Burns no-deal.

Well, that's a bit of a problem. @rayzor @LinvilleGorge @Jeremy Igo @Bear Hands

Why were you pooed?

I can't just get excited about Horn because he's been a non-factor. He's been more like a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow than a unicorn, but they're both kinda delusional. Until I see him play the preponderance of a season, I'm not going to really care one way or another whether we extend him or not. I've moved on mentally. Maybe he'll surprise me by the end of next season.

I thought that the Darnold deal was highly ill-advised. That was the time that I began to question Fitterer. I couldn't just blame him 100 percent because of Rhule and Tepper. Admittedly, I was more diplomatic about the Burns no-deal, even though I thought that he should've taken it 100 percent. My problem is that there was no real urgency to make things come to a head once last season ended. He should've been signed or traded. But, alas, here we are with his value at an all time low and with his future as a Panther in doubt.

I know, right. I'm not going to give him a cookie for listing our obvious failures, wrapping it up, tying a bow on it and presenting it as a thread. I'm also not going to cuss @MHS831 out for listing our obvious failures because I appreciate him as a Huddler, so...I can't do anything with this...

I didn't know this. For me, the following article added a little more understanding. You not only have to have that signing bonus on hand, you have to have up to 75% of the cash on hand for guaranteed money in players' contracts. So because Tepper has more liquidity than most of the owners, it gives the Panthers a certain competitive advantage. Basically, some owners may be able to theoretically get the numbers right based upon future league earnings, but if they don't have the cash on hand to secure the contract, you can't have the contract. "...any money guaranteed to players must be set aside at the time the guarantee is made...All guaranteed money, up to 75% of the contract’s total compensation, must immediately be placed in escrow, even when the money won’t be paid to the player for years. When the Minnesota Vikings signed Kirk Cousins last year, he was paid a rather inconsequential $3 million signing bonus. However, since the entire $84 million contract was guaranteed, the team had to set aside more than $60 million cash to pre-fund the future guarantees. "...This money has to be in the form of cash, not in Escalades or oil or Grand Slam breakfasts, or in shares of the team itself—where a lot of owners’ wealth was created and remains tied up. So in short, the answer is yes—despite the parity of a salary cap—a team owner’s wealth, and specifically liquid wealth, can play a big factor in what a franchise can offer its players." https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2019/2/24/18222073/does-an-nfl-team-owners-wealth-really-matter-contracts-salary-cap-pay-structure-free-agency

I may seemingly be the contrarian depending upon one's perspective, but I hardly believe that Luvu is a break-the-bank type of player. I see him as a midrange linebacker who should be rewarded as such. Just like Burns---to a lesser degree because Luvu is really a lesser player due to his value to NFL teams---if Luvu expects to be overpaid for his services, then he can kick rocks. This is not to say that Luvu doesn't play with more heart than Burns (or most on the current team), but I'm not gonna confuse playing with heart, something that you should be doing regardless, with being a top player at your position. Don't get it twisted, I appreciate Luvu, I'm just not going to break the budget because I like the guy.

That's so convenient and easy to say in hindsight. If I were GM, I wouldn't have traded up, especially when 2024 was touted as being deep. It costs way too much to trade up from the ninth position to the first, especially when hitting on a QB is anything but guaranteed.

I was remiss to leave out Luke as well. He's headed to the Hall one day. Pep, Smitty or Luke has got to be the answer.

Pep Smitty One is soon to be a first-ballot HoFer, & the other one will be a HoFer.

I think that the past season was definitive about Burns. What more do his staunch defenders need to see? He's a role player and not worth a top five salary, and maybe not even top 10. He may rue the day that he decided 23 mil per wasn't enough. At this point if I were a GM, I'd even be questioning that.

I know Drake Maye is that dude 'round these parts, but can't pass up on Caleb Williams...unless maybe I get an additional first, second, and get Maye as a consolation. Basically what the Bears should strongly consider doing.

"Flexibility," that's the word that I was looking for, and "cap flexibility" is an excellent term. I'd add that it leads to roster flexibility, which is what you want, especially if you're trying to rebuild.

From what I understand, the cap isn't bad. Personnel wasn't Suleiman's job. We aren't really handcuffed in a way that's earth shattering, which is really what you want. We have the freedom to clear up a lot of cap by making roster moves. We may not be in the best position, but we're far from the worst. Personnel decisions won't be hamstrung because of cap. We just need to be more discriminating with how we draft and how we spend. I've read that we can have as much as around 45-50 mil before we have to make major decisions, provided that we cut some dead weight. We're still in transition, and it's a process.