Mr. Scot

And when people talk about building that way, the team they tend to cite is the Patriots. But the Pats have a unique situation there. Brady's approach to his contract has been long term. He hasn't been paid as much on an annual basis as guys like Tony Romo, but he's been at it forever and has made plenty. A big part of the reason he has that longevity is that the Pats have had the money to invest in keeping a solid line to protect him. Could they still have had that if Brady has chosen a contract like Romo, Ryan or others have taken?

And that will happen despite this? (link)

You ever watch Barry Sanders highlights? I love em. Arguably the greatest running back of all time. Made plays that people were just dumbfounded to try and explain. You know what there's relatively few of, though? Barry Sanders playoff highlights. And Barry Sanders Super Bowl highlights...well, they don't exist. Why? Because the Lions paid him a ton and scrimped on everything else. The big games are still won by the best team, not the best player.

They absolutely should be paid. But are you willing to pay them so much money that we have to go bargain shopping everywhere else? That's a team building formula that I have yet to see produce a Super Bowl.

What percentage of the salary cap are you willing to devote to just two of 63+ players (Cam and Luke)? If we're going to go back to having massive cap devoted to just a few guys and having to skimp on the rest of the roster, what was the point of firing Marty Hurney?

I'm not so sure I buy that. The teams that have followed the formula of 'pay a few guys big and skimp everywhere else' have yet to see any Super Bowl victories. And this includes the teams that switched to that model after having won one. I agree with Cam and Luke getting paid fair contracts, but if we're going to tie huge amounts of cap into just a few guys, what are we doing any differently than Marty Hurney?

The NFC South wasn't an awful division until this past season. As to the other teams mentioned, the Bengals are even bigger payoff pretenders than the Colts. Likewise, the Chiefs team they beat was the one that started out looking great and ended the season looking like crap. And the Broncos? We already know what was going on there. Seriously, outside of Luck and T Y Hilton, the Colts have hardly anyone that scares opposing teams.

Check their record vs winning teams. They get to the playoffs largely because they play in an awful division. After getting there they tend to get destroyed. Not just beaten. Blown away. As to what they plan to offer him, I feel comfortable saying the guy who thought Trent Richardson was worth trading a first round pick for is not a guy I'm comfortable with setting contract values.

The Colts are already a team run by a crappy GM who's done a lousy job of building a team around his franchise quarterback. I won't be surprised if he makes things even worse by throwing so much money at Luck that he's taking up somewhere from 20-25% of their cap, thus meaning they'll have to try and make a half decent roster of 52 other players (plus practice squad, IR, etc.) with whatever fraction is left. That is not someone whose example I want to see us following.

I saw. At this point, I think even 'possibly' is overstating the chances of it happening.

Hardy contract? Teammate lobbying aside, I'm still pretty sure that ain't happenin'

Spanish announcers could make a game of hopscotch sound exciting.

Makes no sense. If you don't let them look, they're going to think the worst.

Last year's rookie class was the best the Panthers have ever seen. The last two years are the best stretch of drafting we've had to date. Which part of that is overrated?

Absolutely loved the Spanish language call of that

Yeah. It's never been 'pure' BPA. It's not like we automatically take the one guy that sitting at the top of our board when our pick comes up. At that time, there are probably three or four options discussed and together they decide on one, with need being one of the factors that's considered. If you want to really understand BPA, what you most need to remember is that the team will never reach for need. In other words, they won't take a player with a second round grade in the first round simply because he fits a need at the time. That's the real heart of the philosophy.

Lots of good answers

Thank you, Daniel.

...with these three statements. - We have a better roster than we had two years ago - Over the past two years, we have seen improvement from our coaching staff - Our front office has us headed in the right direction For each answer, explain why.

People use the 'youthful indiscretion' defense a lot, and for guys with a single offense, I can generally buy that. Repeat offenders though? That's a stretch.

Because I don't believe for a moment that he 'hates' Green-Beckham.

Would you deny that happens? (answer in the broad spectrum, not just yourself)

On this forum, anything short of "I would trade all my draft picks for him and pay him a bazillion dollars" is interpreted as personal hatred.

Interchangeable last names?

Jones and Voth have disagreed before (over whether Hakeem Nicks got an offer, as I remember). Could be a 'popcorn' moment