Mr. Scot

Doesn't sound likely...

I don't blame anyone for making the best of their situation, but some of the suggestions people have are just ridiculous. You want to let a player pick a coach? Okay. Obviously they're more likely to pick someone from their side of the ball, which probably irks the guys on the other side of the ball especially if that side gets neglected. Plus what happens if the player starts declining? Is the coach going to be loyal to him when he shouldn't? Letting a player pick a GM is even crazier for the same reasons. Throw in the question of what happens when that quarterback or player retires? Now do you get a new coach and a new GM picked by your next quarterback? I get that people want good players to play here but good grief!

See above. It's also kinda lazy, too. I respect a guy who's willing to go somewhere and say that he's going to help make the team better way more than a guy who just wants to go where they're already good.

If that happened on an annual basis though, you'd never have good players going to bad teams and bad teams would stay bad forever. Mind you, poorly run teams tend to stay bad anyway but you have to give them some kind of opportunity for change. Look at the Browns.

The vast majority of star players who become coaches are absolute sh-t at it. Of course, from what we know of Wilson's personality, he probably thinks he deserves an ownership stake

Actually, a lot of people felt that was kind of douchey (because it was). Same thing with Elway.

So have the defensive guys, and even the special teamers, but we're only going to let the quarterbacks have input? Wilson now says he wants a say in the roster. No way in hell I'd let him have that. He's not a coach. He's not a talent evaluator. There are people who are qualified to do that. He's not one of them. As far as a "power shift", that's still largely theoretical at this point. And no, I'm not in favor of it because what inevitably winds up happening in a situation like that is that teams and places like New York and Los Angeles benefit while small market teams like the Panthers get shafted. Pete Rozelle was a very smart man. He built a system designed to create parity for a reason.

Well metaphorically speaking, if you're trading for Watson you're getting a fully prepared apple pie.

Gave you two, got one back so only lost one. That's the nature of a trade. You can't look at only one side.

I remember analysts used to describe Dave Kreig as a guy who could keep both teams in the game. That's probably a pretty accurate description of Winston too

I mean in simplest terms, think of it as something else. We've all got a bunch of apples. I give you two of mine. You keep those but give me one of yours. I'm only out one apple. It not being the same apple I gave up doesn't change that it's an apple.

In scenario two, we get a first back. Net loss is only one pick.

Fair point.

Brugler's scenario also includes next year's first.

Not if they really don't want to trade him. General consensus is they're not just trying to drum up offers. They really mean it.

Actually, the original source on that was other teams. When it was first mentioned, Tom Pelissero called around to a bunch of teams to ask about it. They all said nobody from the Texans was picking up or returning their calls. I suppose they might be listening to their voicemails but hey... I forget who it was but someone else pointed out that Caserio spent a lot of years watching Bill Belichick say no to people. He's said to be of the same mindset. (given that he seems to be sweeping out anybody who might disagree with him that's not hard to believe)

They may be fast, but they wouldn't be anywhere near as skeered as me

No. We made that offer trying to get Peyton. Sorry. I'm a tad frazzled today

We tried. Bill Polian actually revealed what the Panthers offered for the number one pick a little while back. I don't remember the details but it was substantial. Edit: Sorry, that was for Peyton Manning, not Luck.

That's not the source for the story. This is: I'd agree it's a little vague, but given what we know it's not really that hard to believe they've at least made an initial inquiry.

His performance in the playoff game he started certainly earned him some consideration.

I know I'm nowhere near as fast as I used to be when I was young, but if I were being chased by a 300 pound defensive lineman, you might be surprised how fast I could go.

Focusing on the big picture would probably help. One of the big facepalms I always used to have when people were talking about Hurney was folks saying "but he drafted this great player" or "he made that great trade", after which I'd say "Yes but we still didn't win jack so what difference does it make?" I've seen teams have offseasons that looked like refried monkey sh-t, yet somehow they were better when they hit the field. Likewise, I've seen teams make offseason moves that made people drool, only to turn around and miss the playoffs by a mile. They're going to make questionable moves, miss on draft picks, fail to resign free agents and overpay others. I can live with that. It's how we look at the end of the season that matters.

Over the course of the season, I don't know that a lot of people were. Poor performances in big games like Northwestern and Alabama made people nervous though, and it's reasonable that they would.

I don't necessarily think it's a bad deal for a backup. Concerns people might have about his ability to stay healthy though are pretty well warranted.