Mr. Scot

They still haven't found the one Zod planted. I wasn't supposed to mention that, was I?

You're thinking of the tackle that the Chiefs drafted two years ago.

Would be interesting though.

He definitely sounds like an intriguing prospect. Part of me can't help but feel sorry for whomever eventually has to step in for Thomas Davis though. Davis is going to be an incredibly tough act to follow. He's easily one of the greatest Panthers ever.

Pretty much. Being an NFL agent - like being an NFL player or coach - usually involves an enormous ego.

Based on your first sentence, I was expecting a discussion of defensive player sin Edit: Good fix

No doubt, but this is a little more direct. And sad to say, the idea of an agent thinking "I'll get my current guy a better deal just to show that little twerp who fired me" isn't all that farfetched

Florio speculates (link) If this turns out to be true, yeesh

You'll learn the answer to this question when they kick you back.

Technically, Wilson can say he has a ring too. (the fact that he earned it as a game manager likely won't be taken into account) Aaron Rodgers has a Super Bowl ring and an MVP on his resume'. The notion that he'll wind up earning less then a kid whose biggest accomplishment thus far is getting blown out in a conference championship game just makes me shake my head.

Understood, but 'less' is rather relative here. Cam is going to make plenty of money, certainly more (regardless of what Auburn detractors might suggest) than he's ever seen in his lifetime. For my part, I honestly don't give a rat's ass whether it's higher than Luck, Wilson, Rodgers or anyone else. That's not how I value a player. But it's his bank account, so what he cares about is his own decision. And mind you, I do find the notion that Luck could wind up earning more than QBs with loads more experience and success and actual Super Bowl rings to be absurd.

That was lousy timing for Newton and others, but tough to argue that wasn't the right move for the League. Bradford got paid way more than he'd have ever actually earned (and he's only one of many examples).

I've never bought that you can judge QBs by stats alone (or even primarily, to be honest).

I'm hoping Rivera and staff look better than my opinion of them in the season to come. On replacing DeAngelo though, you don't buy Fozzy?

One good year away? Even with this team's up and down history? I like the optimism, but I'd be interested to hear more justification for it. Plus, what happens if (God forbid) next year is a bad year?

But how long can we keep them all? That's the question that sucks.

Not a big believer in tanking theories, but there's little denying Painter was awful.

Which is one thing I like about our current roster. I do feel we have at least some of those elements already. Keeping them, while filling in the spots we don't have though, and paying big contracts to the established stars? That's a balancing act a high wire artist would balk at. Mind you, it's at least a decent problem to have. Better than past offseasons have seen.

I agree with the formula. I just want more than two 'stars'. I want a star left tackle and a solid pass rusher (plus at least decent players along both sides of the line), a receiver teams have to respect, at least one decent cover corner, a reliable tight end, a running back who can get the tough yards., a hard hitting safety, and maybe a few other things if I think about it longer. Yeah, that's asking a lot, but it has been done, and by more than one team.

It's not. Seen Bjorn Werner lately? Ahmad Bradshaw's durable enough to rely on, right? Receivers and runningbacks dropping balls? Not here. Defense that couldn't stop a high school team? No problem. We can always outscore them...well, mostly. (and this with a defensive head coach) The Colts spent a decade with the best quarterback in the game and a so-so team around him. To his credit, Polian got them a Super Bowl, but in the meantime they spent a lot of years getting owned by a team with a lower paid QB but a better overall roster. Now? Different quarterback, same approach. Eexcept I don't think Grigson is as good an evaluator as Polian (and I'm not that big a fan of Polian).

I want to keep both players without overpaying either. Simple request, right?

I don't question Grigson's desire to build around Luck, or even his approach. I actually like what he's tried to do. What I question quite a bit are his skills as a talent evaluator and his ability to judge the value of a player. Wanting to build around Luck and being good at it are two very different things. Heck, Marty Hurney certainly wanted to build a perennial contender. He just lacked the skill to do it. Bottom Line: Do I want the guy who thought Trent Richardson was worth trading a first round pick and Hakeem Nicks was a 3.5 million dollar receiver setting the market that's going to affect what Newton's agent wants? Ugh

The operative question is what constitutes 'overpayment'. Gettleman has made clear that he sees Newton as a franchise quarterback, but I think the folks who see that and think 'blank check' are in error. What Gettleman has also made abundantly clear is that he won't pay more than what he feels is 'good value' for the team. Where those numbers meet? Who knows? In the (what i would still consider highly unlikely) event that they don't , the explosion on this site will make Pompeii look like a firecracker.

You mean with moves like using their last two first rounders on Bjorn Werner and Trent Richardson, while also making moves like spending 3.5 million on their fourth receiver? Oh yeah. Genius at work, there. And Fleener doesn't scare anybody.

As big a fan as I am of Gettleman, being able to keep personnel in place like that is a tall order, one made even tougher by the fact that the Pats can point to a winning tradition that makes players want to play there. We're still a long way away from building that kind of rep.