Mr. Scot

Because they don't know that. Likewise, they don't know whether we might have talked to somebody else who wants to trade up for their guy.

I got it Me being an NFL history buff, I actually like to know these things. I got the Texans part right, just happened to the wrong city.

So with the news that Shaq Thompson is staying, might be a good time to revisit a question. Who are your front seven starters in our 3-4 alignment? To be clear, some might be free agents or draft picks. Feel free to specify such if needed.

Wrong thread, dude.

The Oilers became the Titans. I think there were a couple of other names between the Texans and the Chiefs (early NFL teams could be a lot more mobile than their modern counterparts). Edit: Looked it up. I had the city wrong. They were the Dallas Texans. They became the Kansas City Chiefs in 1963.

We're not at the end of 45 days and many conversations right now. We're at the beginning of it. And right now, per multiple sources, they like more than one guy. They very well may narrow it down to one guy between now and Draft Day, but it is actually possible that as the day draws near, they still have two guys on equal footing.

I've given you plenty. You don't get it. Teams have equal grades on players all the time. What typically separates one from the other in a case like that is a combo of positional value, need, etc. But that doesn't apply here because we're talking about players at the same position. In a case like this, a team will ultimately choose one. That does not however mean they couldn't be equally happy with the other. And acting as if that means someone can't be trusted to do their job has taken this from simple discussion into the realm of the ridiculous.

Technically Bob/Cal McNair's version of the Texans isn't the original Texans. The team that originally went by "Houston Texans" is now the Kansas City Chiefs. (and they're significantly better than version 2.0)

Not much, really. Person isn't the only guy reporting it. Multiple people on the Panthers beat have said the same thing based on the word of a team source. And it's not like it was a crux of something they were reporting. It was just included an articles about the trade. Also, I know people are assuming the trade up to one means there's only one guy they're targeting, but that's fanthink, not reality.

Yeah sorry dude, this is a dumb take.

Yeah, this makes no sense at all. It is most definitely possible for a team to place equal value on two players, regardless of position. It happens plenty.

Guessing he'll be one of the inside backers. Now let's get Bozeman.

I wouldn't give two sh-ts. The idea that you can't put equal value on two different players is just silly.

Okay, that's just goofy. Firing a whole staff because they like two or more prospects equally would be absolutely braindead.

How? The team ahead of you, regardless of who they are or even whether they trade to someone else, can only draft a single player. If you have two players you like equally and you pick second, you're guaranteed one of the two.

You still can. It's not to your advantage if you're thinking of trading the pick, but if you're not you can do pretty much anything. The NFL doesn't like for teams to be that though because they like drama.

...or think we'd be willing to trade the pick to somebody else who might take the guy they want. I'd add one thing I think would be funny if they did negotiate would be to offer a fifth round pick to make up for the one the NFL confiscated

Losing faith in a staff that hasn't coached a single game (hell, hasn't coached a single play) because they handled the draft differently than you would have? They have a draft process: interviews, visits, meetings, etc. All indications are there going to put full effort into that process...and we'll they should. And to be clear, they don't have to play any mind games. They have the #1 pick. They could go out tomorrow, issue a press release and tell the entire world "we're picking Player X" and nobody could do jack sh-t about it.

I don't either, but I don't discount it. And if it did happen I'd be fine with it. After reading some of the responses here though, it sounds like a pretty good portion of the Huddle would have a total meltdown

What's clear from this discussion is that some fans have one favorite and want that guy or nobody, which is fine. Panicking at the notion that the Panthers might also like someone else though is kinda silly. Have said numerous times that I trust whomever the staff picks. Others have too but apparently that notion isn't as popular as I thought

That's not really true. It's possible to have more than one franchise quarterback available in the draft. Hell, 83 had several. They may ultimately settle on just one, but the notion that they have to isn't valid.

The Panthers think so. (which is the whole point) And yes, they could fail. But that's true regardless of whether you take them at #1 or #2.

The Panthers like more than one quarterback.

That's a key point. The Bears were obviously quite willing to trade out of #1 because they don't need a quarterback. The Texans trading down from #2? Not so much.

They might end up with one, but right now they have two. And again, that isn't speculation. It's sourced. If we get our franchise quarterback for the next decade, do you really think anyone's gonna give a sh-t whether they were taken first or second? Hell, if we got a franchise guy at pick 206, I'm not gonna sit around five years down the road pissed we didn't get him higher. Just the opposite. i'd be laughing my ass off