BrianS

This to me is the reason to be excited about Brown compared to Joe Brady. Joe Brady just didn't have the correct support around him.

The biggest problem with all the "wait til next year" crowd is that they consistently make the assumption we'll be in the same general range when drafting. That's especially troubling now considering that our coaching is VASTLY superior to what it was last year - you could make the case that our coaching is the best it's ever been. I find it quite easy to assume that we'll win another two games next year. That puts us in the 17 - 21 range drafting. If you want to move up from that range to the top 4 (as opposed to where we are this year), the cost is going to be 1.5 to 2 times. The value of those first 3-4 picks is ludicrously high.

We just traded away (arguably) the best RB in football. And you want us to draft another? Come on man. The leading rusher in the SB was a seventh round pick for heavens sake. If we trade up, it better be for a QB - regardless of what round we're talking about. It's the only position in football worth trading up for.

If it's Carr + Hendon Hooker, that's actually kind of enticing. I'm very curious where Hooker falls to in the draft.

I am so split over Carr. I think he's a good QB, but he's only got maybe 3-4 years left. And at what cost?

I am not sold on Griese. I think it's too soon. Brian Johnson is out given the new Colts HC. I think it likely ends up with Jim Bob Cooter, though Thomas Brown would not be out of the question.

Seems like that makes it unlikely we can get Brian Johnson as OC. I assume the Eagles will promote him.

Players should be taking notice here. This is not The Process. This is actual NFL coaches who have overseen success in the league.

No. His development as a passer has been non-existent thus far. INT rate is far too high and completion percentage too low. Once teams start treating him like Vick, he'll be just another backup.

Burns value just went way up with Evero coming in. He's now going to be in a position that suits him as opposed to being forced into a slot as a 4-3 DE.

imo . . . about the same as last year. All the concerns from last year would still be there. Can he process the whole field? Can he be a more polished player from the pocket? I'd put him somewhere between 5th and 10th QB in this draft. I like him better than Anthony Richardson but not as well as Hendon Hooker. Which is not a popular opinion, but Hooker and Corral both have a lot more history of production in college than Richardson. I like to see college QB's with multiple successful years as the starter. I think it gives you a better read on them. I also like to see improvement over those years. That lets me know that perhaps there is a higher ceiling.

Hooker's injury, while bad, shouldn't impact his game long term. If the film tells you he's a franchise guy, you should take him. I think the only reason he might slide is because a team might want him to play this coming season. Not sure that's gonna happen. His numbers look good. He's a little older, which is either a positive or a negative depending on your evaluation. I think he has a chance to be a good one.

I wouldn't trade anything for Carr. I wouldn't take him on $30 million a season. However, I think he's a good QB. I think he has at least two or three good years left in him. How many times did the Raiders defense let this dude down? It's obscene. Over the last five seasons, the Raiders defense has ranked 26th, 26th, 30th, 24th and 32nd in points against. The problem isn't Carr. The problem is those guys don't have a single (*&$@ing clue how to play defense.

Kaye is also basing his comments on some ridiculous stat as well. "Middle of the field passes"? Really? When has that EVER been a stat anyone cared about? When talking about defense, there is only one stat we should care about: Points. If a team drives 99 yards on my defense and comes away with zero points, I'm ok with that. Frankly, that's probably a big win for the defense. If an offense completes 100% of their passes against my defense, but only scores 6 points, who am I to care? It's all about points. You can use the other stats to help discover why you may be giving up points, but points are the stat that matters.

That doesn't add up. Luvu averaged a bit more than 7.5 tackles per game played. Shaq averaged 8 tackles per game played. Please explain how Shaq is worth nearly three times what Luvu makes. 18 million for a non-rush LB is TOO MUCH MONEY unless you're talking about a guy like a Kuechly who makes everyone else better. Shaq is no Luke. If you want to keep Shaq here in the 7-8 million range over 2 additional years, ok. Otherwise, thank you for your service, best of fortune in your future endeavors. You've also got to consider that we will now need MORE LB's as we switch to a 3-4. In that defense, it's the OLB's who make the bread. Shaq is not a 3-4 OLB.

The "problem" with Shaq has always been his contract. It simply didn't reflect his play at any point. Statistically, Shaq and Frankie Luvu were the same player this year. Eerily similar. But cap wise, Shaq hit us at 13 million and Luvu at 3.5 million. It's pretty hard to swallow.

Ask yourself this question: How many of Andy Reid's offensive disciples have succeeded elsewhere? Answer: 1. Doug Pederson - and that's still debatable in many circles. Honestly, if EB was so promising, why hasn't he had the chance to call some plays in KC? There have been plenty of blowouts where Andy could easily have handed that off. EB is one red flag after another.

Richardson has some significant mechanical concerns around his footwork. It shows up in his accuracy numbers. Those are major red flags for Reich, he clearly wants someone who can win from the pocket and values accuracy very highly. If I were Richardson's agent, I'd advise him to stay in school another year and put heavy emphasis on fixing his mechanical issues. He's going to bust in the NFL if he can't get his accuracy right, and it's all tied to his footwork.

College tape is irrelevant. Zak Wilson had great college tape. Kyle Trask had great college tape. Etc. I'm sure Corral will get his chance, but I'll be shocked if he ends up starting next September. I certainly wouldn't stake my season on Matt Corral as QB1 were I the head coach or GM.

Thus is ever the fare of those who come first. Magellan was ridiculed because the world was flat. Carl Benz for his automobile patent. Etc. Likewise the establishment is often only interested in seeing the status quo maintained. At times, this is simply prudence. At others, obstructionism. It's the purview of everyone to think for themselves and establish which is which. /soapbox off Cam was a trailblazer who should have been protected and celebrated. It sucks for Panthers nation that he was not. But it has given us Joe Burrow, Patrick Mahomes, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, etc. I enjoy watching them play. It simply came a little too late for Cam.

Cam's "problem" in the NFL had nothing to do with his abilities, but the abilities of the OC we had for most of his career. If Norv Turner had followed Rob Chudzinski instead of Mike Shula it is very possible that we have multiple SB appearances and Cam might still be healthy. Even with a very injured and depleted Cam, you could see what Norv did for his game. He made Cam a better passer and student of the game.

Assuming Washington cuts him, it's possible. He has no guaranteed money that WTF would have to deal with, so given how his year went, I wouldn't be surprised if he was cut. We've all seen how critical system is to the QB. Maybe Reich just has a system that works for Wentz. As long as it's cheap, with little to no guaranteed money, I don't really care.

Wilks is a good guy. A good story. A guy you can root for. But philosophically, he's not the guy we need to compete in the NFL today. Wilks would make a great college coach at the mid-major level. If he isn't retained, I'll certainly root for him. For the Carolina Panthers however, I'm happy to see we are setting our sights higher. Even if we miss, we are trying.

No one is celebrating mediocrity. However, turning a mediocre team around is a lot easier than fixing what's become an established level of awful at places like Cleveland and Houston.

Disagree. We are mediocre. Far from a bottom feeder. Here's stats since 2000: