ericr0319

so we dont trade for Watson - we aren't likely landing a QB at 8 unless we are going to be the team that falls in love w/ Lance. or we trade back select some good players, win 6 games next year and be in the same position with an even worse draft class for QB. 

this appears to be the year to get a QB either through the draft or draft. 

Is 3 first rounders too much for Watson? Building through the draft is key because you keep high salaries off the books. 

No top picks forces you to overpay in FA - see LA Rams. Yes, they went to a Super Bowl but they lost. The Eagles went and won. Both paid high prices to get their QB, but they paid the price and are in cap hell. 

Kelce and Devin White

19 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Add the $9M or cutting KK and negotiate a couple contracts and we can easily make a splash in FA or re-sign Moton

Add Michael Palardy and Stephen Weatherly to the list to add another $5.5 million in space

7 hours ago, musicman said:

All I was doing was saying if we don't get the QB we want, and I know Sewell won't be there, is Parsons enough of an impact player to take. On the CBS Sports draft board, he's like 3 or 4th highest rank in total. I was going by BPA and I like what White did for TB taking over the game towards the end. 8 is not too high as he's ranked that high. I do think CB is just as important so I see CB or maybe OT but if possible, trading down a few spots if our guy (who ever that is) is not available. 

at 8 he is certainly talented enough to draft. the thing is, no one player besides a QB, that is if you do not have your QB, is elevating a team that is not a contender to a contender. if you have a QB then a you could be a piece or two away. that piece could be a MLB. it could be a LT. we dont have a QB so truly it doesnt matter what we take, we have no shot. 

the smart move at 8, if we dont draft a QB, is to trade back and acquire more picks to draft more talented players. that way, when we do find our QB, we have a more talented roster. 

i cant see Fields or Wilson falling to 8th. at least if the draft was today. teams will likely have to trade up to get their QB

4 hours ago, TreadmillTrackstar said:

Again here you did EXACTLY what the other guy did yet you pulled up your skirt, shoved your panties to the side and took a dump all over his post. His was "opinion" based as well if you had even a tenth of a percent of reading comprehension skills you would have noticed yet somehow in your cross universe little world where "eric" is a legend in his own living room you just couldn't resist to try to play "Mr Poopy Pants Expert" but in this case I believe we can all summise that you sir are in fact a simpleton with a mouth that is operational allowing sounds to come out yet the fully functional brain inhibits such noises from becoming full rational thought. I fart once again in your general direction.

it wasn't opinion based. he said the team was taking an analytic approach to the draft and then something about value,. the word if does not make an opinion. he was stating it as if that was was what the team is doing. for example, if mom wants us to rake the leaves before we mow the lawn its going to take longer. 

but, nice job trying to "call me out for trying to be cool" when that was the exact purpose for your post. 

what if Watson gets dealt post draft? we could trade back in the 1st this year and maybe a second time. grab a 1st and 2nd next year aby continuing to trade back. 

that way we can still land a few offensive linemen this year in the draft and then next years draft we have (2) first and (2) seconds and send those to Houston?

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yeah, you can say that about everything. That's the point. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Every choice you make requires sacrifice elsewhere.

agree, but you don't have the benefit of that during the draft. you do your scouting, your due diligence and you make the best selection possible. of course every move is going to impact something in the future, but you deal with that when it comes. 

you're literally just throwing out terms because you think they make you sound smart. 

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

Literally everything else. That's what opportunity cost is.

you can say that about everything...you make decision and you hope they work. if they do, you're a genius. if they don't than you Monday morning QB it. 

Again, nobody drafts thinking what they will have to pay them in 5 years. Nobody knows what the market will be in 5 years. You do no know who your coach will be in 5 years. You do not know what FAs you will sign in 5 years. 

52 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

MY preference?... thats different than the OP. But if I were the GM.. I would ask for advise from my scouting department.  

and if your scouting department tells you Parson's is the 5th best player in this draft?

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

This is what I was talking about. Most fans can't grasp the concept of opportunity costs. Nothing happens in a vacuum. It isn't just about the draft. It's about the big picture. Don't feel bad though, Marty Hurney was a long-term NFL GM and he couldn't grasp it either.

what is the opportunity cost in drafting a MLB in the 1st round?

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Beason was a 1st rounder too who also got signed to a huge 2nd contract. Yes, when talking overall investments those 2nd contracts absolutely matter. You're not drafting 1st rounders with the intent of letting them walk after 4-5 years. You're drafting for a decade.

but the discussion is based on the draft. nobody is drafting saying okay in 5 years he will want X contract so we have to structure our draft pick based on X salary we will have to pay in 5 years. it sounds cute but it doesn't happen. 

5 minutes ago, pantherj said:

The Saints and Bucs are the class of the NFCS, and we're not going to out compete them by collect top LBs.

If Rule isn't thinking "QB, weapons, o-line" then we're in deep trouble. If he starts spending picks on the defense yet again then we're going to get yeeted. If our identity is our defense then we know we're ever winning a SB. Not happening.

i think he had to go defense his first draft because the defense was just so damn bad. its not a STUD o-line class, but its viewed to be deep. especially at G. we could easily end up going all offense this draft if the chips fall. 

8 minutes ago, mbarbour21 said:

If we can’t get QB, then we should trade back. Pick up an extra pick and grab two good offensive lineman. 

i agree - trade back and grab a 2nd. have 3 picks in the first 2 rounds and get a T, G, and then another player. honestly its a deep DT class and would love to cut ties with KK and draft another DT and build that o and d line. 

Brady will be on the Bucs for at least 2 more years after this. we are not winning a super bowl next year or year after. 

5 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

You forgot about Dan Morgan this quickly? All of those guys also signed huge second contracts that limited our ability to spend elsewhere. I think that's what a lot of fans miss. For every move there is also an opportunity cost. That move cost you the opportunity to make other moves. Hindsight being 20/20 and all, each of those huge second contracts proved to be a mistake.

no. Dan Morgan and Luke were who I was referring to as our investments. also, we are talking about the draft at number 8. has nothing to do with signing big contracts. 

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

There's a LOT more than two investments we've made at MLB.

in the first? besides Jon Beason who? I actually hate that move, but I was screaming for Luke for where we sat in that draft. 

Davis and Shaq were not MLB. 

20 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

gees man. Im stating the obvious. Im NOT saying they wont get him, but any amount of reading will show that at #8 an off the line LB is not the BEST value. Chill dude. 

okay. so if we dont go QB at 8 and dont trade up or back. who is your preference? 

18 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Please no. The Panthers have historically invested VERY heavily at MLB and we have an overall losing record to show for it. 

if you look at our 2 investments at MLB - those were the only 2 times we made it to the Super Bowl...

15 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

I'm for drafting a MLB, just not at #8.  Parsons is no Luke...very good, but not a generational-type talent.

8 is no mans land in the draft. its one of those spots where most players are not a value pick, but then the TOP guys if they fall to 8 is like a question mark...8 is seems like a spot you either trade up from or a trade back to a team that once to trade up to land a guy we made not need. 

i see at 8 a lot of teams wanting to nab a WR that we dont need

8 minutes ago, musicman said:

If we don't like the QB's left at #8, would you take MLB Micah arsons? After watching Devin White last night change the momentum, makes me wonder having someone close to Luke's ability might help complete the defense turnaround? We need a general on defense. Still get a LT in the 2nd and a CB in the 3rd. 

I'm not pushing for Parsons, just saying watching White reminded me of Luke and the importance of a great MLB. Just wanting opinions. 

but to reply to your question, with my opinion, I believe if we do not go QB, and we stay at 8 - Micha has the most immediate impact at 8. that said, i think if we do not go QB we should trade down because we need multiple picks to rebuild our offensive line. 

4 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

He is a helluva a player. But if the team is taking a more analytical approach, positional value speaking, he is not worth it.

lol. i love when people post comments when they have zero clue. i mean do honestly have 0.1% of a clue what the team is thinking?