Sgt Schultz

We have people who believe Lawrence, Wilson, Fields, Lance, Sewell, Slater, Darrisaw, Surtain, Chase, Waddle, Smith, and maybe Parsons will all be gone by the time we draft at #8.

That's why I didn't run with the assumption that Rivera and Hurney would have been sent packing sooner....it was JR. Don't get me wrong, I am not taking the position our brain trust (and I choke every time I use that term with the group in question) WOULD have been able to build a better OL or find better WRs, just that they would not have been able to hide behind Cam when they didn't. That became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more Cam did, the less the brain trust did to help him. If only Ted Ginn had hands........

Exactly. I thought about the likelihood of "earlier exits" had Cam not been here and had the brain trust not been able to build an offense around more than one person. Without Cam, we would have probably been treated to dive left, dive right, pass. But even that might have required them to accidentally build an OL. As it was, we did exactly what you said: didn't build anything but did ride Cam into the ground. As for Parsons, I like what I see but not with our #8 pick. I wish we were in a position that picking Parsons at #8 could be seen as a wise move, but we are not there yet.

Keep in mind, we were expecting (or maybe more hoping) to have Cam in 2019. My point is that having Cam made our brain trust lazy, not that once he was here he meant more or less than Luke. We didn't need such novel things as WRs who could actually catch the ball or OL that could actually sustain a pocket because "we have Cam." Could our brain trust have produced wins if they never had Cam? Probably not, since they had a hard enough time producing them with Cam. But it would have forced them to try to build something on offense, not just basically rely on one person. Asking them to build an offense around Cam was apparently asking too much of them. They did manage to build a defense around Luke, at least for a while.

Maybe, maybe not. Not having Cam might have forced our whiz-bang brain trust to build something on offense and not just slough off lack of receivers and generally patchwork OLs with "but we have Cam." Of course, if they had managed to build depth into the offense, it probably would have been by accident.

They haven’t won a Super Bowl since he bought the team, so that makes him one of the worst owners in the league. Or so goes the logic of some. Let’s put it this way: you are an investor with shares of stock in a company. A normal investor, who does not own enough shares to influence things one bit, but your shares represent a fair chunk of change to you. The company hit some peaks, but now looks like it is struggling to remain relevant in a changing market. The management keeps trying to add a widget or two to the product line, but the performance, and thus your share value, keeps declining. Not a steep decline and not without some ups, but overall, the trend is somewhere between stagnation and downward. They can the CEO, and the new CEO lays out a long-term plan for success. He starts making high level moves that look conducive to his plan. He does not fire the COO or CFO right away, but after giving them a chance to adjust to the new atmosphere and not seeing any promise, he does. He hires a dynamic young CEO and a CFO that has been around the block at least once. They completely revamp the product line, a process that is is not finished yet. Do you sell your shares because the bottom line has not improved yet, or do you stay the course seeing a pattern, or do you buy more because you not only see the pattern, you like it, believe it will lead to a promising future, and thus feel the shares are a bargain right now?

Let me be the first to add this gem: Superb Owl.

They will always be the Foreskins to me. Other appropriate names could be the Lobbyists, Felons, Beltway Bandits, Bureaucrats, Red Ink, Windbags, and Corruption. I saw some site where one of their fans suggested the FourAndTwelves.

For whatever reason, I have been increasing jumping on that bus. I still think Miami is the best target if we want to move up. The cost for #3 should be noticeably less than #2, and Miami has less to lose by moving down to #8 and picking up some other stuff in the process. The list of players that fit their needs should still be pretty well stocked at #8. As for the Jets, well, they need a lot. A whole lot. More than us. They could still grab Fields at #2, but that would leave us with Wilson.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. If Lawrence were somehow the pick, then I think he would start (largely because that would mean we wound up with the #1 pick). Fields or Wilson could be the week 1 starter if they were selected, but the odds would be slim. Beyond that the odds go down even more. People need to remember this was never a one-year rebuild. Tepper warned us as much. This was an entire reconstruction of the roster, organization, and philosophy. TB was brought in as the immediate starter because he knew the offense, essentially given a two year contract with a decision point for a third year if he blossomed into the role and became the answer for the long haul. It was structured that way, most likely, because everybody realized we had many more needs than just at QB. Well, everybody except about 30-40% of The Huddle. Otherwise, find the heir-apparent and let him watch for a bit. The NFL is faster than college and DBs are generally smarter (with the possible exception of some of ours). I'm sure it looks even more so from the field, whether between the sidelines on on one of them. Also, keep in mind our depth chart at QB is basically one deep. It has been for a couple of years. Might be nice to have some depth on the depth chart at the position. We still have a lot more needs than just QB. Fewer than last year at this time, but still plenty. Unless the relationship between TB and the team has been slaughtered, the original plan (potentially less the possibility TB is the answer) still looks pretty reasonable. The cost of breaking the lease with TB this year is pretty stiff, so unless someone is willing to "sublet" the place, he is still here.

The thing about a secondary is one player can make a huge difference. Think back to 2015. We had a great front 7, and as usual, the questions were about our secondary. Then Josh Norman became a shutdown CB out of nowhere, and it changed the entire dynamic. He allowed the safeties to cheat toward other receivers/zones. It will also help, as the OP says, if the DL can generate pressure, especially if they are a threat to do that without a need to send a 5th rusher into the mix. They don't necessarily need to get sacks if they accelerate the QBs mental clock. Sacks are great, don't get me wrong. The difference between 3rd and 7 after a throw away and 3rd and 16 after a sack can not be understated, although last year either would have resulted in a conversion. But seeing a QB throw the ball sooner than he wanted because he feels pressure (whether it is actually there or not) is the next-best thing.

I have no idea what this team is doing anymore. After all, weren't the Texans saying any deal for Watson had to include Hajrullahu? I think the Dolphins said the same thing regarding a trade for their #3 pick. The cap hit for cutting him has to be backbreaking.

Their cap situation has always been worse than the raw number because they have so few people in the number (41 per Spotrac). They have about $6M in cap space but need 10 more players. While the top 51 evens that out, it can't when you have less than 51 signed. It will not age well next year, either. Next year they have 21 accounting for a cap number only $21 million below the projected cap of $209M Even now, Ryan's contract is NEVER a bargain to unload. His cap hit finally overtakes his potential dead cap in 2022, but even then his dead cap is over $40M.

Excellent post, Khyber. To add (or detract), I see my favorite news source has interviewed Marty Hurney. https://sports.theonion.com/report-most-nfl-teams-just-1-or-2-overpriced-free-agen-1819576251

And remember folks, "you heard it here first." He says, as about 40% of the board is running wild, having keenly missed the sarcasm fonts.

Problem is we were 18th (I think that is right) with a QB getting the ball out in about 2.5 seconds. With a WCO-type release time, you have to be better than 18th. Ask yourself how that 18th-ranked OL would look if the time to release was at the league mean, which I think is just about 2.75 seconds. A quarter of a second doesn't sound like much, but quarter seconds are the difference between plays succeeding or failing a lot in the NFL. That's the problem with ranking OLs. You almost have to find a way to adjust what they did against a common baseline. New Orleans' OL is almost certainly going to be better on paper than Cleveland's (I think Mayfiled had the longest time to release), but are they really better? And were they better on paper because they did what was asked of them, or did the offense adjust to their limitations? In New Orleans case, it was almost certainly the former, but in the Panthers' case, we were bottom half based on what was asked of them. Regardless, if I am trying to run a WCO or offshoot, I am not happy about the OL ranking 18th against the rest of the league, given the numbers are not adjusted.

They are not the first team to try and keep pushing the day of cap reckoning down the road, but contrary to popular belief, it always catches up eventually. And when it does, it is not pretty. The longer it is kicked down the road, the worse it gets.

That would indeed prove the rule that the worst thing you can ever do to anyone is give them exactly what they want.

That is the big question. It really depends on whether Miami is actively shopping that pick and if so, what the other teams are putting on the table. It also depends on whether their nose grew at all when they said they are fine moving forward with Tua. Does Miami see CMC as a better solution at RB than a draft pick? Is that need worth addressing with a CMC-level player? Like any discussion like this, it is all speculation right now.

I am not going to speculate on that answer one bit! I am not even sure what the answer is for Panther-world.

On a number of fronts (and just limiting it to the Panthers), we certainly do.

Let's just say the list is "interesting" and leave it at that.

The idea of trading up with Miami came up yesterday on some thread. Watson was not part of that discussion, so it adds a possible second move to this, not a three-team trade. Why would Miami trade for CMC? The rationale goes like this. They are close to being a solid playoff team. Their needs going into draft day are WR, RB, OL, LB, and an Edge rusher. They say they are set with Tua, and I'll take them at their word (more later). They have the #3 and #18 pick in the first round. I do not believe they are actively shopping the #3 pick. If they do, I doubt they will want to move down too far, since, if they are indeed close, the #3 or similar pick is not going to happen again for a while. It, along with the #18 pick guarantee them a shot at plugging two holes with day-one starters. Enter the Panthers. If it is a straight #8 and CMC for #3, the Dolphins stand a good chance of walking out of the first round with three starters in positions of need. They will still be able to draft a WR that should start immediately at #8. If not a WR, a LB (perhaps named Parsons) or OL, or Edge. #18 should give them a starter at one of those positions. CMC plugs their RB hole. That is where I get off the train. We would use the #3 pick to grab our QB from the "big four" pool, certain to get one of them. I think it will be cheaper for us than trying to move to #2 with the Jets, and CMC is probably more attractive to the Dolphins than anybody else ahead of us because it is an acknowledge position of need. But, I think the #3 pick is just part of a very expensive price it would take to get Watson, assuming the Texans decide to trade Watson. The rest of that price could be crippling. A final thought on the Dolphins and Tua (as promised above). The one thing that might cause them to rethink how sold they are on Tua right now is if Watson becomes available to them at a reasonable price. But, I am not sure they will want to mortgage the farm for him, either, and leave filling the other positions of need to chance.

I don't have any concerns about what Tepper has done and said (or that we know he has said) thus far. That aside, suggesting Rivera switch to a 3-4 was probably seen as directing him to do so by Rivera and Hurney. The defense was stinking the joint up, Rivera had no answers other than more of the same, he probably knew he was on thin ice (as did Hurney), so anything Tepper said was likely seen as direction. That is not Tepper's fault, that is the fault of two people who had no answers to offer other than doing more of the same and felt like they were fighting to hang onto their jobs (and rightly so).

Beautiful boy. Best of luck with him. I hope the news is good for everybody involved.