BrisbanePanther

I like where this thread is going...patience is being emphasized and restraint is being employed before judging draft picks after one year. Just curious on how long to give them before they're confirmed as busts or not? Is it less than three years?

?? Not sure where I said anyone here had influence, because anyone who does probably should be getting paid by the team and not shooting the breeze with us. But I did say if it were left to the forum it would never happen and I stand by that. I also never said that I knew who the franchise QB was, but I'd surely want to see the team do what it took to get one that didn't involve grabbing a piece of coal and hoping it turns into a diamond. And almost all of us would happily take Tepper's money if he was offering it in exchange for getting it right.

This is mystifying. I'm convinced that if left up to this board we'd never set our sights on a franchise QB on purpose, but would hope to strike lotto with one that we found in the clearance aisle. Let's be honest, the special place Jake has in everyone's heart is a lot smaller if he was a 1st rounder rather than an undrafted bargain bin find on the Saints bench. The Carolina Panthers have never traded up or used 1st round capital of any kind to acquire a QB. The Carolina Panthers have also never had back-to-back winning seasons, and in fact have had winning seasons only like 25% of the time since it was a twinkle in Jerry's eye. There are Carolinians going into middle school who are too young to remember their team ever having a winning season. And yet we argue to do the same as if it's been a consistently winning formula. Gambling for Young or Stroud at 1 is really not a big deal for a middling (at best) franchise--I could see if we had a legacy of winning and missing on them puts us in some sort purgatory that's a fear of the unknown, but we know the downside risk all too well already and haven't earned the history to be against a swing for the fences.

Except yhe half-billion dollar man says hi--without Hill--and they'll be in the thick of it again next year barring injury.

Especially when you consider that many who advocate for next are probably also anti-tankers.

This is not hard. Trade up (yes, even if it's 3 #1s). Take Stroud or Young and let's go. Worst outcome--they're a bust and we also can't draft a 1st rounder in '24 and '25. So what? We've been bad for years. If missing 1sts in '24 and '25 (so two players) is enough for us go from bad to putrid, then we have structural franchise issues that those two picks wouldn't fix anyway. This also ignores that the draft isn't the only way to build a team.

But what was their record against Carolina those years?

I'm actually surprised that anyone has an issue with this. If I'm watching a sport whose underlying message is, "my guy is bigger, meaner, and stronger than your guy" then I think this call is totally fine. And injuries already happen with big pileups as well. I don't see anything about this play that increases risks that they already have on the field. I'm probably on an island with that one though.

I watched the Tepper video. He made his money on distressed assets. No way he allows #9 to go for Fields, who is now a distressed asset just because of these rumours. Poles is also letting the price get lower (and showing his greenness--he's no vet GM either) by not snuffing this talk out. Even if Fields isn't traded, they've probably set themselves up for an acrimonious Lamar situation anyway. They may actually have to trade him a la Matt Ryan in the Watson mess. The only way Fields wears a Panther uniform now is probably for a day 2 or 3 pick.

Brilliant. You could even move the year ahead and swap Stroud for Williams and Young for Maye or vice versa and it'll be just the same.

The collective head coaching experience in staff is amazing, but what gets me is the total time spent in Super Bowls. There's probably at least a half-season's worth of games that this staff has spent in Super Bowls alone, and multiple seasons worth of playoff games!

I think even if it all fails now, we have to give Tepper a pass in that instance. He has stated that he's learned. The guy seems to take pride in the ability to brag about his wins in business. To think he would suffer a long-term losing football team--his biggest investment by far--is not realistic. The Panthers failing would outshine anything else he's ever done or will ever do in his career. A bunch of rich people have properties and yachts, but only 31 principally control some of the most valuable enterprises in sports and even fewer fully own it by themselves. And we've heard the "let the football people do their job" a lot. I could understand him not doing so in the Rhule regime--nor should he have. OTOH, I completely understand him turning the team over fully to this regime and fully expect him to.

I think you may be right on a third...maybe a second if a team is has a huge hole and thinks he's good value for money (i.e. to extend him is eight figures over five years rather than nine figures).

If that's the case then trade Brown. Either way, Chicago was like one of those dog doors on D this year. Carolina can send someone on D (even Shaq) as part of a package and Chicago will be better than they were this year. They need proven players more than they need additional picks. Someone from Carolina's D stops them from bidding against themselves as much during free agency.

Agreed, but that doesn't stop people (not just Huddlers in this case) from saying, "See, you don't need to 'waste' a FRP on a QB." Bonkers and I'm not sure why the gun-shyness over a 1st round QB who may not pan out doesn't exist for the corner, who also may not pan out (starting to look at Horn...the best ability is availability after all).

Same could be said for QBs, which is why Huddlers are drawn to the Dollar General rounds for the most important position in the sport. People think they can cheat code a 3rd rounder or lower because of the likes of Jake, GOAT, and maybe (maybe) Purdy. Also not Madden.

Now THAT is a great (and probably underrated) movie. "I aim to beat you and drink your blood from a boot." Knocking on person out with the other person's head was also...creative.

??? Is this writer NY based? Why would Carolina go all the way to 3 for Richardson and not stay a 9 for him (or go to 6 for Bryce themselves)?

My point exactly.

Truth is that there's no such thing as a good QB draft until years after it's happened. People always put the next draft as the good one rather than the current one. Besides, relying on a "good" QB draft seems like code for, "which one gives me the best chance to have an all-pro talent fall to me at pick 12 once I've gone 7-10 for the 8th straight year?" If you're sitting at #1 or #2, a "good" or "bad" QB draft doesn't exist because you don't care about who falls where.

The "None of the QBs I wanted fell to me so now Corral can prove it" draft...trade downs to have assets to either go get Maye/Williams in '24 if Corral doesn't prove it, really load up on weapons in '24 if he does, and/or keep extracting future 1sts with our 4(!) firsts in '24.

I see him as a Kirk Cousins clone...so I guess the question is if the two were swapped, are people feeling the same?

I think 9 + 39 + Burns gets it done. The Bears need players. If we sent 3 #1's instead, I wouldn't be surprised if they used them to acquire a player anyway.

I might be confused but that looks like using 2 1sts in '23 and '24 to get a QB anyway? I've seen others say to draft AR and sit him until next year...but does that mean that he's better than Maye/Williams? Otherwise, if he's not playing until next year, why not draft one of Maye/Williams next year, who you'd probably start. All three guys are first year starters in this scenario. So maybe just use the '24 1st to go get the QB you want this year instead of hoping he falls, or use this year's first on BPA (or trade down) and use next year's 1st on a QB.