BrisbanePanther

Haha fair enough, I've noticed that since I moved here years ago. Since I grew up in the US though, the regionalism sticks... I still can't understand playing the road team's song over the home team's ground's speakers after if the road team wins. It'd be like playing "Who Dat" over BofA's speakers if the Saints won!

Same for me--if they moved, unless it was to a city that I also liked such as Toronto. That being said, I know two Rams fans--both from St Louis. One kept his fandom after the team moved to LA, the other switched to GB. When I see their social media posts, the one keeping fandom look slightly weirder to me.

It's like the boy who cried wolf. Surely he's used up all his credibility now. He'll retire at Michigan or go to another big but underperforming program.

He's not a reject from Baltimore, and they are doing all they can to keep him, but he clearly doesn't want to be there. They could probably offer him the full 5-year guaranteed deal and it shouldn't surprise anyone if he turned it down. That relationship is just broken, and that's neither an indictment on his caliber as a player or Baltimore's caliber as a franchise. Both are still light years better than the pack.

I see Wilson and Watson as poster children for deals that blew up in teams faces...but Stafford was traded for a ton too, despite never winning a playoff game. He picked the right season to finally start winning them though, didn't he? I prefer the draft route, but I think it's fine if Fitt wants to trade for Lamar and it's probably a move that has a high ceiling with a floor not much worse than where it's been since 2016. I mean, what else would he do with those number ones? They'll just be used on more d-linemen anyway. Plus the team also always seems to be out of cap room anyway to paying him shouldn't be an issue either since it'd just be wasted on JAG extensions anyway.

The thing that confuses me with Purdymania is that the same team traded a boatload of picks to draft Lance just the year before. So if Purdy is this good, how good is Lance, who they apparently still have glowing reviews of? The same front office made both moves--and also traded for Jimmy G in the first place, who was supposed to be replaced by Lance, who would have been backed up by Purdy. It's also the same front office that drafted Deebo, Kittle, Aiyuk, Bosa, acquired Williams and CMC. They're either really fortunate or really good. The SF front office might be like San Antonio in the NBA...if they're after someone, maybe everyone should be after that same one. If Lance was worth 3 1sts by that front office, he's easily worth later picks by a less credible one like ours.

Hope you don't mind the edit.

He's nowhere near the top of their list of problems.

It would be near-insane to not at least investigate, especially if you don't have to give up a #1 for him. Every team needing a QB will be and there's way too many of those. SF will try to claw back the picks they gave up to get him or the picks they gave up for CMC--someone might just do it. If I'm Houston, maybe I send one of my 1sts next year (mine or CLE's, whichever is lower). That leaves me with 2 1sts this year. That being said, the time to ask for him may have been in the CMC trade, which clearly SF has won (at least so far, and it isn't even close). The second best time might be now. We have Huddlers ready to use picks in people like Hooker, Duggan, McKee, Nix, etc...may as well use those picks on Lance. Risk/reward is probably the same.

Seattle drafting defense - confirmed.

Exactly, and the Panthers organization has not shown the consistent ability to evaluate QBs. If we were KC, I doubt we make the Mahomes trade, for example. I'd be totally comfortable for us to wait at 9 to land a great defensive player. We've consistently proven that we can do that. But a QB? Nope. Sometimes the simplest decision is the best one, and "sometimes better to be lucky than good" and if we're at #1 or #3 it's a lot easier to have the decision made for you. That's what this franchise needs for a QB. That's why I'm all for trading up (whether picks and/or players) to do so. When we've gotten cute trying to evaluate and outsmart the league for a QB, it's led to pieces like Armanti Edwards. You can even argue Darnold, where we totally bid against ourselves. The irony is that we've mainly traded draft capital across our history...for defensive players. The only noteworthy offensive trade using draft capital that I recall may be Olsen. In fact, maybe the biggest example of trading up in the draft for a bust was for a defensive player, Everette Brown.

My scenarios of trading DJ include keeping this year's 1st and trading the 2024 1st or 2 2nds. I'd then draft Johnston at 9 to be the new WR1.

We should think broader than the exchange rate for picks. I still think that if we offer Burns and Moore and either 1 1st or 2 2nds, the Bears take it and run. They have bad for way too long, especially for that market. They need the young knowns that Burns and Moore are. More draft picks doesn't help them IMO. They would love to draft a Burns or Moore clone at 9, so may as well have the real thing.

We'll know if Payton to AZ has legs if they trade with us (or any other QB hungry team) early. They'd then have better draft capital to send to New Orleans for his rights.

HC: Johnson or McDaniel QB Room: Young, Corral, and another TBC (Keenum?) Trades: Burns, Moore, and our 2024 1st to CHI for #1 Draft: Young and Johnston in the 1st, TE in the 2nd, BPA rest of draft FA: Gesicki on the other side of the rookie TE, Foreman, Bozeman I actually think Sam goes elsewhere for 1-2 years similar to Trubisky going to Buffalo...probably a West Coast team like Seattle, SF, or Arizona. He probably gets a few starts and looks good enough to convince another non-QB focused team like TEN to be the starter after they move on from Tannehill. He's probably a poor man's Tannehill anyway.

How is "haul" being defined? And doesn't that differ from team to team? And are we only saying that QBs are unworthy for pick hauls? We just said no to a pick haul for Burns. And Stafford not winning a SB would have only not looked good because they were a team on the cusp for years and years with Goff who they drafted high...and they got to that cusp via trades for other positions. And that franchise already had a Lombardi on the shelf. So was it a risk that they got to a SB with a #1 pick at QB? Or a risk to trade that #1 for an older #1 who had never won a playoff game? I wouldn't trade the whole draft for the #1 pick, but I would easily consider future picks and players to soften the blow and trade players at the right time to get draft capital back. I can't think of many recents player other than Cam that didn't we didn't have buyers remorse post-extension. We "gotta" pay KK, then could wait to get rid of him. Same with players like Johnson and even CMC. Burns, Brown, Horn, Marshall, maybe others should be viewed as players who can get potentially future picks back. Better that than wish they weren't extended, which we will for at least two of them.

I'm on board with this. I actually think Burns and Moore with a couple 2nds gets it done. Truth is, given their capspace, Burns could end up there sooner than later anyway like other Panthers (Peppers, Moose) and they have NO defense...so he may as well help cover the cost to get #1.

It's great that the people on the field and sidelines won to close out the season. It's also great that the front office (hopefully) isn't afraid to make whatever moves they have to to improve the team, like trading multiple draft picks to move up. Leaving the draft to chance b/c you don't wanna hand over 2 3rd rounders is also not a good strategy. What they lose in draft numbers they can do their job and sign value FAs.

Interestingly enough, the namesake treated it properly and it worked out pretty well...IIRC, Mike Tomlin was brought in via the rule (or maybe a version of a predecessor?). Whatever the case, he wasn't believed to be a real candidate when he interviewed, and no one knew who he was when he got the job. They've had winning seasons ever since, including two rings.

Point is that one place matters. Herbert was taken right in front of us.

Or upped the price to move up in the draft.

Fair enough, but Arizona can't enter the picture until Monday and Denver can't beat Arizona's potential compensation. A potential pick between 3 and 5 this year is way better than maybe 28-32 and gives NO an even better slot than if they had their own pick this year. We all know that Loomis' real last name is Lucky. If AZ wants Payton, it's like no harm, no foul for him regarding their lost pick. Then they probably either use the AZ pick on Stroud or trade the pick to another QB-desperate team (like us) and take Johnston after maybe signing Carr.

He's not going to Denver. Whatever comp they would've given to NO is with Seattle. If he goes anywhere it's to Phoenix. They'll send this year's and next year's first to NO, who needs it since they don't have one.

It'd be a surprise for Harbaugh to go to LA. On rep alone, it seems he'd be motivated by grudges to beat both SF and Pete "What's YOUR deal" Carroll. He won't have a chance to do that, and if ARZ were to get Payton, then he could be last in the division.

Which could be okay if he's like the hoodie, who moved people along a year early rather than a year late. Other than a handful like Brady, McGinest, Mayo, Branch, Edelman, and Welker, I think NE was a revolving door for the most part. Many were ring chasers, which, if that happens in Charlotte would be a superb outcome.