MHS831

Probably. Why would you talk about Fields and Jones, no mention of Lance? Silly click bait.

If teams were holding cards close to the vest, would they let this out? The only way I see this information being relevant is if they are willing to trade with Miami--knowing Fields will be there--- To me, this may be the better play, if you do not want Atlanta getting fields. Is the fact that they do not mention Lance a tell? Is THAT the player they covet?

He strikes me as the kind of player Rhule gets the most out of--highly emotional, perhaps damaged goods, etc.

Frankly, I do not know how you can be an owner of a team and NOT make suggestions in general. It is no secret that the NFL teams that succeed have good QBs. There is no difference of opinion concerning QB in Carolina. So from that perspective, I assume that he is engaged. As far as evaluating talent, etc. I would think not. The comment from Fits--"We are going to be involved in every QB deal" (paraphrasing) is what I am basing this on---Tepper is barking a bit. Maybe I am wrong, but Tepper is involved to some degree--the only debate is to what degree.

I know, but maybe he is (as suggested by his front office changes) surrounding him with football minds and he is just the kid in the back seat screaming, "Are we there yet?" Except this kid in the backseat is also the one with the credit card for gas.

Jordan's hands are suspect--I think your TE needs reliable hands.

It sure sounds as if Tepper is ready to make his move now. Got rid of Marty, got his coach, and he saw us stay in games wiht a huge dead cap figure, undrafted free agents all over the place, and injuries to Okung, CMC,--with a terrible situation at LG---and we still were in most games--within a score, and us without a QB who can get us over the hump. So I have a feeling we are going all in.

I don't want to lose any of these young guys, but a young franchise qb is going to hurt in some areas--current players for future first rounders. having said that, they need to proceed as if he is not available.

Houston will want players over picks, so I have no problem with a Shaq Thompson + Burns if we only throw in 2 firsts. But one of the players has to be a big contract, and Chinn and Burns is not that. Now, we could offer TB (the contract purge), Burns and Chinn and a first rounder for Watson--but not 2 or 3 firsts. That would give Houston an emergency, backup QB, a pass rusher, and a S/LB. I would rather not lose Chinn, but if that is the deal, I count him as a first rounder.

Yes--ONLY to get a legit franchise QB

OK, Jax going QB. NY Jets likely to go QB. Miami could go QB, but if not, they are getting trade offers. Atlanta? Possibly going QB. Detroit? Philly? Either or both could take a QB. This is an unusual year for QBs---I have never seen the market for them like it is--when free agency ends, that could be much different, but for now, I am not confident about a QB at 8. Trade ups? Dallas (maybe), SF (probably) Washington (who knows?) New England (probably), Denver (they are in the market)---at this time, I do not feel confident that a QB would be there at #8.

And Hurney lost his job when he started trading them (Otah and E. Brown). Next year's first has second-round value this year. 2023, by that logic, has a third-round value. I look at rounds 2-3 last year and think we drafted 2 players that might have had first round value in some drafts. YGM is developing ahead of Johnson and Hardy. Chinn, if the draft were this year, would be a first rounder. So if you have the scouts to find the talent later in the draft, you can overcome the cost of losing the first rounders. But you are right--when round 1 is all you got--it makes it difficult to trade that pick

His middle name is Fig. His brother is Isaac and makes David call him "Sir". His dad is MAC so when he stands in front of a mirror, he thinks he is CAM. His mother is Olivia and she had her own bathroom with a sign on the door that says, "Olivia Newton's John" So he has no trade value.

it is so ironic that Tepper, a visionary hedge fund manager who was good at seeing into the future inherited a GM that was a former sports writer--an occupation that requires describing the past. One requires analytical calculation about future performance, the other requires converting past events into descriptive words. So Tepper will spend on his calculated speculations about the future return, where Marty tends to pay for past performance. If you think of the way their brains are wired, it is no wonder Hurney had to go. All that to say this--we are still having to deal with Hurney's contracts, but we are about to enter an era in Carolina we have never seen before. So we have to try to reprogram our brains accordingly--to stop thinking the way we used to think. I think that makes sense.

I think Torey makes some good points, but his reasons do not seem based on insider info, just his perspective. But he makes good points---if Tepper gets involved, and he will be involved--he will be aggressive. We should all not dismiss the fact that had CMC been signed to a reasonable, Panther-friendly deal by Marty "I pay RBs like LTs" Hurney, we could be keeping him and dealing away another Panther player like Shaq Thompson--some big contract has to go, and of course they will want CMC.

I don't know--Buzzkill is a cool name too. You could call him Buzz for short. (this is my dry humor that gets lost on some Huddlers--maybe my fault because they do not expect it and it is rarely funny)

Funny someone who suggested class is someone whose experiences in life featured that word as an adjective that preceded "clown" and "less". Just kidding--back to the Watson Watch. Verge never said this was a done deal. She said we were in the mix.

I was getting ready to.

Denver wants Watson too.

FWIW, there is similar chatter amongst Chicago fans--but that is because every trade rumor involves a large market team--they are writing for clicks.

That was a trick comment because we did not have a TE last year. Seriously, Cam could grab 5-7 TDs and catch 600 yards as a TE. full stop.

There is probably more of a chance that we re-sign Cam. Who's with me!!!? (that will get them going)

Ok, I trust Verge and she is usually more accurate than most of us. So what is the bright side of this trade? 1. We still have our second rounders--Fitts talked about the players 18-40 being the same. 2. CMC's contract was ridiculous--the only way we can take on Watson's contract would be to dump CMC's. RB is not a hard position to fill, even though I love CMC because he is more of a RB. 3. The three first rounders will not hurt that much, and if you consider that the success rate is about 55% for first rounders, we are giving them a good player and a half. 4. If the defensive starter is Thompson--another bad contract, it leaves the Panthers with enough cap room (now that they cut KK) to tag or extend Moton. 5. With a good OL, this team can take it to the next level with a QB like Watson. 6. Think of it this way--getting a first round QB this year would have cost us at least a first and maybe a second to move up--but what if Miami and Atlanta were not dealing? What if Miami wanted more? 7. I do not agree with the, "Let's just sit at #8 and see what we can get"--that is like pushing the problem back another year. We need to be players in this game now. 8. Entering the draft with a known commodity at QB makes the draft so much easier than if we were relying on tapes and a pro day. I dunno. It is rich, but it could be the best move we could make. (I tend to look at it this way--would you trade Burns, Moore, Brown, and CMC for Watson? (That puts faces on the picks--although they were early picks, and the picks we would send to Houston will be late.