MHS831

Rodgers in the past 2 weeks or so: Loses the NFC game because he can't make a play in the red zone on 3 downs--blames his coach for not going for it on fourth--in the media. Hints to reporters that he may not be in Green Bay next year--using vague, "try to figure me out" ambiguous, intentionally-misleading, attention-getting language. Now wants the team to commit to him and rid themselves of the backup (probably because he knows that backup is him 12 years ago--sitting behind Favre.)

Remember Deems Maye? He was playing with the Chargers and was injured when they were in the Super Bowl in Miami. I spoke to him in the spring following that game on the golf course at Uwharrie Point. He went to the game, and was partying at Marino's house--he said he had never met him and was a bit in awe of him--then he said he'd never been around a person with a stronger case of narcissism and entitlement.

The best thing to do is sit tight and see what falls to us. Then have a plan. However, if you could get a Watson for CMC and Shaq and maybe a second rounder, you make that trade and trade #8 back for more picks in the 18-40 range.

Yes, he has a rep for being a dick--even in his own family--but he gets Green Bay to the playoffs. Reminds me of the Marino swagger--I hated that guy.

I do too--they seem to have the Tepper breath on their necks a bit, and he is aggressive. I do not seem them ending the draft with, "Well, we got some good role players, Mr. Tepper." Rhule also quoted someone (was it Vince Lombardi? Can't remember) by saying (and I paraphrase) "In no other sport is success so dependent upon one person as the QB in football" Then if you throw in other quotes--about "bad organizations" and not surrounding the QB with talent--you can almost smell the strategy--but it may be us hearing what we want to hear- Some possible interpretations: 1. We are going to draft QB early and address the OL--the obvious interpretation, and probably the correct one----however.... 2. We are going to build the OL and WRs corps and we are going to redeem one of those discarded QBs from a "bad organization" (Darnold, for example). Think about that case: Rhule won at Temple and Baylor with players that were overlooked or discarded. Maybe he thinks he can take a QB like Darnold or Tua in a cheap trade if the Jets and/or Dolphins take a QB in round 1--maybe for a player like Shaq Thompson and a fourth rounder, for example--then trade back in this year of the QB frenzy, surrounding Darnold or Tua with some OL in a very deep OL draft class--and maybe a TE. I don't think Rhule is that transparent, but he could be bracing us for his strategy--he still has Bridgewater for a year, and he could trade back, pick up a first rounder for 2022, and that would get him the assets he needs to move up should Darnold or Tua not step up. Then in 2022, you bundle the #1 picks while everyone else is test driving their new QBs, you move up and take a top QB; you can assume that we will be bad if Darnold/Tua or Bridgewater does not improve the position, so two #1 picks should get you where you want to be. After Lawrence, if there are no QBs they like...this could be the plan. 3. Rhule seemed to mention Mac Jones a lot--there seems to be a man crush there are bit. As if he is selling the idea--"his turf burn from 2 weeks ago (NCAA title game winner--"makes plays in crucial situations"). First on the field and in the meeting room, smart, makes all the throws---was this his sales pitch to the fans? At least he seems to have that option open.

Yes but it is really a 2 year deal-third year not guaranteed

Give em Shaq Thompson and next year's second (this year's if they won't take the 2022 second.. They need LB, we need the salary cap break.

Great point. I had the same thought. So in 3-4 years, when these guys are entering free agency, they might think back and talk to Carolina first. The coach is so important to the culture.

Jones could be the sleeper of the draft, but I want to see more.

I want a team picking before us to go after him, but a team that might otherwise trade up is good as well

Jones (5) Newman (6) Trask (7)

When Rhule is talking about a QB between now and April 30--I would probably not read too much into it. I doubt he'd be promoting the QB he was planning to draft.

I thought he meant finding 4 OL--going to re-read.

We would, and It is hardly absurd to think 4 QBs could go before us if you consider the fact that there are so many teams in need of a QB and those that do not might trade back. Jacksonville--Lawrence Jets--Wilson is a reasonable projection, or a trade for a team who wants Wilson. Are they serious about staying with Darnold for another season? If so, they could stay put and take Sewell. Dolphins--I think they stay with Tua, but they will be approached by teams for a trade, so someone at #3 will take a QB or Sewell if the Jets don't. However, Tua is LEFT HANDED, so is the LT that valuable if the stay with Tua? They will probably trade the pick--to a team looking for Sewell or a QB. Falcons--I am not 100% sold on the Falcons taking a QB here--about 60% sure they will. What rookie is going to be better than Ryan, and why waste a #4 overall to sit behind Ryan for a year or two? You build the defense in Atlanta, and I see a top CB or pass rusher here. Do they pass on Fields here? I think cooler, smarter heads will prevail and they will build the defense and OL before bringing in a rookie QB. Ryan has an expensive contract to break--so they need to think it through. A new QB is likely to bust without a D and OL and the WR issues they might face. So they will assume #4 is a rare opportunity to take the QB of the future. I think Fields is the pick, but do not be surprised if they do not. Bengals--Another team that could trade back if Sewell is gone. Eagles--a Wild Card. Are the committed to building around Wentz? New coach--like Jets, Falcons, etc. I think they are committed to Wentz / Hurts and will draft differently--they will get offers for a trade. Detroit--I think the Lions want a #1 for Stafford so they can move up with the Jets or Dolphins to draft a QB. So, it is not unreasonable to see a scenario like this: 1. Jax Lawrence 2. Lions (trade with Jets) Wilson 3. Dolphins Sewell OT 4. Falcons Fields 5. Bengals Chase WR 6. Eagles Smith WR 7. Jets Lance QB So it is not absurd--even if you only involve the teams picking in the top 7. The top 4 QBs will draw interest from about 15 NFL teams that need a QB. Although historically 4 QBs have not gone nearly that high, I would not call it absurd. I think we should sit tight and take the BPA.

According to a report this morning, the Lions want a first rounder. I think we should give them a second rounder this season and the 2022 first rounder. That is the equivalent of two second rounders in trade value. The Lions already have #7, so they have the position to get their QB in this draft. Then we should trade this year's #8 back for a 2021 second rounder for a 2022 first rounder. If you average all picks and take the mean, that gives the Panthers 840 points of value for 1400 points--a good deal for a team moving up, so they could get more, depending on the team. So we end up with Stafford, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6. (If the comp info is correct). We get back the #1 in 2022. Yes, we are building for the future, but who said you could not start that process with a 33-year old QB on a 4-year deal? That gives the Panthers 3 seasons or so to find the next QB. We could make trades for future draft picks (let's say in 2023) and build the collateral we need to move up for a young QB. Let him sit behind Stafford for a year or two, and transition into the starting role. I know this may sound caustic, critical, or cruel, but it is not: We brought in Cam when we were rubuilding, and it took Cam 4-5 years to get us to the Super Bowl. During that time, he took a beating, and instead of basking in the long term success of having an elite, long-term QB right now, we did not have the pieces built around him--he held the ball because WRs were big and slow and not open, he ran the ball more than he should have and he was sacked trying to make plays. Our OL was questionable most of the time, but because Cam was such a great athlete, we did not prioritize protecting him. So how many healthy years did we get out of Cam? 6, if you include his rookie season, when he was learning. He was hurt in Carolina 3 seasons. A third of the time here. So bringing in a QB who can lead a young team is not a negative. Cap room is the best argument for not doing so, fwiw, but it can work.

Rhule will build the bottom of the roster--that makes you practice better, you handle injuries better, and you find gems to fill gaps and holes. I am pumped. This is a good list.

I love him--and since we are not running the Tampa 2, I wonder if we need the coverage skills he lacks? I dunno--wish I knew more about it, but Chinn was "that guy" when we needed a LBish player to cover the seam. I need to go back and watch some video, but that is how I recall it. I like Werner (Ohio State) and Landman (Colorado) too. They are just nasty, smart, somewhat limited MLBs. They do not cover that well, but they are in the box, in your face, etc.

Stafford will be eligible for the Senior Bowl in a few years.

Me too. I really like some of the Guards in this draft--We have to get one. I would not be shocked to see us walk away with 3 OL--especially since we should get 2 comp picks (5th, 6th)

You know, if 1 QB can emerge and turn the big four into the big five, it is huge.

Cool story. My son played HS basketball with David Thompson's son. Thompson came to one game, and sat near me. My son scored about 20 points in the second half and had about 14 boards--Thompson's son was terrible that night, but he did not seem to care. They barely won the game, when my son hit a 25 foot 3 pointer at the buzzer. Thompson grabbed me behind my neck and shook my head around a bit---he was excited. When I told my son, he had to Google David Thompson. He knew that his teammates' dad was a former college and pro player, but nothing else.

I hear you and I too prefer a drafted QB. But the logic is a bit misleading. You do not list the drafted QBs that stayed on their drafting teams that did not win a Super Bowl. A team that drafted their QB tends to have that QB longer than a team that signed a free agent QB, so there are more years for the drafted QB to win a Super Bowl on the team that drafted him. For example, Brady has 1 year with Tampa Bay to win the Super Bowl, and he had 20 years with New England to win the Super Bowl. Secondly, it is more likely that a free agent QB who was not signed by his draft team and allowed to hit the open market came from a team that was not winning Super Bowls. Does that mean the QB lacks the capacity to win a Super Bowl? Could it mean that the team did not surround him with talent, the coaching staff is bad, etc. Stafford took over a team that was 0-16. His last five years have been exponentially better than his first five. Taking Stafford and drafting a QB next year for 2024 gives us a smooth transition without a hiccup rookie QB season. If we are thinking long term, would a rookie developing under a veteran for a few years not be the way to go, or is rolling the dice on a drafted qb better? This is kind of like the stats that people are posting about the successful QBs not being taken in the top 10, assuming it is better to take a QB later in the draft if you look at long-term stats. The fallacy? It is probably not the QB taken in the top 10 that sucks, but the franchise drafting in the top 10. Very interesting post, by the way---it should make us think.