panthers55

Would be nice to have a bonafide returner who can also stretch the field. If he can only use more stick um on his hands he might be great.........

Lets be real here. Everyone knew that this day would come including DeAngelo. I will surely miss seeing his big runs and his smile as well as the Matrix thing he had going with Stewart. And for those who posted nonstop they hated him and wanted him gone for years, stop with I am going to miss him crap posts. Man up and admit you are happy he is gone. Nothing worse than two faced BS. Me, I am a Panther before him and will be a Panther fan after him. I have fond memories of his time here and will cherish those. I hope that Stewart is the man and has shown he can handle the workload he is going to be given. It is his time now. I hope he lives up to the challenge.

Worse case scenario is that Newton plays under the 5th year option which is 14 million in 2015 and then is tagged in 2016 if we can't reach agreement. With the quarterback franchise tag expected to be over 18 million in 2015 and likely to rise to 20 million in 2016 the estimates that suggest Cam will make between 20-25 million per year are very likely. He isn't going to make less than 20 a year. Secondly that 20 million isn't going to kill us long term as long as we don't have 4 or 5 players at that level. With so many ways to manipulate the cap we can easily fit him under the cap and pay Luke as well. The biggest issue will be the guaranteed money and with most teams guaranteeing their first couple of years salaries and the signing bonus we likely wouldn't have much dead cap,money beyond 3 or 4 years. He just has to stay productive and healthy and we will be fine.

I didn't miss the point at all. Wilson threw 5 picks all season versus 20 TDs. Cam threw 18 TDs and 12 picks so clearly Wilsons stats with arguably not that many weapons other than Lynch was much better than Cam. Of the 8 games we won last year of which 6 he played, he had interceptions In 3 of them. So the old if he throws one interception we lose is hype not reality. The bigger question that does explain things is how many games do we lose when he throws more touchdowns than he throws picks? Or when he throws multiple touchdowns and 1 or less Interceptions. Truth is that he had 1 three touchdown game all year and 9 games where he threw 1 or none. Hard to win when you don't put up many points and your running game is hurting.

What game where you watching Wilson had 3 touchdowns and 0 picks while Newton threw 2 touchdowns and had 2 picks including a pick 6. Newtons passer rating was 79 and Wilsons was double that at 149. These kind of apologist comments are part of the reason Cam gets some of the criticism on this board.

Most teams pay based on a players accomplishments and to that end Wilson and the Hawks have had much more success than Newton. Sure you can make the arguments that he has a better cast than Cam but if you look at our playoff loss to them this year it was Offensive turnovers which lost us the game. Gaffs they continue to make despite this being the end of his 4 th year. He won't make more than Wilson based on results. As for Luck, he has been anointed the second coming of Manning so he will get a ton based on potential and the fact he has a lot more comebacks than Cam despite the fact that he often causes the problem in the first place with picks. Cam will get a ton but he won't get more than the other two and doesn't deserve it based on the results. The argument that he is a bigger part of the offense is an indictment of our ability to give him enough weapons not a reason to pay him more money.

One of the things I like about Gettleman is that he looks down the road and is building for the long term. that is the complete opposite of Hurney who always gambled tomorrow away for rewards immediately. I think everyone would agree that Gettleman has a much better approach so that means that we have to take the immediate shortcomings like no left tackle in stride while we build for long term success.

Your reference to those studies are apples to oranges comparisons.. I am talking about whether people actually practice what they preach which in a vast majority of cases is not the case. You are talking about people being stubborn and unwilling to change despite reasons to do so. The only way thy could be related is if you think that once Gettleman says he is going to draft BPA he feels a need to do it regardless of the circumstances in order to save face. But that negates the whole concept that he can always say whoever he picks was BPA at that position so there is never a situation where someone would call him on it or he would feel a need to defend his position since most folks factor need into any decision the team makes. When he picks someone who is not at a perceived need of position he just reinforces what he says. Otherwise he can always say he did exactly what he said and who would argue. Secondly you confuse immediate need with eventual need. Gettleman does have a long term perspective so he looks at now and in the future since he is looking down the road. He has never planned to keep Hardy so for him there is a need for Ealy. He knew that he won't have both Stewart and Williams on the team down the road so Gaffney was a need.

Exactly. So why all the debate about BPA versus need when most teams have significant needs at many positions. The issue comes up when we don't draft at a position at what everyone thinks is our biggest need this year like an offensive tackle. If we draft a quarterback in the first 3 rounds then I will think Gettleman is BPA no matter what..

Exactly what position has Gettleman drafted at a position of no need last year? Benjamin? Big need. Ealy? Given he wouldn't pay Hardy big money and didn't trust him and Johnson is costing almost 20 million a year it was a position of need in a year or two. Turner? With Wharton on the fence and Silatolu so up and down it was an immediate need. Boston? Of course we needed a safety. Benwikere? No question it was a need? . Gaffney? You could argue no need but with Williams and Stewart costing so much having a lower priced option would be necessarily down the road. So if we are looking long term instead of short term where are all these players who are at positions of no or little need. Gettleman may not be selecting at positions of what people think are our biggest needs but it is hard to say they are at positions of little need.

So let's start by saying that there is a whole field of research that looks at what a person says they do or will do compared to what they actually do and the results suggest they are often not the same or certainly not as delineated as they said. Secondly if you look at what he does and not what he says which is a much better predictor or what he will do in the future he surely drafts at positions of need as often as he drafts a player at an area of low need. He simply says that he was BPA regardless of need. But most times it isn't as if one player stands out head and shoulders above the rest like Star did in 2013.

. I would argue that you are trying to polarize the argument into BPA versus need and I think that need is a factor but not the main issue. I think gettleman's comments are more related to various drafting services who tend to put people at certain positions and teams solely based on need and he is saying that isn't how he rolls. But If you look at his drafts instead of what he says you can see that many of his BPAs have been at positions of need. Pure coincidence? I don't think so.

BPA is the best way to build a team long term through the draft. You are always getting the best player you can at all positions. If you are building for a particular year and not looking at the long term you get who you need even if you reach. Plus going BPA may be at a position not considered a position of need but that quickly changes. Who thought when we drafted Kuechly that linebacker was a need yet when Beason went down kuechly was much needed. The same with Ealy when Hardy couldn't play. free agency is where you find your need and BPA is where you build long term. Lastly the whole idea that BPA would be at a position of no need and therefore useless is likely overblown. I promise you we won't be picking a quarterback in the first 2 rounds no matter who is there. And we will say he wasn't the BPA. So need does factor in but not enough to reach for someone.

The answer to 1 and 3 will be better known in a few months. Everyone has given Gettleman a pass given the cap problems we have had. I want to see if we sign Hardy, lock up a Newton or Luke and we add in free agency. With most of the work still left to do over the next 3 or 4 months. Are we better than we were at this exact time in 2013, perhaps. But the jury is still out. As for the coaching improvement, there has been a good deal,of improvement. Special teams should be better, Rivera did an outs rounding keeping everyone focused and on the same winning one after the other must win game until we lost to Seattle on the road. Shula did the best he could witht e crap he was handed. As the line improve and Cam got healthy and Stewart performed must better in the second half, the offense went from moribund to prolific. Given the problems the coaches overcame, they all,did a good job with the exception of special teams.

The NFL says the case is over but given the charges were dropped but upon new evidence could be reissued again, is the case actually over? Seems to me that the evidence would stick around and stay sealed since it was never actually adjudicated. true or False

Richardson is a former player and as such he cares about the locker room and would put a lot of stock in guys who were captains of the team voted by the other players. They are the leaders on the team elected by their peers. I don't know that Richardson would be friends with these guys but they would definitely have his ear I would think. So that would include Luke, Kalil, Newton, Davis, and Olsen right?

That is good to hear as long as Hardy is committed to turning over a new leaf and staying out of trouble of the field. He can still be crazy on the field.

Anyone who can return punts which requires you to barrel head long into 11 guys trying to take your head off ought to be able to catch a ball with only one or two defenders trying to separate you from the ball. It has to be a mental thing. He is surely tough enough to concentrate on the ball and not try to overprotect himself.

The real issue will be how the players union responds to any suspension that Hardy would receive. If they react negatively then Hardy will appeal any suspension and it will likely get reduced.. The league looks tough and Hardy doesn't get a big suspension. Win- win.

Ginn had his best year as a receiver here and would again. If he would only fix the dropsies and he could be a real stud.

Correct.

But I listen to those who do know the system and simply discuss what I have been told and have read. I don't pretend to be an expert just pay closer attention than most to those who are.

I would think that like with every other potential draft pick, the organization will do their due diligence . If they find that he made a mistake but was a generally good high character guy they would keep him in the mix. But if they have serious concerns then he won't be considered BPA when we pick and someone else will pull the trigger who doesn't care that much about character. Is his talent so overwhelming that it is worth the risk or will their be other guys with similar talent who are also available at that position or some other.

That was in reference to calling a different play such as a pass to a run. There are so many variables within a play. For example you can keep the play but designate someone as a hot read or based on single coverage throw it to a particular receiver. You can run the ball but change the back alignment or where the ball is going if you see an over stack to one side of the other. On the read option plays he is keying off the end or the outside linebacker depending on what defensive alignment you are facing so he can decide to give it to Stewart hold it or even throw it. Obviously on many passing plays he is deciding who to throw it to or whether to dump it off short. So if you add in the times he can change the play completely and the times that he can change elements of the play or direct where it can go, he really has a lot of leeway and determines what we do based on what the defense is doing most of the time.

No offense, but most of those generalizations are being made by posters who don't know how the system works. Shula's offense gives Cam almost total control to change plays and audible to other options. Even when they are in a certain set, they can run a number of plays out of that set. So to say that Shula is the problem at situational awareness or in making defensive adjustments is barking up the wrong tree. It is Cam who is still struggling with defensive adjustments and situational awareness. He calls the audibles and decides most times on what play is run from the options he is given.. As for redzone play calls, again who do you think steps up to the line and decides what to run based on defensive alignment or decides where the ball is going to go?? Don't get me wrong, this is not placing all the blame on Cam because he did a fantastic job given all the injuries and the lack of playing time until week 2 of the regular season. He played much of the season hurt. The problem with the redzone offense was that our biggest weapon, Cam couldn't run as he wanted to most of the season, the offensive line gave him little time, had little push in the run game, and Cam really had only 2 redzone weapons, Olsen and Benjamin. Other than that we had few options and consequently little success. Both Cam and by extension, Shula need more redzone options when it becomes much harder to score given the field gets compressed and obvious options are always taken away. If you compare the end of the season to the first half you can see what a healthy offense can look like. Hopefully we have that this year.