Panthers changing their strategy for building a winner

[ThPantherFan]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

GM Scott Fitterer mentions that he's willing to talk to players and agents about their contracts at pretty much any time when it might be beneficial.

This sounds logical to me.  I don't think this is the norm but seems like a fair concept.  Am I wrong in my assessment?

[ZeroZeroSeven]

46 minutes ago, 1v0 said:

With Rhule and now Fitterer I get the feeling, that there is a long term plan in place, that is being pursuit. Which I really appreciate, obviously. With Hurnia it was more of a trial and error.

One could easily argue it was more error.

[ThPantherFan]

39 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

 We need enough depth to allow for the possibility of having to let someone walk occasionally.   Something the past GM's didn't quite grasp.

Ain't that the truth.

[Mr. Scot]

39 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

It depends on how they draft.  Draft well enough and they may not have to pay "everyone".   They have to choose wisely in that regard.   We need enough depth to allow for the possibility of having to let someone walk occasionally.   Something the past GM's didn't quite grasp.

The Steelers went twenty plus years with only a single losing season using that philosophy.

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, ThPantherFan said:

This sounds logical to me.  I don't think this is the norm but seems like a fair concept.  Am I wrong in my assessment?

Fitterer agrees, so...

[Mr. Scot]

7 minutes ago, stbugs said:

I didn’t like either Erving’s or Elflein’s deal but I think we overpaid to make sure we got them. Getting those two, grading portly aside, meant that you at least had an OL of 5 players who have started in the NFL before the draft. As much as I wish we took Trey Smith over a long snapper to put a cherry on top of our solid draft, I still couldn’t tell you he was a guaranteed lock to start well. Sucks that it seems like he is and we had him with no detriment.

If Sam works out, we can go OL in the 1st and maybe 3rd too and finish off the OL. I’m hopeful BC and Brown will keep improving but they aren’t guaranteed either because playing 2nd and 3rd (or 4th) stringers doesn’t tell you much unless they look bad.

I think the plan for this season was to sign stopgap guys while we built the O-line through the draft.

[Jon Snow]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I think the plan for this season was to sign stopgap guys while we built the O-line through the draft.

This^

[davos]

10 minutes ago, stbugs said:

I didn’t like either Erving’s or Elflein’s deal but I think we overpaid to make sure we got them. Getting those two, grading portly aside, meant that you at least had an OL of 5 players who have started in the NFL before the draft. As much as I wish we took Trey Smith over a long snapper to put a cherry on top of our solid draft, I still couldn’t tell you he was a guaranteed lock to start well. Sucks that it seems like he is and we had him with no detriment.

If Sam works out, we can go OL in the 1st and maybe 3rd too and finish off the OL. I’m hopeful BC and Brown will keep improving but they aren’t guaranteed either because playing 2nd and 3rd (or 4th) stringers doesn’t tell you much unless they look bad.

Yeah I was going to make a thread on this but we have a doable line if one guy pans out this year..being Daley.  Because we could roll out:

Moton-Daley-Paradis-Miller-Christensen

And hoenstly, I think that could be a pretty decent line, middle of the road.  

D Brown & Elflein backup the interior, Erving & Daley backup the tackle spots.  

My deal is Erving is a serviceable, sometimes injured borderline starter whereas Elflein is in prove it mode to show he's capable of being on a roster.  His athleticism and football IQ keeps him on team's radars but it just isn't translating at all so far.  

They have potential in-place but we need to see it start to coalesce.  And back to the thread, it's good to know we'll be a likeable destination from both a players and agent perspective right now in case Christensen has some learning curve or things get shaky with Darnold and/or the OL.    

[bythenbrs]

56 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

It depends on how they draft.  Draft well enough and they may not have to pay "everyone".   They have to choose wisely in that regard.   We need enough depth to allow for the possibility of having to let someone walk occasionally.   Something the past GM's didn't quite grasp.

Ding.  Ding.  Ding.  We have a winner…

[MHS831]

why keeping your own is a smart move--costs less--and these players are known commodities.  If you bring in an all pro from Dallas, for example, he may have been a good scheme fit there or had complimentary players that made him better.  For example, Dak Prescott is good with a stud OL, but here, would he be as good?  What about LBs that played behind a stud DT tandem?  You pay top dollar for a performance that was enhanced by conditions you can't recreate.

[jayboogieman]

9 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

why keeping your own is a smart move--costs less--and these players are known commodities.

I agree about keeping your own being smart. I agree about the players being a known commodity. I disagree about it costing less. These guys are pros, have a good idea of what they are worth, and know most of them have a limited time to make money playing football. Players leave teams all the time for more money than their old team is willing to pay.

[MHS831]

21 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

I agree about keeping your own being smart. I agree about the players being a known commodity. I disagree about it costing less. These guys are pros, have a good idea of what they are worth, and know most of them have a limited time to make money playing football. Players leave teams all the time for more money than their old team is willing to pay.

Not always, but if a player has a good situation going, he is going to avoid hitting free agency and take the safe money.  Waiting can lead to injury and although there could be a bidding war, there may not be (see Boston, Tre).  Secondly, success means the guaranteed $$ is not all you get (as might be the case in new surroundings).  While I see your point, in the long run, staying put means you know what to expect--moving on could be great or tragic.  Getting cut loses money, so the safe move is to stay put and take less money (more guaranteed).  Just my thinking.

[GEM]

Get on board this train and don't get off.

[jayboogieman]

4 hours ago, MHS831 said:

Not always, but if a player has a good situation going, he is going to avoid hitting free agency and take the safe money.  Waiting can lead to injury and although there could be a bidding war, there may not be (see Boston, Tre).  Secondly, success means the guaranteed $$ is not all you get (as might be the case in new surroundings).  While I see your point, in the long run, staying put means you know what to expect--moving on could be great or tragic.  Getting cut loses money, so the safe move is to stay put and take less money (more guaranteed).  Just my thinking.

I see your point too. If the NFL ever goes the NBA route and start letting teams that a player is drafted by offer more(Max and Super Max deals) than other teams, you'll see a huge shift in guys never wanting to hit free agency unless they want to chase a ring.