Panthers Free Agent Updates

[Cdparr7]

Just now, Soul Rebel said:

Am I crazy to think that we are trading is an awful trade:

• DJ Moore
• '23 1st - #9 overall
• '23 2nd - #61 overall 
• '24 1st
• '25 2nd

for

• '23 1st - #4 overall
• '23 3rd - #79 overall
• '23 4th - #106 overall
• '24 1st
• '25 2nd

We lose DJ Moore to move up 5 spots in '23 for the right to miss out on the #1 QB and take the #3 or #4 QB instead? The IND 3rd and 4th is worth less combined than our 2nd that went to Chicago. We swap 1st's in '24 and 2nd's in 25 with IND. 

We've downgraded in every aspect of this deal.

Maybe I'm overlooking something....my maths could be off this early in the AM. 

Well one was to move up 8 spots and the other is to move down 3 spots. So, in reality you paid the difference to move up 5 spots. The closer you get to No. 1 the higher the increments increase with each pick on the value chart.  

[Cdparr7]

2 minutes ago, ladypanther said:

Don't see them giving up DJ with a plan to move down.

Not saying they are, or I'm advocating to, just that it's a possibility.

[Cdparr7]

For those thats never seen one before. 

[Jaxel]

Not to mention, we need to give them an extra Tax to jump their division rivals. Fair value won't do it in this case.

[Skack25]

Someone stick your head in the room and see how the Thielen talks are going.

[Soul Rebel]

4 minutes ago, Cdparr7 said:

Well one was to move up 8 spots and the other is to move down 3 spots. So, in reality you paid the difference to move up 5 spots. The closer you get to No. 1 the higher the increments increase with each pick on the value chart.  

True. 

My point being is that if you wanted Levis, would it not have made more sense to move up to 3 and keep DJ? Moving up to 1 to "control the draft" just to move back seems counter-productive. 

I find it hard to believe that Carolina and Indy both have Levis as #1 on their board. 

[Brooklyn 3.0]

We are not trading down unless we get back what we gave up ... plus new picks. It makes ZERO sense to do it otherwise. We need to recoup the first we've already lost PLUS get an elite WR back before we even begin to open the trade goody bag to see what we get for the future. I keep explaining this but some still don't seem to grasp it.

The only way we'd "win" in the end is if someone gave us two firsts ... and that ain't happening. I feel most teams view Stroud/Young/Levis pretty even, so they're not going to do something dumb to get one when they could get one without doing anything at all.

[Cdparr7]

2 minutes ago, Soul Rebel said:

True. 

My point being is that if you wanted Levis, would it not have made more sense to move up to 3 and keep DJ? Moving up to 1 to "control the draft" just to move back seems counter-productive. 

I find it hard to believe that Carolina and Indy both have Levis as #1 on their board. 

Seems counter-productive to me as well. Only logical scenario I could imagine is if you are in a race with other teams to grab the No. 1 pick. Then you obtain it and can hold it ransom for where you want to be on your timetable instead of Chicago's.

[Castavar]

1 hour ago, Jon Snow said:

Did anyone catch Ian Rappaports slip of the tongue while discussing the Panthers FA signings on nfl network? He said the Panthers new qb Will Levis.  The other guys said well done Ian! Nice slip of the tongue!

It would be the absolute most Panther thing to move up all the way to #1, lose your #1 WR because of it, only to draft the #3 ranked QB lmao

[ForJimmy]

Something makes me think it's Stroud unless AR can some how convince them he is worth the risk.  It just happened so close to the combine, but what do I know.  

[Cdparr7]

1 minute ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

We are not trading down unless we get back what we gave up ... plus new picks. It makes ZERO sense to do it otherwise. We need to recoup the first we've already lost PLUS get an elite WR back before we even begin to open the trade goody bag to see what we get for the future. I keep explaining this but some still don't seem to grasp it.

The only way we'd "win" in the end is if someone gave us two firsts ... and that ain't happening. I feel most teams view Stroud/Young/Levis pretty even, so they're not going to do something dumb to get one when they could get one without doing anything at all.

Only if an erratic coke head owner who had the world at his feet for over a decade and lost it, and really wanted a certain QB, would it be possible. 

[Cdparr7]

Just now, ForJimmy said:

Something makes me think it's Stroud unless AR can some how convince them he is worth the risk.  It just happened so close to the combine, but what do I know.  

Really think it's Stroud or Levis. I don't think AR goes Top 15. 

[Soul Rebel]

1 minute ago, Cdparr7 said:

Seems counter-productive to me as well. Only logical scenario I could imagine is if you are in a race with other teams to grab the No. 1 pick. Then you obtain it and can hold it ransom for where you want to be on your timetable instead of Chicago's.

Absolutely. I'm 100% onboard with being aggressive this year and being the ones "in control" of the draft at the top. 

I looked on Colts' message boards while researching Campbell and they were disappointed that they were leapfrogged by us. I'm assuming the sentiment is similar with the QB needy teams like Vegas and ATL. 

I'd much rather us be in the drivers seat and ensuring we get our guy this year vs. what's left over at 3 or 5. 

[bobcat91]

If you don't have an Elite QB, you go nowhere. We had CMC, DJ, etc and we're still drafting top 10. Hated to give up DJ, but we were going nowhere without an Alpha at QB.

Edited March 15, 2023 by bobcat91