Per Denver Post

[Woodie]

1. why dont we let the rbs run and let our wr catch!

Because then you become too predictable. Also, we have two RB's that are good receivers out of the backfield, so why not utilize that skill-set. Good offenses take advantage of whatever weapons they have on hand.

2. why do we have to settle for less at wr. we have 2 1st round running backs that could both start. THAT is a luxury.

You don't settle for less, you just don't cut off a bigger piece of pie than you need. If we were the Saints or '99 Rams, then sure Marshall would be a great fit, but not with the 2010 Panthers. True, we do have two starting caliber RB's, however, both of those guys have shown themselves to be very team oriented and intelligent, and realize that the shelf life of the average RB is the shortest of any position in the NFL, and that by sharing carries, they will prolong their careers.

But with the receivers, they are well known to be the prima donnas of the NFL and crave the attention and accolades that come with being labeled as elite (both Smitty and Marshall have demonstrated over time they each fit this profile). And when you're dealing with two guys that are still in their prime, and used to being THE guy, the chances that one will be happy to take a back seat to the other is extremely low. And in our run-first offense, there will not be enough balls to make both happy, so either both guys will produce at below elite numbers, or one outshines the other. Either way, it's a recipe for disaster and a huge gamble. Particularly when we mostly use our passing game to set up our running game, and don't need two game breaking WR's.

3. Even w/o marshall, there is no guarantee that we lock up our young "core" anyway. we will lose some of those guys. dont think they are going to give a hometown discount, not as young and talented as they are.

Exactly, there are no guarantees. But what you do is put yourself in the best position possible to retain them, not take a huge chunk of the money that would otherwise be earmarked for their extensions and invest it in a guy who you only need to produce a fraction of what he's capable of.

That would all but guarantee that you lose one of them...or really cut the depth which can kill a team as quick as anything. And I agree, I don't see a hometown discount coming from any of them, so we need every dollar we can get to keep them. After all, these are not just good guys on our team; they are among the best in the league at their respective positions. So losing any of them would be a huge loss....in fact, IMO, a bigger loss than whatever we would gain by signing Marshall.

[Future of the Funchise]

Billy Murry?

[Woodie]

I am not sure the 20-25 attempts a game has got to be the case this year. Attempts per game are a function of what is working as well as how well we are extending drives and moving the ball on offense. Last year we ran first and only threw if we had to in order to keep drives going. If we couldn't run the ball like against Minnesota we would throw it like we did last year when Moore attempted 33 passes completing 21. The question is would we pass more if we had a better passing attack or would we continue to pass only out of necessity. Seems to be a circular argument. I would argue that if we had a better passing game we would throw more which would help the run game just like the run game has helped the pass game in the past.

If that were a one year trend, and Fox didn't have such a clear offensive philosophy, I might agree. But Fox has been absolute since day one that his preference is to be a run first team, and now we have the backs and line to be dominant at running the ball. So I don't see any way Fox will suddenly shift his way of thinking just to bring in another elite receiver...especially with a young and unproven, albeit promising QB at the reigns.

This team has been crafted to run, and I don't see that changing any time soon. If anything, I would actually expect the passing numbers to go down this year, particularly for the first part of the season to try and ease Moore's transition to being the starter...as well as reduce the risk generally associated with young QB's.

[AnalyzeThIs#28]

We do have D. Jarrett, and he is physically similar to Marshall. That should be enough to satisfy the savviest Panther fans :cryin:

[bleys]

If that were a one year trend, and Fox didn't have such a clear offensive philosophy, I might agree. But Fox has been absolute since day one that his preference is to be a run first team, and now we have the backs and line to be dominant at running the ball. So I don't see any way Fox will suddenly shift his way of thinking just to bring in another elite receiver...especially with a young and unproven, albeit promising QB at the reigns.

This team has been crafted to run, and I don't see that changing any time soon. If anything, I would actually expect the passing numbers to go down this year, particularly for the first part of the season to try and ease Moore's transition to being the starter...as well as reduce the risk generally associated with young QB's.

well, that one sentence is the absolute truth.. if we may use the past as a very solid reference.. has he drafted 1 solid receiver who has stepped up more than 1 year?

I truthfully do not expect Fox to draft a WR that will make any impact at all this year.. I hope that a WR is drafted and succeeds in the slot.. however, I do not expect us to bring in a really solid #2 through the draft this year that takes pressure off Smitty..

I'm willing to bet no receiver drafted pulls in more than 850 yards...

and I'm fairly certain no FA brought in will fill in that void.. I'm hoping to hear a splash, but am not expecting it... at all.

I have always been optimistic about the Panthers.. but the track record for Fox and Co is going on 8 years without a solid WR drafted..

that's a long f**king time... only for ONE receiver.. ONE... not 2.. ONE.. in 8 years..

[carolinanimal]

Because then you become too predictable. Also, we have two RB's that are good receivers out of the backfield, so why not utilize that skill-set. Good offenses take advantage of whatever weapons they have on hand.

You don't settle for less, you just don't cut off a bigger piece of pie than you need. If we were the Saints or '99 Rams, then sure Marshall would be a great fit, but not with the 2010 Panthers. True, we do have two starting caliber RB's, however, both of those guys have shown themselves to be very team oriented and intelligent, and realize that the shelf life of the average RB is the shortest of any position in the NFL, and that by sharing carries, they will prolong their careers.

But with the receivers, they are well known to be the prima donnas of the NFL and crave the attention and accolades that come with being labeled as elite (both Smitty and Marshall have demonstrated over time they each fit this profile). And when you're dealing with two guys that are still in their prime, and used to being THE guy, the chances that one will be happy to take a back seat to the other is extremely low. And in our run-first offense, there will not be enough balls to make both happy, so either both guys will produce at below elite numbers, or one outshines the other. Either way, it's a recipe for disaster and a huge gamble. Particularly when we mostly use our passing game to set up our running game, and don't need two game breaking WR's.

Exactly, there are no guarantees. But what you do is put yourself in the best position possible to retain them, not take a huge chunk of the money that would otherwise be earmarked for their extensions and invest it in a guy who you only need to produce a fraction of what he's capable of.

That would all but guarantee that you lose one of them...or really cut the depth which can kill a team as quick as anything. And I agree, I don't see a hometown discount coming from any of them, so we need every dollar we can get to keep them. After all, these are not just good guys on our team; they are among the best in the league at their respective positions. So losing any of them would be a huge loss....in fact, IMO, a bigger loss than whatever we would gain by signing Marshall.

What i am saying about the rbs is that in the nfl rbs like you say have the shortest life and are the easiest to replace. we all love dwill and jstew, but they can be replaced more easily than a wr can be replaced. are 2 1st round picks necessary at a position at rb? no! teams with better running games or just as good as ours dont have 2 1st round running backs. rb is the easiest position to fill. that is why so many rookies come in and have a immediate impact. wr it is rare and takes 2-3 years before they really get into their prime. so when you have one that is hitting his prime and is still young, why wouldnt you inquire how you could get him?

[Montsta]

We do have D. Jarrett, and he is physically similar to Marshall. That should be enough to satisfy the savviest Panther fans :cryin:

My buddy used to drive a Hyundai that looked a lot like a Benz...

[Soul Rebel]

i know, i know the glass is half empty at The Bank, but rather than a first rounder this year for Marshall, how about next year's first rounder? Denver wants a first this year, but not many are biting. Next year's first would be less of an impact on a team that is only a player or two away from being a Super Bowl contender. I apologize if someone already suggested this, but here me out:

- with the lockout/cap issues for '11, next year's draft is diluted and the picks have less value within organizations.

- some have implied that we would give up our '11 pick to get back into the first this year (or at least the top of the 2nd round), so losing next year's pick isn't that bad.

- we would still have this year's 2nd rounder to take BPA and Marshall is far and away better than anything we can get in this year's (or next) draft.

- no rookie or remaining free agent could supply the talent to help Smitty that Marshall would and Marshall just started his prime.

[jramsey4]

i know, i know the glass is half empty at The Bank, but rather than a first rounder this year for Marshall, how about next year's first rounder? Denver wants a first this year, but not many are biting. Next year's first would be less of an impact on a team that is only a player or two away from being a Super Bowl contender. I apologize if someone already suggested this, but here me out:

- with the lockout/cap issues for '11, next year's draft is diluted and the picks have less value within organizations.

- some have implied that we would give up our '11 pick to get back into the first this year (or at least the top of the 2nd round), so losing next year's pick isn't that bad.

- we would still have this year's 2nd rounder to take BPA and Marshall is far and away better than anything we can get in this year's (or next) draft.

- no rookie or remaining free agent could supply the talent to help Smitty that Marshall would and Marshall just started his prime.

Been saying that since he was tendered. But once again it won't happen. Everything the FO has done this off-season says to the contrary of trading future picks.

[bleys]

he's worth a 1st.. we won't find a receiver of his caliber if we drafted one..

however, I'll be shocked to see it.. not giving up the 1st, but bringing in a quality receiver..

[Woodie]

well, that one sentence is the absolute truth.. if we may use the past as a very solid reference.. has he drafted 1 solid receiver who has stepped up more than 1 year?

I truthfully do not expect Fox to draft a WR that will make any impact at all this year.. I hope that a WR is drafted and succeeds in the slot.. however, I do not expect us to bring in a really solid #2 through the draft this year that takes pressure off Smitty..

I'm willing to bet no receiver drafted pulls in more than 850 yards...

and I'm fairly certain no FA brought in will fill in that void.. I'm hoping to hear a splash, but am not expecting it... at all.

I have always been optimistic about the Panthers.. but the track record for Fox and Co is going on 8 years without a solid WR drafted..

that's a long f**king time... only for ONE receiver.. ONE... not 2.. ONE.. in 8 years..

I see what you're saying, but really, they haven't drafted all that many receivers early (IIRC, Colbert and Jarrett are the only two day one receivers we have taken under Fox). So it's really not a large enough sample size to guage their ability to develop a WR, particularly one that is both skilled and motivated. Also, we have a new WR coach, and really have no idea how well he'll be able to develop someone we bring in.

Also, like I've said before, we only really need someone to take some pressure off Smitty, we don't need a world beater. Heck, we'll be fine if we only get the production we got out of Colbert his rookie year (and 850 yards from a rookie would be more than enough). And personally, I think we have some very good receivers at TE and RB that we can better utilze to help open things up and become less predictable.

[Woodie]

What i am saying about the rbs is that in the nfl rbs like you say have the shortest life and are the easiest to replace. we all love dwill and jstew, but they can be replaced more easily than a wr can be replaced. are 2 1st round picks necessary at a position at rb? no! teams with better running games or just as good as ours dont have 2 1st round running backs. rb is the easiest position to fill. that is why so many rookies come in and have a immediate impact. wr it is rare and takes 2-3 years before they really get into their prime. so when you have one that is hitting his prime and is still young, why wouldnt you inquire how you could get him?

I don't really agree with this. Sure, generally speaking, RB's are relatively easy to replace, but that is only true for average to good RB's, not elite ones, which I think both Williams and Stewart are. And in thinking about this, you also have to consider Fox's basic philosophy, which is first and foremost, to be able to run the ball. So the need for two great backs is much bigger than the need for two great receivers.

And with the backs we have along with our dominant run blocking line, we are an elite rushing team, one that can and does control the game on the ground. All we need out of our passing game is to unclog things up front and allow our backs to do their thing. Even with an aging Moose, we were able to do just that the year before last. Unfortunately, this past season's problems were more a result of Jake's struggles than problems with the WR's, along with it taking the defense over half the year to adjust to Meeks' system.

So for this team, I don't even care about the stats of whoever we bring in, I just think all we really need is someone dangerous enough that if the defense doesn't pay enough attention to him, he can burn them. In fact, as I've stated before, if we did bring in a guy in his prime, it could easily cause big problems since we just don't pass the ball enough to make everyone happy.

[carolinanimal]

I don't really agree with this. Sure, generally speaking, RB's are relatively easy to replace, but that is only true for average to good RB's, not elite ones, which I think both Williams and Stewart are. And in thinking about this, you also have to consider Fox's basic philosophy, which is first and foremost, to be able to run the ball. So the need for two great backs is much bigger than the need for two great receivers.

And with the backs we have along with our dominant run blocking line, we are an elite rushing team, one that can and does control the game on the ground. All we need out of our passing game is to unclog things up front and allow our backs to do their thing. Even with an aging Moose, we were able to do just that the year before last. Unfortunately, this past season's problems were more a result of Jake's struggles than problems with the WR's, along with it taking the defense over half the year to adjust to Meeks' system.

So for this team, I don't even care about the stats of whoever we bring in, I just think all we really need is someone dangerous enough that if the defense doesn't pay enough attention to him, he can burn them. In fact, as I've stated before, if we did bring in a guy in his prime, it could easily cause big problems since we just don't pass the ball enough to make everyone happy.

i just think with the current trend towards wr that we should make our offense more flexible. if you stop the run game you stop the panthers plain and simple. it may be hard to stop but it is still possible. teams like minnesota and others who are great runstoppers can just about shut our run game down. i would like a team that can be good in both aspects, not just threatening with the pass. it is harder to stop a team with a elite passing game than it is to stop a team with a elite running game. that is why the teams with the best offenses have a elite passing game and usually dont have a elite running game. i would like a top 10-15 passing game and a top 1-5 running game. that would be a awesome offense.

[bleys]

I see what you're saying, but really, they haven't drafted all that many receivers early (IIRC, Colbert and Jarrett are the only two day one receivers we have taken under Fox). So it's really not a large enough sample size to guage their ability to develop a WR, particularly one that is both skilled and motivated. Also, we have a new WR coach, and really have no idea how well he'll be able to develop someone we bring in.

Also, like I've said before, we only really need someone to take some pressure off Smitty, we don't need a world beater. Heck, we'll be fine if we only get the production we got out of Colbert his rookie year (and 850 yards from a rookie would be more than enough). And personally, I think we have some very good receivers at TE and RB that we can better utilze to help open things up and become less predictable.

My concern wouldn't have anything to do with "did the receivers we draft pan out"..

or why haven't we gone for more receivers so that maybe 1 pans out..

it's really about for years now there has been a gaping hole that hasn't been filled..

regardless of whether the few didn't pan out or whether we should have tried more often.. the fact still remains, 8 years later.. Fox has not drafted/brought in a solid receiver where there has been a HUGE hole for years..

Yes we had Moose, but you don't wait for players to leave, retire, die before you plan ahead..

it has held us back from winning big games.. yet, nothing has ever been done about it.

just frustrating.. since it's a wide range issue now, I'm voicing what I've been saying for years.. so can Fox develop a WR? what pisses me off based on the track record, I'm not so sure he gives a damn.. lol (until someone important tells him how to do his job, *ahem* Smitty *ahem*)

and when we start trying to find a #2 receiver in our TE's and RB's, let's just go ahead and move on..

To replace a #2 WR in our TE's and RB's, means we are only ignoring the problem. Not helping.

We have TEs and RBs who can catch.. that isn't our problem. We have 11 players on the field. 1 WR and 3 or 4 TE's/RBs? or 2 WR and 2 TE's and 1 RB?

see my point? to act like TE and RB is going to replace the #2 isn't an idea I like. That covers up the problem, it doesn't solve it.

Bring in a #2 and then we have TEs, RBs, and a 2nd receiver to spread the field..