It is Quiet...Too Quiet: Thanks Dilworth Neighborhood Grille?

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, MHS831 said:

I joke about it, but I have seen some very positive signs.  I will list the things that I have noticed that tell me this team is far past the Gettlemen 1 year contracts and the Fittmagic era of missing nearly every pick imaginable and signing terrible free agents.

1.  They decided to bench Young after 2 games.  (Pretty bold move, but not as bold as the aftermath)

2.  They refused to trade or cut Young.  (this was against everyone here--even after we'd seen 2 former QBs leave Carolina to find success on other NFC teams.)

3.  Morgan used the offseason last year to build an OL and give Bryce some weapons to develop with him via the draft (XL, Brooks, Sanders).  Even though his first two draft picks did not pan out as hoped, the OL signings were essential.

4.  In the offseason, he let the Safeties go without brining them back.  (We cannot see the S position much on TV, but they were not good)

5.  In free agency, Morgan signed guys who were entering their primes instead of exiting.

6. The OL coaches are doing a great job developing players.  Ekwonu, Mays, Zavala all showed dramatic improvment.

7.  Canales is doing a heck of a job with Young, and I think Dalton has been a big part of that.  Bringing him back was part of it.

8.  THIS IS HUGE:  Morgan did not kick the can down the road by extending contracts.  He could have created cap room, but he pretty much stayed put.

Many of these things have not happened before.  Morgan is building the team to win consistently.  Hats off.

And Tepper is letting him do it.  That is the key.

Now we just need for it to....succeed eventually.

[MHS831]

4 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Now we just need for it to....succeed eventually.

I also should have listed the Burns trade--but Morgan was starting in the hole following the Young trade up, losing Moore and draft picks.  He seems to have a plan, and i am not going to blame him for the XL/Brooks picks because I think XL will come around (we knew he was raw) and Brooks was to give Young an extra horse.  I like Sanders--so he really tried to boost the offense--and even though it did not work out like he hoped, the good outweighed the bad. 

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

I also should have listed the Burns trade--but Morgan was starting in the hole following the Young trade up, losing Moore and draft picks.  He seems to have a plan, and i am not going to blame him for the XL/Brooks picks because I think XL will come around (we knew he was raw) and Brooks was to give Young an extra horse.  I like Sanders--so he really tried to boost the offense--and even though it did not work out like he hoped, the good outweighed the bad. 

I think he does have a vision that is more logical than the previous couple of GM's(low bar, however). I do think he needs a TON of help with college evalutions. I don’t think he has any fuging clue what he is doing in that realm.

[PanthersATL]

8 hours ago, MHS831 said:

1.  They decided to bench Young after 2 games.  (Pretty bold move, but not as bold as the aftermath)

2.  They refused to trade or cut Young. 

Old Tep:  "you're not allowed to bench anybody, Frank"

New Tep: "Oh, you want to bench Bryce, Dave? Do what you need to do to win and turn us around"

(also, New Tep: Somebody with a clue told Tep that Frank wasn't the solution - and Tep listened. Dave came in with a plan and shows promise after year one)

[The Natural]

On 4/10/2025 at 3:11 PM, Jon Snow said:

If he's in the draft room he's meddling. He may be out of the spotlight but I guarantee he is involved to some extent. 

Of course he's involved to an extent. He OWNS the team. Most owners are in the draft room. As long as he's not overruling the scouts and Morgan that's not an issue.

[MHS831]

6 hours ago, The Natural said:

Of course he's involved to an extent. He OWNS the team. Most owners are in the draft room. As long as he's not overruling the scouts and Morgan that's not an issue.

Good point--they are.  However, I need to check--I know this is the case in Dallas--but is the owner usually the first person to speak to the player after he is drafted?  I thought it was the GM--then the coach--then the coordinator--then the position coach---but I am not sure there is a norm.  I really do not know.

Edited Sunday at 10:44 AM by MHS831

[AceBoogie]

On 4/10/2025 at 3:18 PM, Pejorative Miscreant said:

I think a total hands off approach is not attainable.  The football team is a toy the Billionaire plays with. 
 Ideally he finds a happy balance of being informed, engaged and questioning the process.  

It’s one thing to be aware  of what’s going on and make sure there is logic and reason in said process.  It’s another to circumvent the process with “ gut instinct” and personal preference. 
 

if he can do that, drop some cash in the facilities and stop throwing  drinks, things will start turning around I hope 
 

It’s always wild to tell a man to stay away from something he paid a billion dollars for. Nonsense 

[Pejorative Miscreant]

55 minutes ago, AceBoogie said:

It’s always wild to tell a man to stay away from something he paid a billion dollars for. Nonsense 

If I were in his shoes I would likely be involved as well.

Ideal scenario is he treats football operations like his Lear jet  Would like to understand how things work but probably best to let someone else fly it. 
 

 

[MHS831]

17 minutes ago, Pejorative Miscreant said:

If I were in his shoes I would likely be involved as well.

Ideal scenario is he treats football operations like his Lear jet  Would like to understand how things work but probably best to let someone else fly it. 
 

 

Great metaphor.  I would be in the room, I would be watching the process and evaluating my staff and personnel.  I might even have them explain their thinking to me, but I would do so in a way that did not make them think I was evaluating them or questioning their decisions--if that is even possible.

As a college educator teaching a principal leadership program, I was constantly aware of the irony of expecting my students to follow my directions, dictate information I was telling them, and then completing my assignments.  I implemented a lot of group work during my seminars, and I noticed that when I joined the group, they all made comments looking at me, as if seeking my approval.  I wondered if it distorted the message they were really sending, converting it to something they felt that I wanted to hear.  If I said nothing, they examined my face for clues or silent affirmation.  Even though I gave them the green light to say whatever, I was the alpha, not the person speaking.  It changed the dynamic.

So I had them meet online in Zoom groups.  I did not attend, but I had them record the session and include the link.  I could tell there was a difference.  They were more empowered, confident, and creative.  Those were the future leaders I wanted to see. 

So If Tepper is going to participate, he needs to do so in a manner that does not have his employees second guessing or looking at his face for approval.  He needs to realize that his leaders work best when they rely on their expertise and intuition instead of guessing what Tepper's might be.  This is not Tepper's fault; it is human nature.  Watch wolves or geese or any hierarchical power structure--if the leader is NOT making the decision, he or she is influencing it.  So Tepper needs to be aware.  With Fitterer, I got the impression that he was Tepper's puppet--always seeking a pat on the head.  He was our worst GM ever. 

So yes, be part of it, but understand your role and do all that you can to empower the subordinates to act in ways they see fit instead of speculating what the Alpha might want.  Does that make sense?  It is a gray area that most might not think about.

Edited 15 hours ago by MHS831

[Navy_football]

On 4/12/2025 at 3:08 PM, MHS831 said:

I also should have listed the Burns trade--but Morgan was starting in the hole following the Young trade up, losing Moore and draft picks.  He seems to have a plan, and i am not going to blame him for the XL/Brooks picks because I think XL will come around (we knew he was raw) and Brooks was to give Young an extra horse.  I like Sanders--so he really tried to boost the offense--and even though it did not work out like he hoped, the good outweighed the bad. 

The verdict is still out on XL. The only real issue was Ladd McConkey was still on the board, and he actually could be better than Ladd when it's all said and done. XL has a higher ceiling but a lower floor. 

Brooks was a riskier pick, but I can definitely see potential with him. In the few times he got the ball, I can tell he's different. Shifty with power. If he can stay healthy, he's gonna be a player. But staying healthy may be the defining factor of his career. And there were more starter-level options still on the board at WR if the goal was to provide weapons for the offense. 

Trevin shouldn't have been the pick with Payton Wilson on the board. Bad decision then, and even worse now that Trevin is injured and Payton isn't. Why pick an injured RB in the 2nd and then pass on an injury prone ILB in the 3rd? Didn't make sense. Either you steer away from injuries or you don't. But don't flip flop. 

[kungfoodude]

19 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

The verdict is still out on XL. The only real issue was Ladd McConkey was still on the board, and he actually could be better than Ladd when it's all said and done. XL has a higher ceiling but a lower floor. 

Brooks was a riskier pick, but I can definitely see potential with him. In the few times he got the ball, I can tell he's different. Shifty with power. If he can stay healthy, he's gonna be a player. But staying healthy may be the defining factor of his career. And there were more starter-level options still on the board at WR if the goal was to provide weapons for the offense. 

Trevin shouldn't have been the pick with Payton Wilson on the board. Bad decision then, and even worse now that Trevin is injured and Payton isn't. Why pick an injured RB in the 2nd and then pass on an injury prone ILB in the 3rd? Didn't make sense. Either you steer away from injuries or you don't. But don't flip flop. 

Brooks was a bad pick because you overdrafted a RB in a weak class. This seems to be a fundamental Panthers FO flaw. We see a strong class of X position and then immediately run the other way. It's infuriating.

[Jon Snow]

5 hours ago, MHS831 said:

Great metaphor.  I would be in the room, I would be watching the process and evaluating my staff and personnel.  I might even have them explain their thinking to me, but I would do so in a way that did not make them think I was evaluating them or questioning their decisions--if that is even possible.

As a college educator teaching a principal leadership program, I was constantly aware of the irony of expecting my students to follow my directions, dictate information I was telling them, and then completing my assignments.  I implemented a lot of group work during my seminars, and I noticed that when I joined the group, they all made comments looking at me, as if seeking my approval.  I wondered if it distorted the message they were really sending, converting it to something they felt that I wanted to hear.  If I said nothing, they examined my face for clues or silent affirmation.  Even though I gave them the green light to say whatever, I was the alpha, not the person speaking.  It changed the dynamic.

So I had them meet online in Zoom groups.  I did not attend, but I had them record the session and include the link.  I could tell there was a difference.  They were more empowered, confident, and creative.  Those were the future leaders I wanted to see. 

So If Tepper is going to participate, he needs to do so in a manner that does not have his employees second guessing or looking at his face for approval.  He needs to realize that his leaders work best when they rely on their expertise and intuition instead of guessing what Tepper's might be.  This is not Tepper's fault; it is human nature.  Watch wolves or geese or any hierarchical power structure--if the leader is NOT making the decision, he or she is influencing it.  So Tepper needs to be aware.  With Fitterer, I got the impression that he was Tepper's puppet--always seeking a pat on the head.  He was our worst GM ever. 

So yes, be part of it, but understand your role and do all that you can to empower the subordinates to act in ways they see fit instead of speculating what the Alpha might want.  Does that make sense?  It is a gray area that most might not think about.

All of this ^^^^^^.

I'm not a professor but I have supervised highly skilled professionals for 25 years and everything in this post holds true in the private sector as well. 

The most powerful person in the room will always influence his subordinates just by their presence alone. No matter how many times I tried delegate authority you cannot truly empower you people until you remove yourself as much as possible. Every time I was in the room all eyes were on me whether I had anything to do with what was going on or not.

The top dog has the room whether he wants it or not. It just human nature. 

[MHS831]

1 hour ago, Jon Snow said:

All of this ^^^^^^.

I'm not a professor but I have supervised highly skilled professionals for 25 years and everything in this post holds true in the private sector as well. 

The most powerful person in the room will always influence his subordinates just by their presence alone. No matter how many times I tried delegate authority you cannot truly empower you people until you remove yourself as much as possible. Every time I was in the room all eyes were on me whether I had anything to do with what was going on or not.

The top dog has the room whether he wants it or not. It just human nature. 

Yeah, it is not a professor thing, but that is the role where I noticed it.  A CEO sitting in a brainstorming session tends to leave the room confirming what he thought instead of taking the best ideas and rethinking the position.  So it might be more about how he is in the room more than if he is in the room.

[Jon Snow]

36 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Yeah, it is not a professor thing, but that is the role where I noticed it.  A CEO sitting in a brainstorming session tends to leave the room confirming what he thought instead of taking the best ideas and rethinking the position.  So it might be more about how he is in the room more than if he is in the room.

The entire room is taking visual clues from the boss. Its impossible to avoid. I finally had to limit the number of meetings I had with the staff. I had to limit my involvement to phone calls to individual team leads and monthly staff meetings. It made a night and day difference in creativity and productivity.