why do people think that Jerry doesn't spend money?

[Doc Holiday]

Ok, real quick I just got back home, and while I was driving I was listening to WFNZ (I know first big mistake) and this caller was talking about how he was happy about the new CBA because it would force Jerry to spend money and whoever the host was just went along with it.

problem with this? out side of last season the Panthers and Jerry have never shyed away from spending money, we had one of the top 5 pay rolls for Coaches in the NFL and we almost alway hit our max in the cap, the evidence for that is none existent so why do people think this? and better question why is a member of the media playing along as if it is fact, I know they need stuff to talk about but making stuff up aint exactly a way to go. :confused:

[CRA]

Ok, real quick I just got back home, and while I was driving I was listening to WFNZ (I know first big mistake) and this caller was talking about how he was happy about the new CBA because it would force Jerry to spend money and whoever the host was just went along with it.

problem with this? out side of last season the Panthers and Jerry have never shyed away from spending money, we had one of the top 5 pay rolls for Coaches in the NFL and we almost alway hit our max in the cap, the evidence for that is none existent so why do people think this? and better question why is a member of the media playing along as if it is fact, I know they need stuff to talk about but making stuff up aint exactly a way to go. :confused:

I don't think Jerry doesn't spend money

I think you can argue he hasn't always spent it wisely....overpaying and keeping guys to long.

[panthers55]

The cap and salaries are very different. Overall we tend to be in the middle of the pack in spending, not at the top but surely not at the bottom.

The perception comes from the fact that we have signed no free agents of any note in 2 years hence we look cheap compared to Atlanta and New Orleans who have gone out and spent for free agents liberally.

[chknwing]

[MHS831]

I don't think Jerry doesn't spend money

I think you can argue he hasn't always spent it wisely....overpaying and keeping guys to long.

He is very loyal, and the Delhomme situation illustrates this weakness. However, Hurney makes the calls--Jerry does not intervene enough to catch the blame for all bad signings of over-the-hill players. I think knowing when to trade players helps your team more than knowing who to draft. First, you get trades vs. cutting players; second, you keep your talent young and inexpensive.

This year, we have DWill in that boat. DO you think Indianapolis screwed up Marshall Faulk & Edge James go? You have to factor in the $ they saved and how it was used at other postions.

Marshall Faulk was 25 (almost 26) when he signed a 7-year, $45 million contract with the Rams--huge money in 1999. During his last year with the Colts, he ran for 1319 yards--Instead of getting into a bidding war, Polian drafts James, whose rookie numbers surpassed that of Faulk (1553 rushing yards). Then in 2006, James has a year to equal DW's best-1506 yards. He was 27 years old. Polian trades him to Arizona and drafts Addai. Two years later, his yardage dropped to 514 yards (age 29) and about 200 (age 30). He was making $7.5 million. Addai, on the other hand, was making about $2 million and he ran for over 1000 yards each of his first two seasons. Now, at the end of his five year rookie contract, Polian is ready to reload.

This is why signing DW is not smart. New England, save the failed Corey Dillion fiasco, and Pittsburgh are notorious for not holding on to players too long. What do these three teams have in common? AFC representatives in 9 of the last 10 Super Bowls.

[Razeyfingers]

Well, let's hear it. All you people out there constantly calling him cheap are too scurred to get into a discussion with actual facts in it?

Funny how telling that is.

[panthers55]

He is very loyal, and the Delhomme situation illustrates this weakness. However, Hurney makes the calls--Jerry does not intervene enough to catch the blame for all bad signings of over-the-hill players. I think knowing when to trade players helps your team more than knowing who to draft. First, you get trades vs. cutting players; second, you keep your talent young and inexpensive.

This year, we have DWill in that boat. DO you think Indianapolis screwed up Marshall Faulk & Edge James go? You have to factor in the $ they saved and how it was used at other postions.

Marshall Faulk was 25 (almost 26) when he signed a 7-year, $45 million contract with the Rams--huge money in 1999. During his last year with the Colts, he ran for 1319 yards--Instead of getting into a bidding war, Polian drafts James, whose rookie numbers surpassed that of Faulk (1553 rushing yards). Then in 2006, James has a year to equal DW's best-1506 yards. He was 27 years old. Polian trades him to Arizona and drafts Addai. Two years later, his yardage dropped to 514 yards (age 29) and about 200 (age 30). He was making $7.5 million. Addai, on the other hand, was making about $2 million and he ran for over 1000 yards each of his first two seasons. Now, at the end of his five year rookie contract, Polian is ready to reload.

This is why signing DW is not smart. New England, save the failed Corey Dillion fiasco, and Pittsburgh are notorious for not holding on to players too long. What do these three teams have in common? AFC representatives in 9 of the last 10 Super Bowls.

First of all the money we are talking about DW won't exceed per year what Faulk got over a decade ago, so I not sure they are very comparable both in salary or production.

As for Faulk, he was a 3 time pro bowl selection for Indy and a 4 time pro bowl selection while with the Rams. When you note the yardage for him in 1998 you forget that Faulk was not only a great runner but a great receiver out of the backfield. In 1998 with Indy he ran for 1319 yards and caught 86 passes for another 906 years. That was the first of four consecutive 2000 plus total yard seasons. The reason Indy traded Faulk was because he missed some practices and was considering holding out for a new contract. Polian was afraid to mess with the chemistry he had built on his young team and decided to trade him. It wasn't over money or production.

Faulk went on to have a great career for the Rams and put up Hall of Fame numbers. He was worth that contract without a doubt. Now if you want to use an example, try the contract he signed with the Rams in 2002 for 44 million which superceded his old contract and he never fulfilled much of it due to injuries. SO yeah Indy screwed the pooch by letting Faulk go.

As for DWill, he deserves a good contract, not Stephen Jackson money but certainly 6 million a year.

As for New England, they last won a playoff game in 2007. Their dismantling the defense without replacing key players is why they have one of the most prolific offenses in the game and failed to win in the playoffs the past 3 years. Plus their lack of a rushing attack makes they vulnerable to teams that have a great pass rush as their offense is totally the passing game.

As for Pittsburgh, they have had little to no running game since Jerome Bettis left up until they drafted Mendenhall. Their defense saves them most days. In fact it seems that their offense has improved now that they have a rushing threat. Neither of these seem good examples of why we should get rid of Williams and are more about the effect of having great franchise pro bowl quarterbacks.

[Kurb]

I don't know what P55 is talking about.

Up until 2009/10 Panthers were (imo) in top 10 spenders.

Don't get this middle of the pack garbage.

[YesWeCam!]

JR outsmarted all of the fans... planning for the future.

[davos]

We paid for Willig in his prime, S Davis, Lucas, Keyshawn, Hackett (who was supposed to be good haha), hell we even overpaid Steussie back in the day. We spend, just not the very vocal talents *except Keyshawn

[Jackofalltrades]

'Cuz they're idiots?

[panthers55]

I don't know what P55 is talking about.

Up until 2009/10 Panthers were (imo) in top 10 spenders.

Don't get this middle of the pack garbage.

Lets look at our spending rankings under the Fox era:

2010 we were 22nd

2009 we were 11th

2008 we were 17th

2007 we were 27th

2006 we were 10th

2005 we were 8th

2004 we were 10th

2003 we were 23rd

2002 we were 28th

If you average these rankings they put us at 17th overall. Based on 32 teams that puts us squarely in the middle which is exactly where I said we were. Perhaps you are confusing cap numbers with actually salary paid.

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team/2002

[Razeyfingers]

Those numbers dont tell the whole story p55, the variation between 1 and 5 probably isnt the same as 17 - 22. It tells part of the story, I apprec, but not the whole story.

edit: I know youre answering Kurb's post btw, but this is just a caveat.

[Kurb]

I see what you are saying.

I still don't agree that Richardson is "cheap"