Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Management Philosophy


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#31 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Moderators
  • 15,459 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:22 AM

I don't think it's so much a problem with the philosophy, it's more a problem with never making minor adjustments to the philosophy year-to-year.

I'm completely on board with 'build through the draft' but my only request with that is to take proven talent in free agency when it is there and still has value. Example = Anquan Boldin, Vincent Jackson.

I think that's what everyone's REAL problem is with the FO this offseason. And it's hard to just swallow that when you hear Hurney say Boldin didn't fit what we were doing and then he goes out and looks like Anquan Boldin still on MNF for a 'contender.'

I don't want big splashes in free agency, I just want smart ones and then continue to build through the draft.

DISCLAIMER: I know Boldin wasn't a free agent, neither is VJ, but they could (could've in Boldin's case) be had for a fair price.

#32 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,737 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:49 AM

Here it is

http://espn.go.com/b...nto-perspective




Thje projected Panthers payroll for 2010 is less than .5 mill below '09. That essentually means that we distributed 20 mill in Peppers deal mostly to Delhomme.


The salary cap was 124 million but our payroll was much less at 112 million in 2009 which was 11th on the list. That dead salary cap of 29 million is totally irrelevant since there is no cap and that money was already paid in previous years. For 2010 it is projected at the same 112 million despite all the guaranteed money which puts us 17th on the list. So compared to other teams we did spend less this year than last and only have 60 million so far committed to next year. and if you take out Jake's guaranteed which they had no choice in, we would rank in the bottom five this year. Which if you look at the teams down there we would be in good company.

Here is a list so you can see how the money got distributed.

http://content.usato....aspx?year=2009

http://www.altiusdir...fl-salaries.php

Edited by panthers55, 17 September 2010 - 09:53 AM.


#33 Cats-eat-birds

Cats-eat-birds

    Junior Member

  • NEWB
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 10:06 AM

IMO we do a solid job picking players in the draft. I would like to see us hang onto more picks, I mean do we really need to make a habit of giving up draft picks to move up and grab a player that would probably be available to us anyway? (i.e. AE).

I believe that Free Agency should be used to create competition at the position, and fill holes that you could not address in the draft. There is also value in bringing in a veteran to help develop your young guns. I think we miss that with Moose being gone. I do believe we have a good core that will be here for a long time.

Management has done a good job, but there is always room for improvement. I would suggest looking for those missing key components this next off-season. I don't see anything that would give us immediate impact in the free-agency market, nor do I think a trade scenario would be wise.

Go Panthers!

#34 koolkatluke

koolkatluke

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,847 posts
  • LocationNonya

Posted 17 September 2010 - 10:26 AM

I don't think it's so much a problem with the philosophy, it's more a problem with never making minor adjustments to the philosophy year-to-year.

I'm completely on board with 'build through the draft' but my only request with that is to take proven talent in free agency when it is there and still has value. Example = Anquan Boldin, Vincent Jackson.

I think that's what everyone's REAL problem is with the FO this offseason. And it's hard to just swallow that when you hear Hurney say Boldin didn't fit what we were doing and then he goes out and looks like Anquan Boldin still on MNF for a 'contender.'

I don't want big splashes in free agency, I just want smart ones and then continue to build through the draft.

DISCLAIMER: I know Boldin wasn't a free agent, neither is VJ, but they could (could've in Boldin's case) be had for a fair price.



I agree with this post. Like I said in other thread when you have had all preseason too see a position that was a weakness and with one tweek could be a value for more then one part of your team you should try too fill it. With so many quality #2 wr out their and the lack of you have on your roster why not use FA too fill it? Good #2 wr helps a young QB, helps other young WR, Helps the running game and Passing game. Helps the young DEf every thing we have on this team right now.

#35 mountainpantherfan

mountainpantherfan

    In Honor of Sam Mills

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,907 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 10:34 AM

The salary cap was 124 million but our payroll was much less at 112 million in 2009 which was 11th on the list. That dead salary cap of 29 million is totally irrelevant since there is no cap and that money was already paid in previous years. For 2010 it is projected at the same 112 million despite all the guaranteed money which puts us 17th on the list. So compared to other teams we did spend less this year than last and only have 60 million so far committed to next year. and if you take out Jake's guaranteed which they had no choice in, we would rank in the bottom five this year. Which if you look at the teams down there we would be in good company.

Here is a list so you can see how the money got distributed.

http://content.usato....aspx?year=2009

http://www.altiusdir...fl-salaries.php


Yes, but you can't say that that number is irrelevant because the Panthers came out very early and said that even though there wasn't a cap this year they were going to still operate as if there was one. Other teams like the Pats, Steelers, Eagles, Cardinals all came out and said, and done, the same thing this organization did.

#36 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,917 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 17 September 2010 - 11:15 AM

f what you are saying is true then the emphasis is going to be more on proving one philosophy of team building is right rather than doig whatever it takes to make the team better, even if it means deviating from their original course.

thats a dangerous way to run a business that doesn't allow for much in the way of growth or staying competitive. when your main goal is to stick to your guns and prove your point, you re going to be fighting against the flow unnecessarily.

i am really not a plan of this philosophy at all. you have to give yourself the freedom to deviate from your plan when needed (and it will be needed) or useful (and it will be useful).

on a side note it makes me wonder how long it takes them to give clausen the job. for a long time it seemed that they wanted to prove that they could be a competitive game without drafting a QB early. this year they did indeed deviate from that plan which shows that they are willing to veer of course slightly (still holding to that building through the draft rather than FA idea).

I don't buy that team leadership would do anything just for the sake of proving themselves right.

They really believe this is the right way to build a perennial contender. And yeah, there's evidence to support it.

#37 Sandy Claws

Sandy Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,395 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 11:19 AM

The salary cap was 124 million but our payroll was much less at 112 million in 2009 which was 11th on the list. That dead salary cap of 29 million is totally irrelevant since there is no cap and that money was already paid in previous years. For 2010 it is projected at the same 112 million despite all the guaranteed money which puts us 17th on the list. So compared to other teams we did spend less this year than last and only have 60 million so far committed to next year. and if you take out Jake's guaranteed which they had no choice in, we would rank in the bottom five this year. Which if you look at the teams down there we would be in good company.

Here is a list so you can see how the money got distributed.

http://content.usato....aspx?year=2009


http://www.altiusdir...fl-salaries.php



I've already seen both of those but you are 100% incorrect when you say that the dead money is irrelevant and has all been paid in previous years. It's payroll = all paid this year. Not salary cap hit from excelerated signng bonus hits. Better than half was guarantees such as Jake's. Add that to the fact that Jerry and other owners have stated they will operate within a budget just like there was a salary cap and it shows why we aren't charging out to throw money at big names. The money isn't there. Some owners are trying to buy a Lombardi and put a higher payroll limit than Jerry.

Edited by Savoir Faire, 17 September 2010 - 11:22 AM.


#38 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,917 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 17 September 2010 - 11:20 AM

don't have a problem with the panthers philsophy(just the execution of it) when was the last time the steelers signed a big name free agent from another team? they compete at the highest level on a regular basis even tho they've changed several coaches and front office people over the years. they draft players who fit their system & sign middle market free agents to fill needs.they went from contenders to champions once the found a true franchise qb(something that will hold the panthers back until they find one)

For this philosophy to work, you have to be very good at drafting. Very good.

So are the Panthers there yet?

As I recall, the figure was that something like 35 or 38 members of the team's 53 man roster this season were draftees. That's pretty good. Steeler good? Jury's still out, but it's decent.

They're better with Don Gregory than they were with Tony Softli. Of that much I feel certain.

#39 koolkatluke

koolkatluke

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,847 posts
  • LocationNonya

Posted 17 September 2010 - 11:24 AM

Still wating on player to produce is that a part of this process too?

#40 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,415 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 12:00 PM

I don't buy that team leadership would do anything just for the sake of proving themselves right.

They really believe this is the right way to build a perennial contender. And yeah, there's evidence to support it.

i see that. he proble that i have with it is getting so fixated on it that philosophy and so determined to stick with it that you could very well miss out on some key cogs that can help you reach your goals of creating a perennial winning team.
I never believe that just one exact way is the only way. i look at broad strokes giving yourself some freedom to move within the lines.

i just don't think staying hard core on their path will get them to their desired goals. at least they are making things a little more unnecessarily complicated than they need to be.

#41 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,737 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 17 September 2010 - 12:15 PM

Yes, but you can't say that that number is irrelevant because the Panthers came out very early and said that even though there wasn't a cap this year they were going to still operate as if there was one. Other teams like the Pats, Steelers, Eagles, Cardinals all came out and said, and done, the same thing this organization did.


Your right. They didn't talk about a cap but about a budget. Which by the way is actually the way they do it every year. The cap is just a number they have to use some creative accounting to get under. The yearly budget is what they actually spend and either adds or subtracts from the bottom line.

#42 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,737 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 17 September 2010 - 12:36 PM

I've already seen both of those but you are 100% incorrect when you say that the dead money is irrelevant and has all been paid in previous years. It's payroll = all paid this year. Not salary cap hit from excelerated signng bonus hits. Better than half was guarantees such as Jake's. Add that to the fact that Jerry and other owners have stated they will operate within a budget just like there was a salary cap and it shows why we aren't charging out to throw money at big names. The money isn't there. Some owners are trying to buy a Lombardi and put a higher payroll limit than Jerry.


Dead cap space is irrelevant because there is no cap plain and simple. You can call jake's salary dead cap space for the point of argument but without a cap it is meaningless. Plus his actual salary is already reflected in the 112 million for this year. That is why cutting him was not a financial decision.

When guys like Kemo and Lewis were cut, not paid the 5 million payment in the offseason which everyone acknowledged wouldn't have happened anyway, their contracts became 1 year deals. This is the area where the cap and payroll diverge. They were paid nothing so they had no salary. But the cap hit accerelerated and is part of that dead cap space which boosted the figure you quoted to 124 million. BUt the point that is irrelevant is that the money spent on them has already been accounted for in past payrolls.

As for the money not being there, that is crap as well. They spent 112 million last year. They spent 112 million this year. They raised ticket prices and received the same TV money. Add it up and it clearly shows they had more money this year than last but didn't spend it all.

Edited by panthers55, 17 September 2010 - 12:38 PM.


#43 GRWatcher

GRWatcher

    visiting from Kepler-186f

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • LocationStatesville

Posted 17 September 2010 - 12:44 PM

It is so easy to create a philosophy in hindsight and say it always was the intention of the team to follow it. I don't believe it.

So my question is, when do they stop the "youth movement"? Every year has a draft class plus undrafted rookies and every year you can keep only 53 players. Even if you assume that we never sign another outside FA and that we draft extremely well, we will lose at least 10 or more of our "youth" every year. And they are our "best". They'll no longer be our "best" next year? There's no logic or look to this scheme that tells the fans or anyone else that the Panthers are built to win each year. That, after all, is the goal each year of 32 NFL teams and their fans.

In any other industry it would be age discrimination.

Besides, the Panthers are doing their youth a great disservice by not having veterans on the team (even as backups) for them to learn from. For a youth movement of this type to be successful, we would need 53 superstars. That's simply not the case. How much better would Matt Moore have played the Giants if he had a veteran QB on the sideline like he did last year instead of 2 rookies? How much sooner would it had been realized that he was consussed, because he isn't going to take himself out of the game?


Steeler good? No way, and not anytime soon; no jury needed. I looked at the Steelers' roster. They have 17 at 30 or older and only 1 is a kicker. 28 Steelers have 6 or more years of experience. Those are veterans that their youth will learn from. That is part of the Steelers' team philosophy and that is why their version of a "youth movement" works: it's not all at once and they count on veterans to help. Hines Ward admitted that much last year, that part of his job is now to help the younger players. FYI, they have 8 rookies on their roster.

I do agree that the Panthers will not do anything in FA this year. But not because of some overall team philosophy.

:leaving:

#44 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • ALL-PRO
  • 15,498 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 01:19 PM

building a roster through FA is the best approach.. there is no doubt about this.. we have been rather successful as well (in recent years anyhow)..

expecting the FO to go out into FA and bring in players would be surprising considering that isn't their philosophy.. no one should be surprised..


what is surprising is when we fail to draft in one particular position the entire duration of the FO tenure... and never bring in a quality professional when available...


my frustration comes in, when in 5 years, we'll have a Smitty at the end of his career and no draft picks who ever made anything of themselves..


If I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat crow... but there is no reason to believe otherwise.. :)

and I'm usually one of the few optimists.. but reality strikes hard when it comes to the WR position.. there is nothing to be optimistic about based on the last 8 years.. that is a huge time line to judge by..

Edited by bleys, 17 September 2010 - 01:22 PM.


#45 koolkatluke

koolkatluke

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,847 posts
  • LocationNonya

Posted 17 September 2010 - 02:57 PM

My question with this philosophy is your almost force too give a player chance after chance because you drafted him and you don't want too look like a fool by giving up on him. Plus you wasted a high pick.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com