AU-panther

trading him after June 1st would actually free up cap space next year, around $8.6m His cap hit next year is supposed to be $14.3m, if he is traded after June 1st his cap hit would be 5.7m in 2022, so a savings of around $8.6m. Since it was a post June 1st cut you would $12.8m in dead money still to account for in 2023, which would be less than the $17.7m he is expected to be on the books for that year. Also his contract really wouldn't be that bad for a team that trades for him. You have to remember that we have already paid his signing bonus. The next team would basically get him for 4yrs/44m with only $8.1m guaranteed in the form of 2022 salary. $11m a year isn't crazy for one of the better playmakers in the league according to some. Especially a team that thinks they are in Super Bowl contention. Christian McCaffrey Contract Breakdowns, Salary Cap Figures, Salaries, Bonuses | Spotrac

QB class is terrible. 6 is too high for a QB. QB won't help in year one. BC is developing nicely at LT. Too early for an IOL. You don't pass on an elite talent in the top-10 to chase need. I can hear all of the excuses now. I totally expect a pick none of us are expecting. This place will implode. Maybe a safety isn't bad, it could be a corner.

Its rather impressive how bad our offensive actually is. Not that EPA is the end all be all, a lot of people also like DVOA, but it's often better than just looking at PPG or YPG to measure both defenses and offenses. I know some people, either don't like stats or don't understand them, but there does seem to a fairly high correlation between EPA and actually win/loss records.

No you didn't, but whatever So Rhule told Fitt to find a LT, but the fact the LT is bad that is on Rhule and Fitt has no responsibility in it at all.

lol like usual you deflect so you feel like Fitt had no influence on some of these terrible free agency decisions? So Rhule did all the work coming up with Sam, Erving, Elflein all by himself?

Questions about Fitt, all the terrible FA decisions, do you feel they all fall on Rhule? Or is it possible that Fitt was behind some of them. Rhule might have had final say but it would be naive to think Fitt didn't actually come up with at least some of the ideas, wouldn't it? Part of me agrees with you, maybe Fitt and Morgan can be a good team but I keep going to back to what I said above.

dead horse anyone? and RR didn't have a say when Hurney came back? People need to wake up, its a HC driven league. Owners are fighting over HCs, not GMs, the concessions are going to the HCs. Look at Lynch and Shannahan. Alot more HCs have final say than what fans realize. Was Tepper's selection of Rhule the best choice, doesn't look like it right now. With Rhules limited NFL experience was it risky? of course, but the concept of this type of structure isn't as crazy as people think. Lets say Tepper decides to get rid of Rhule and Hackett is the hottest prospect on the market. Would you let him have final say over personnel to get him to come here? Do you want a GM driven organization? Thats fine, and there are organizations like that, but when it comes to finding a new coach you might limit your choices.

People start overthinking all of this. Here is the biggest issue with college coaches, in college the team with the better players usually win. So what happens with these guys like Meyer they start to think their process or their culture or their toughness they install is the reason they win, or they start to believe they are better with the Xs and Os, in reality they are largely winning because they have better players. That is why you often see them do odd personnel decisions when they get to the pros because they are trying to create some culture they think was the key for their winning at the college level. Now they get to their pros and turns out their "culture" isn't really anything special and they aren't really superior from an Xs and Os perspective, so it falls back on the players. All this talk about Rhule and his favoritism is a bit overplayed, did it hurt? maybe some, but its not the real problem. The major problem for Rhule is he did a bad job of picking players. He failed at QB and he failed at the offensive line, lets don't overthink this. Fact is, he doesn't have the better players at some really important positions, so now it's up to the Xs and Os of his coaches, and so far that is looking good. I said before the season started, there was a mindset among this staff that they could take bad players, with good traits and coach them up, and that very rarely happens at the pro level. Once a player is in the league for a few years you usually have a pretty good idea of what they are. Is this ego? of course it is, all coaches have it or they wouldn't be at this level. Ron did the same thing with Matt Kalil. The questions is can Rhule learn from it if he retained for another year.

So NFL owner hires a coach that doesn't work out after two years...... Thats a pretty big club, let's see how he handles it.

and did anyone take the time to really see if there was a correlation between the scores and sucess? because if they didn't any opinion whether they were actually helpful or not is nothing more than a guess. With as much money and resources that most NFL teams dedicate to the draft I'm sure some of the teams actually did, and the fact that the test stayed part of the combine for this long might indicate there was actually some sort of correlation that at least some of the teams appreciated, but that is just a guess.

I'm actually a fan of drafting O-line, just this thought around here that we have spend 4 draft picks over the next few years to get a good O-line is ludicrous. Also you don't need an elite o-line to be successful in this league, and hardly any teams in the league has above average starters. Lets say we draft a LT in the 1st and move BC to guard and both above average. Moton stays at RT and maybe Elflein stays at center. Cheap vet for RG. Maybe you end up with: Above average Above Average Below Average Average Good Honestly that is probably an above average or even top-10 line in the league, relatively speaking.

unless you have access to every player any assumption about a correlation is nothing more than a guess

seeing how I only looked at a few teams I'm guessing its more that you think, since you said show me "one"

both tackles were 2nd rounders of other teams

based on the ESPN depth chart Arizona only has one drafted starter: Arizona Cardinals Depth Chart | ESPN

Rams have 2, a 5th and 4th rounder

and traded for another, and I think Wylie who was drafted by another team has also played a good bit this year. So for a decent amount of the year they have two of their own draft picks start on the line, a second and 6th rounder. Whereas we have had a 2nd and 3rd.

Why Rob Gronkowski wanted to save all his NFL paychecks (cnbc.com) story was early in his career he saved his NFL paychecks and just lived off endorsements. If that is true that makes him smarter than most people period.

do we know that or are we just assuming? You would think at some points some team tried to look at the data and see if there was some type of correlation to success.

I'm a fan of drafting Oline but what about KC? Didn't they revamp some of it through FA and trades?

? I was trying to explain a mindset, sorry if you didn't follow.

I never said those players were not higher rated then Pickett, I'm not sure I would draft Pickett in the top 10. My point is that very rarely will a QB be the highest rated player on a team's board at any given point in a draft, which you disagreed with. There will almost always be a safer non QB pick, short of having the number 1 pick in a Manning or Luck type of year. Even with Cam there safer picks, but as some point a team has to gamble somewhat on a QB.

I wasn't talking about the panthers specifically. I was referring to this mindset that when people don't want to trade down, they convince themselves that the player available at the spot they are at is exponentially better than the next available pick. "If Neal is available at 6 i don't want to trade down because he is a 100% chance of being a hall of famer and the next guy only has a 50% of being good" This mindset happens every year and every year history tells us its not true. I'm sure fans last year said the same thing about Sewell and Slater. "If Sewell is available stay put because the drop off is too much to the next guy" Turns out Slater is looking to be just as good. The lions could have traded down and got more assets.

In all those examples there were hither rated players available that were statistically safer. Sewell was probably rated higher than Wilson on most boards, maybe Chase and Pitts also. At the very least any logical person would consider them safter picks. Derrick Brown was rated higher than Herbert and was considered safter by most also. Watson wasn't even drafted in the top 10 so that tells you everything you need to know. If teams had him rated that high he would have never fallen out of the top 10 being a QB. They might have been rated high but this idea that they were BPA is naive. Fact is QBs are almost always inherently a greater risk then a non QB that is also available at that same position. This is too be expected because its a much more important position.

Even with Wilson being rated that high you could make the arguemetn that Pitts, Chase, or Sewell had higher higher grades and were "safer" picks. QBs are very rarely the safest pick at any point in any draft.