Mr. Scot

I didn't really think all that highly of this year's choices. Sticking with Bridgewater was a non-starter. Stafford would have been good, but only a short term solution. Trading for someone like Watson or Wilson would have cost too much. Moving up high enough in the draft to get one of the top choices would also have cost more than I'd have been comfortable paying, and I had concerns about all of those guys anyway. Darnold? I was iffy on that idea, but what we have up for him was reasonable (especially given that we got most of it back by trading down in the draft). So for now, I'm just in wait and see mode.

I'm hopeful for Christensen, but it also wouldn't surprise me terribly if next year was the year we get our franchise left tackle.

I get that a lot

Ouch

I wouldn't put money on that.

Translation: "They didn't pick the quarterback I wanted so I'm gonna b-tch and moan and hope they lose so I can say I was right."

Outtakes...

Playing the odds would have meant not spending a high pick on a Florida State pass rusher. Or, for that matter, on an Ohio State quarterback. Can't always play it safe.

And we might have one. We don't know, but the team's personnel people believe it's possible.

Fans may be looking for "the next Cam" but from what we've seen, the team isn't. What they're looking for is the best quarterback to run their current system. That likely means a skill set closer to Drew Brees than Cam Newton. I'd add that I'm not so sure "the next Cam" would be that easy to find even if they were looking. Newton was a lot more unique of a specimen than people seem to remember. Of this year's draftees, I'm not sure any of them would have qualified as "the next Cam".

Yes but somebody needed content right now! It's not a lot different than draft grades and free agent grades directly after the fact. Chances are if you looked at the articles written this time last year, you'd get a good chuckle out of them.

It's one season. Look, I get that you need to spin why they didn't do what you thought they should / predicted they would, but it doesn't really mean anything. Me? I don't know if this is going to work or not, but I'm open minded about it.

I don't really give a sh-t about the general consensus. I care about how things work out this year. And contrary to popular belief, none of us knows how that's going to go just yet.

College friend of mine went to high school with an unfortunate kid named Dick Wacker. (don't know what his parents were thinking)

I think the Carolina braintrust isn't made up of the same people as last year. But on that front, did they stick with Bridgewater to try to keep from looking bad or did they dump him? As far as Rhule, he's had only a single season on a rebuilding team (during which he was paired with a crap GM) so I think his grade is still Incomplete as of now.

You seriously think they had a conversation where they said "Well, Fields might be the better quarterback but we can't take him because we might look bad and it's better to risk losing than looking bad." Yeah, sure. Lemme guess. Is David Tepper sitting next to you in the room again?

Nope, sorry. It's silly. The notion that they're going to make a football decision for PR reasons is just dumb.

Daley staying healthy would be looking me of a stretch at this point. Last year they favored Scott over Daley, and while he's not exactly a premier talent, he didn't do a bad job either. I think it'll come down to Erving, Scott and Christensen. Erving and/or Scott might start Week 1 but I think the job eventually goes to Christensen.

Yeah...this is a really dumb take. You know what really makes people look bad? Losing. No coach or GM with even half a brain is going to pass up a player they think can help them win just because it might make a prior decision look bad. Basically, you're spinning it this way because you absolutely can't believe that a group of professional football evaluators could ever possibly disagree with you. Reality? Yes they can, and they did. If we still had Marty in charge, you might have an argument. Marty was well known to have done stuff to cover his own ass. With Fitterer and Rhule? No. They proved otherwise by parting ways with Bridgewater.

Pretty much. They started off with a narrative and set out to back it up rather than actually analyzing anything. It's crap, but most offseason speculative articles are, so no shock.

No it doesn't. The last paragraph is especially full of bullsh-t.

The part with Fitterer and Rhule was pretty funny. "You want to be in the schedule release vid?" "No, not really."

You can also go to the Panthers YouTube channel and rewind it so that you don't miss anything.

Regarding the time...