SCO96

5 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

I agree. I also think that this group doesn't feel they have to get the #1 pick at all costs in order to succeed. 

I was just about to post the same thing Jon. Everyone seems to be saying that they'll have confidence in our staff "if they decide to move up grab a QB in the top 3". I wonder if they'll have the same confidence if they decide to stay out at #9...or dare I say it...trade back for more picks to fill more holes?

I think you, me, and bunch of others would still feel very optimistic about the upcoming season. But, I think half of our fellow Huddlers would have panic attacks if  Carolina doesn't move up to take Stroud or Young.

1 hour ago, onmyown said:

How about something along the lines of trade this years first spots, next years’ first or second and Burns? 

Would be nice not to have to pay Burns.
 

 

We had 35 sacks as a team in 2023. Burns had 12.5 of them. No other D-lineman had half that many. Our 2nd leading sacker was Frankie Luvu, a LB,  with 7 sacks. Our DT's combined for a whopping total of 2 sacks. The Panthers would literally have no pass rush if we traded Burns.  With no pass rush our secondary would suffer as well. To make matters worse, with no #2 in 2023 or #1 picks in in 2024 and 2025 it would hard to replace him. You'd have assume you would replace that production with a rookie drafted after the 2nd round in 2023, or after the 1st round in 2024 and 2025. 

No way we should ever make a move like that...and expect to field a competent defense for the next couple of seasons. We need to trying to get Burns some help on the D-line instead of trading him.

10 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

I've said it elsewhere, many times over. Here we go again.

I'd stay out of the Carr, Lamar and probably Aaron Rodgers kerfuffle that is going to see at least two teams overpay and get cheated. Look for another vet to fall out of contention who can serve as a good bridge/backup.

Let the coaching staff take a good, solid look at Matt Corral -- which I am sure they have already done at this point. If they think there is a possibility there, go with him and look to add that veteran presence to help him mature quickly. If he's not the guy, then move to the draft.

In the draft, forget about the massive manboy crushes the four top QBs are attracting right now. Two out of four are statistically going to wash out and cost teams mightily. There's a chance that it's three out of four. Let someone else waste good potential on bad returns. One out of the four will most likely be excellent, but which one... no one knows.

In the first round, we set back and let the worst teams pursue those QBs, leaving much better players on the board at #9 than one would normally expect. We take the best player available. My pecking order for this would be DE, TE, LB, CB. At number nine it is almost guaranteed that at least one of bona fide best at their position players will be left in one of those spots. Take them.

In our first pick in the second round, grab the best of the remaining positional guys from what is left from that list of four.

Stay out of the quarterback race at all until the end of the second, probably the early third round. There are going to be some very good QBs there... Tennessee, Georgia and TCU will all have QBs out there still, perhaps not Madden-darlings, but solid, battle tested and championship earning guys. There's where the finds of the draft will be. Grab the one that best suits our coaching staff's long-term vision. Go into camp with them and Corral competing for the job, spurred along and cushioned by a good journeyman vet.

Wish PJ Walker the best and maybe give Darnold a chance for back-up QB money, perhaps with some incentives for playoff performance.

Build the team they want and give some QBs a chance. If those QBs don't clear the bar, we still have high picks out there and the perennially bad teams will have probably four high pick QBs filling their rosters and won't be in the immediate running next year. 

"If" I were a fantasy GM and opted not to take a QB in the top 10, I would do almost exactly what you outlined in your post. 

14 minutes ago, panther4life said:

What’s your plan for QB and winning a SB?

Since you asked, I'll go into fantasy GM mode.

Assuming we didn't sign a FA this offseason, here's what I'd do.

I'd interview the top 5-6 QB's and learn everything that I possibly could about them in terms strengths, weaknesses, mindset etc. 

I'd ask the coaches if they thought they could work with & groom a franchise QB with any of the guys besides Stroud or Young. If the OC, QB coach, and HC all said "No". I'd actually consider trading up if I didn't have to give up a #1 or #2 in 2025. 

If they said "there are two or three guys in this draft that we feel we can win with", I'd stay put at 9 and take a QB in round one. I'd use our two #2's and our #3 pick on Day two of the draft with the intention of coming away with three starters or at least 2 starters and 1 solid contributor. I'd use day 3 and 4 for depth picks and to possibly find some diamonds in the rough. I'd want the rookie behind center by midseason unless he was absolutely not ready to play. If he were ready I'd start him on week one.

Our division is weak. The goal would be to win the NFC South in 2023. I would not go into the season thinking we were a SB contender. Our cap clears up significantly in 2024. I'd go into the 2024 preseason with the thoughts of filling any remaining holes with FA's and strong 2024 draft with the intention of making to make a deep playoff run in 2024, definitely no later than 2025.

44 minutes ago, panther4life said:

Example 1, Rams have still won a Super Bowl in spite of what they gave up to move up.

True. But they didn't win with they guy they traded up for. They ended up getting a QB through a trade who had never won a playoff game with his previous team, Matthew Stafford.

46 minutes ago, panther4life said:

Example 2, the Bears picked the wrong QB. They should have taken Mahomes or Watson. They didn’t but were in position to do so.

Agreed. In hindsight the same thing happened in 2018. Allen and Jackson should have been the top 2. Baker and Sam went ahead of Josh and Rosen went ahead of Lamar. It just goes to show that the top 2 guys picked aren't guaranteed to be the top 2 QB's in the class

50 minutes ago, panther4life said:

Example 3, still won a Super Bowl and made it back again just last year.(Eagles).

Wentz didn't finish the regular season or play in the postseason. Peterson's brilliant coaching that year and a strong supporting cast allowed the Eagles to beat the might Patriots with a career journeyman/backup...Nick Foles. When Foles left town Wentz was unable to hold on the job and has been traded to two different teams. The Eagles made it back to the SB with a 2nd round draft choice.

54 minutes ago, panther4life said:

Example 4, short of their QB room being depleted by Injuries sure could have been in the superbowl this year.(49ers)

Correct. However, they were able to go most of the season with Jimmy G (2nd round pick) and Brock Purdy (7th round) as their starters. Trey Lance has contributed to none of the success the 49ers have had for the past two season. He may blossom in time, but at the current time its' looking like they didn't need to trade away all of those picks to move up to select him.

1 hour ago, panther4life said:

Example 5, was actually the Bills who landed Josh Allen and we know they don’t regret it.

https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2021/6/18/22533745/looking-back-at-the-trades-that-landed-josh-allen-for-the-buffalo-bills-notes-nfl-draft

Check out the link above for the details of this trade. Buffalo ended up jumping from #12 to #7 with 2 trades. The first with the Bengals moved them from #21 to #12. The gave away their starting tackle and pick #185 and got pick #187 in return

Then they traded with Tampa and moved from #12 to #7 and parted with two picks in the 2nd round (#53 and #56) and got #255 in retuen

They didn't away multiple #1 draft choices in back to back years like people seem to be suggesting we should do. And, as I've brought up before, the Bills were a playoff team the season before they drafted Allen with Tyrod Taylor at QB. I love Allen play, but so far he has yet to make it to an AFC Conference title game.

Moving up to get QB's in the top 5 in recent years has not produced one QB who won a SB with the team that drafted him.

3 minutes ago, WOW!! said:

And you won’t be a championship team until you get the QB.. And waiting on the perfect situation isn’t a reality based plan either..

I know some of you don’t see this but reality is Wilks showed that competent Coaching made this team better and more of a viable thing then 1st though.. This team in reality with better coaching has enough talent not to be close to a top 10 pick in the predictable future..

Im sorry I don’t see a better opportunity then now to get your QB if you deemed any of these as your guy..

We beat two playoff teams with winning records at home this year (Seattle and Detroit). Kudos for that. Our other 5 wins came against teams that finished below .500 and won 8 games or less. (Denver, TB, Atlanta, New Orleans twice). Wilks did make us better, but the bar was set pretty low with Matt Rhule 

I'm glad you used the phrase "if you deemed any of these as your guy". The coaching staff may not think the two guys at the top are worth the draft capital to move up. I'd cheer whoever we picked if we did move up. But, I'd be equally supportive if we took someone later. I don't think a large percentage of the Huddlers are as open minded. Their mindset seems to be get Young or Stroud in the top 3, or suffer in mediocrity for the rest of the decade.

20 minutes ago, WOW!! said:

If he don’t pan out he just doesn’t pan out..

You move on. By the time you find that out you will have a 1st round pick.. But all shots not taking are never made.. 

You do give the QB 3 years to find out right…

plain and simple 

Sooner or later you have to take a shot.. You might as well do it when you have The Oline and surrounding infrastructure to make it a success..

You can take shot for a 1st round QB without giving up 3 years worth of draft picks. Everyone wants to win now. If the trade up doesn't work the losing will continue.

It's not as simple as "If he don’t pan out he just doesn’t pan out.." We are not a championship caliber team. How is this team going to fill holes and get better if the guy you mortgage the picks for doesn't pan out? You won't have any high draft choices left to fill the roster. We lost 10 games playing in the worst division in the NFL. We need more/better players on both sides of the ball..

I can see risking a #1 this year. I can live with a #1 in 2024. But not 2025 too. Our best pass rusher will be a free agent at the end of the year. If we don't resign him you'll have to draft a replacement. We can forget about anyone in the first round since we won't have any 1st round picks in 2024 or 2025. We're gonna have to part with some #2 and #3 choices in some of those years as well.

2025 picks should be a no go. Personally, I think Richardson should be the target at #9. With this coaching staff I think he'd be in a situation tailor made for his success in the NFL (if the staff likes him of course). If we took any QB in this draft after the top 5 picks I'd feel good about it because I have confidence in this staff to groom and develop a quality starter. Having an offense minded head coach is a game changer for this franchise 

3 hours ago, Jay Roosevelt said:

I'd honestly be fine with giving up our 1st rounders in '24 and '25 as part of a deal. Gotta have that QB.

44 minutes ago, WOW!! said:

Me too.. If you come out of this draft with Stroud or young.. Then I’m ..

Suppose the guy we pick doesn't pan out you after you move up for him in the 2023 draft?  Everyone who wants to move up seems to believe Young and Stroud are can't miss prospects.  What if they are not?  You wouldn't have the option of picking a QB in the first round again to rectify the mistake until 2026! You'd also be missing several other high draft choices. Bad move.

Arizona could afford to go for Kyler Murry one year after getting burned with Josh Rosen in round one because they had a #1 pick the following year. We wouldn't have that option. We'd have to try

1) drafting a QB project outside the 1st round (which is blasphemous in the eyes of some on this forum), 

2)trade for a guy,

3) or sign  FA.

The latter two aren't popular options with many on this board this offseason. I can't imagine it being any more popular in 2024 or 2025 if this pick doesn't pan out.

3 hours ago, panther4life said:

3rd overall pick: Last trade 2021, Dolphins to 49ers

49ers got 3rd overall

Dolphins got 12th overall, 1st and 3rd round picks in 2022, 1st in 2023

I'm ok with the the 2022 picks in exchange for moving up in a draft. No way I'm giving up #1 picks in back to back years for a trade if I'm a rebuilding franchise with holes at LB, S, CB, WR, TE, DT, DE, and  possibly even RB (if Foremen isn't resigned). The cost to trade up is too expensive.  If a team trades back, I think parting with your  #1 and #2 makes sense. A one and three is too much IMHO, but I could live with that because your debt is paid one year after you made the deal. These days if you make a move to trade up 6 spots  one season,  two years later you're still expected to give up you highest draft choice. Ridiculous.

Based on draft history, the top two QB's off the board will not be the only two QB's capable of playing in the NFL. They possibly may not even be the two best QB in their draft class. That mentality basically says we have an incompetent coaching staff that can only develop and win with 2 guys in the 2023.draft. I don't think that's the case at all. 

3 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

I don't think that's enough, but if it is then absolutely!  Fitt can get those 3rd/4th rounders back by trading back.  

2 hours ago, Jaxel said:

 

Agree, I'd make that trade today lol.

2 hours ago, LondonderryPanther said:

Jesus, if they'd be willing to accept that then you bite their hand off

Here's what Chicago would ultimately be getting for trading the most prized pick in the draft

A first rounder 8 spots lower than where they started

One extra pick in the 3rd and 4th rounds.

An extra #1 pick in 2024

An extra #3 pick in 2024. 

If Fields turns out to be a legit starter in the NFL, and Chicago hits on all of those choices it would/could  help turn that team around immediately. Here's a look at the picks they already have.

• Round 1, No. 1 overall.
• Round 2, No. 56 overall (from Ravens)
• Round 3, No. 65 overall.
• Round 4, No. 103 overall.
• Round 4, No. 134 overall (from Eagles)
• Round 5, No. 136 overall.
• Round 5, No. 148/159 overall (from Ravens)*
• Round 7, No. 220 overall.

• If we really coveted a guy at the top of the draft that's not a bad deal at all for us. I'd take that deal immediately before they changed their mind.
• Could be a win-win for both teams.

20 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

You can't just throw money at it either.

It's more important to be smart than bold.

Just  got a bite to eat on my lunchbreak. I was listening to Cowherd on the way to and from the restaurant. He was talking to Peter Schrager. The latter said that Tyrek made about 30 million this year with the Dolphins. The Chiefs got a #1 and a #2 in addition to the #4, #5, #6 in the 2023  draft.

KC just won the SB and the combined salary for the 5-6 WR's on the roster was $20 million. They also had about 10 rookies on the roster start or make valuable contributions to their roster. You can't pay everyone, so you have to prioritize. NFL rosters are bloated on the top in terms of pay. But you have to have solid contributions from guys lower on the pay scale. A smart from office is able to find those guys in the draft or acquire some overlooked, but 2nd tier guys in FA and stay w/in the salary cap. When you start trading away several high draft picks in several consecutive draft you can't build a solid team from top to bottom. 

You can get away for awhile if you're already a contender. However, bad to mediocre teams need those picks if they want to compete. This why I'd never trade 3 #1's for any player, or multiple picks in multiple drafts to move 5-8 spots in a draft to get the 1st or 2nd pick if my team was at the bottom of the NFL hierarchy. 

20 minutes ago, Panthera onca said:

2 firsts and then filler picks I would do, but I think we will be asked to bend over farther than that.

I could live with that if you were pretty sure you were actually going to get a franchise QB.

We'd be basically swapping picks in round one.

We'd lose a #2, but we actually have an extra one b/c of the Christian trade to SF. They'd probably insist on the higher of the two.

We'd lose Our 5th round pick, which is our lowest pick in the draft.

We'd lose our #1 for next year. All the other picks would remain for 2024 and our portion of the deal would be complete.

I could like with that if we absolutely knew had a franchise guy headed our way.

35 minutes ago, Captain Morgan said:

don't know if it's been mentioned, but right after we signed Coach Reich, some reporter noted that he tried to trade for Carr....three times.

I'll also say, if get Carr without giving up any draft picks, we can really load up our team in one draft.

That's an understatement! 

We'd have 4 picks in the first 2 days of the draft. We could potentially come away with 4 solid starters before Day 3 of the draft.

6 minutes ago, weyco2000 said:

Brady didn’t cripple his team with salary demands, which freed up cap space to go after free agents. Personally I don’t think he would’ve had the same success by demanding top dollar. 
 

He definitely wasn’t the most talented, but his ability to read coverages and make in game adjustments were phenomenal.

I was listening to Colin Cowherd the other day. I think I heard him say that no team with a QB with a top 5 salary at his position to start the season has won a Super Bowl in the current day NFL. When a QB resets the market you almost guarantee his team will not win the Super Bowl. 

Mahomes, like Brady, realizes that as great as they are, they he can't do it alone. It's a team game. Those guys care more about winning than making a couple of extra million dollars per year. When you start winning SB rings whatever you don't get paid on the field, you can make up for it off the field with endorsement deals and business ventures.

3 minutes ago, heel31ok said:

Trading down makes more sense.

In theory I agree. We could use the extra picks. But, that can be risky. Take a look at this link below in regards to Anthony Richardson. He's rated #3 on this list. This site and a couple of other feel he may be the QB with the highest upside in the 2023 draft.

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/2023-nfl-draft-top-10-quarterbacks/

If the first two guys are gone (Stroud and Young), and Anthony is sitting there at #9, you have to take him "IF" the coaching staff believes they can win with him. If you trade back you run the risk of having someone steal him from you before you're up again. I could live with that depending on the position, but not QB.

If we took Richardson and he pans out we're set for the rest of the decade at QB. We'd still have the following:

2 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

Well the Rams got a ring so, no. 

They didn't pin their hopes on a rookie QB

The Rams won their SB with a seasoned veteran QB who was throwing for 4,000 yards on an annual basis in Detroit. Stafford was being held back by a Lion franchise that has never appeared in Super Bowl despite being one of the oldest franchises in the NFL.

4 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

And it's what many people simply want. They for (1) like the prospect and (2) want a QB.  And it's what the staff may very well want.  Let's not try to complicate this. 

I'm  glad you acknowledged that the staff "may" want a certain prospect. But what if they don't? There are people on this board who will have an emotional meltdown if we don't move up to the top 3 and pick they QB that "they want". I like they new regime. If they decide to move up then I'll support them. If they don't move up, then I'll support them. 

9 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

And I just don't buy this "set us back" stuff, just look at Philly and LAR.  They miffed with HUGE trades for their future in Goff and Wentz yet both have found a way to success within a short span of time. 

Man, we can't compare our front office with Philadelphia. They went 5 NFC title games and a SB when the had Reid &McNabb in the 2000's. The Eagles are almost always in contention in the NFC.  Do you think we'd be concerned about moving up if the guys in the Philly front office was running our team? We are concerned about the Carolina front office screwing things up. I'm hoping Fitterer becomes the finest GM in the NFL. But, he still has to prove himself   

15 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

It doesn't "mortgage the future" or "set us back" quite nearly as much as is let on.  So what if we don't keep #20 overall, 3rd-4th DT/CB in the 2024 draft.  I mean, that's really what we're talking about.  And there's also this built in assumption that the future pick is some certified hit, well that pick in itself is a risk just like every one in the draft.  

If we stay put at #9 and don't make any trades we will have 3 picks in the top 63. We should walk away with 3 starters in this years draft if we play our cards right. Sometimes the best player at a postion doesn't come off until the late 1st or 2nd round because of drat runs on other postions. Other times drafts are so deep that there isn't a big dropoff between the top 5 players in a position group,

As for later picks being a risk the same thing applies to first round QB's. I think history proves that there is over a 50% but rate for round 1 quarterbacks. Every pick in the draft is really a crapshoot. 

19 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

You have the FA, other draft picks, it's one or two picks and you're getting the QB you want in return. 

You do know that we are already almost 10 million dollars over the cap, right? If we don't do some major restructuring and cut of couple of guys we won't lure be able sign any FA"s because we won't be able to afford them. We also could help our cap situation quite a bit if we could draft some good players in rounds 2-3 and have them on rookie deals for the next 4 seasons. 

If we trade for a  QB into the top 3, the other team is going to want #1 picks in 2024 and 2025. Probably a #2 this year and possibly another a #2 or #3 in 2024 or 2025..  I don't feel too secure in the thought of Carolina trying to build a championship roster with a 2023 rookie QB  and most of their picks in 2024 and 2025 coming in the 3rd round or later. 

35 minutes ago, Shocker said:

Sums up the game.  The Chiefs dominated on offense in the 2nd half and the Eagles had no answer on defense.

The most under rated element of that game was the Chief's offensive line. Brilliant performance. They didn't give up a sack. Between Mahomes and the RB's they averaged just over 6 yards per run. Even if you take out the QB scrambling, they still averaged over 5.5 yds per rushing attempt.

 If an O-line is not giving up QB sacks/pressures, and that team is averaging 6 yards per rushing attempt, then they're going to be hard to contain on offense for 4 quarters.

55 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

I cannot for the life of me believe there needs to be this much convincing within the fandom of a franchise that experienced Cam Newton first hand.  

I guess that's the Dareus/Dalton crowd?  Might as well hype the Bama/TCU combo this time around, Anderson/Duggan it is!

 

It seems that some people are convinced that the only way we're going to win a chanpionship in the immediate future is to draft CJ Stroud or Bryce Young in the top 3 and give up a slew of draft picks to do so. Once again, nobody has a problem trying to acquire a franchise QB in the draft draft. The point of disagreement is where to draft them. A lot of us just don't see Young or Stroud as  "can't miss prospects". We also don't see the other QB's as automatic busts just becuse they won't be the first two QB's off the board.

I'll admit that Stroud impressed me against GA. He even got me to reevaluate my anti-Ohio State.  QB stance. If we picked him, I'll cheer him just as much as the rest of you. But, if he doesn't pan out, this franchise will likely be set back for the rest of the decade; and we won't have any high draft choices in 2024 or 2025  to correct the mistake or build depth in the other areas of need. We don't want to create a situation Payton has inherited in Denver. And, the lack of high draft choices lost via trades in LA has come back to bite the Rams bigtime. 

4 hours ago, ncfan said:

 

only 1 winner out of 7 had a offense Outside the top 5 (last years Rams 7th overall)

only 1 winner the last 7 years had a top 5 defense.

There are 32 teams in the NFL. Half of 32 is 16. According to your data, if interpreted literally, every team on this list finished in the top half of the league in points allowed. So defensive performsnce is still important.

You don't have to be great in all 3 phases of the pro game (O, D, ST), but you need to be good in all 3. If you're bad in any of them you won't win a championship.

24 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Steichen really kept calling some of the same plays over and over again, and didn't seem to make any outstanding adjustments to me. Just saying. I wasn't impressed. I mean, it's great to stack up your wins and pad the resumé in the regular season, but you make the big money on the big stage. He may not be the wunderkind of a HC that people believe that he could be. I am more impressed by Ben Johnson's and Mike Kafka's creativiry.

They put 35 points last night. And unlike KC, they didn't get the benefit of having the defense score a touchdown. The offense was clicking last night in a lot of areas.

I thought Steichen did rely too much on the runs between the tackles. They weren't effective. The running backs seemed more productive when they attacked the edges of the defense.  Then again he may have abandoned the run game because he didn't feel it was going to be effective that day.

If you subtract Jalen's carries, the RB stat line for the team was 17 carries/45 Yards...less than 3 yards per carry. If you took away Patrick's carries the Chiefs stat line was 20 carries/114 yards...that's 5.7 yards per carry. A more effective running game in the 2nd half would have controlled the clock, kept Mahomes on the bench, and give the defense some time to rest. The lack of the running game and the Eagles inability to really pressure Mahomes (the y didn't record 1 sack) were the biggest surprises for me last night.

3 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

I have confidence we now have the ability to develop a QB. Cam was a very good QB for us, but his development didn't really progress much here. Watching Mahomes, it makes me wonder what Cam could have become under a guy like Reid. Having the ability to recognize, understand, and develop a QB is just as important as the talent level IMO. 

Coaching really MATTERS in the NFL. Nick Foles didn't beat Tom Brady in a Super Bowl because he was a better QB. He beat him because his coach, Doug Pederson, outcoached Bill Belichick on Super Bowl Sunday.

Last night Pat Mahomes threw 2 TD's in the red-zone to wide open targets who just walked in for the TD. . Plays were designed and called at the right time to make that happen. That's a sign great coaching.

I expect to see that type of creativity with Frank Reich next season. I believe he can take a 1st round QB drafted outside the top 5, or a high 2nd rounder, and develop him into a legit starter.

4 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

This should free up about $23M.  We are about -$13M in effective cap space, so net about $10M which isn't much to shop with.

We definitely wouldn't be be able to obtain the cream of the crop in the FA class this year with that cap room would we?

This is why we need to hang on to those picks we have in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounds this year.

Completely and Parr:

Are you guys saying that you would cut Shaq if you were in the front office?

I'm not saying I disagree with you at all, but he did lead the team in tackles. He and Luvu both had over 100+ tackles. Our defense is would be significantly worse without him on the field in 2022. No other LB's on the roster reached 50 tackles. If we went that route wouldn't that mean we'd likely have to draft a replacement this off-season?

I'd be inclined to say yes; which is why I don't like the idea of trading away multiple high draft choices in multiple seasons to move up to the top 5 in order to draft a QB. We already need  playmakers at LB, S, DT, DE, CB, TE, and WR. Losing Shaq creates another void to feel. And, let's be honest...the answer isn't already on the roster.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/carolina-panthers

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/carolina-panthers/cap/

Both of these sites have us with over $28.5 million in dead cap space for 2023 and significantly over the cap to start the new season. 

Who are we gonna have to cut or restructure this off-season.

17 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

I would just defer people to what our GM and ownership has said and what their perspective seems to be.

We can't always trust what comes out of the FO though. In 2021 Matt Rhule said that his "process was working" and that the team was getting better. 

19 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

We may not feel the defense is there yet, sure, plenty to still build up, but the people in charge think the big pieces are there. 

Outside of JC Horn, Brian Burns, and possibly the surprise player of the year Frankie Luvu (100+ tackles, 7 sacks, and 1 INT) what big pieces would you say are in place?

22 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

Fitt has reiterated his approach more than a few times.  They did defense first, then shored up the offense line, and now they think we can take the next step and get "explosive".  You cannot bank on filling virtually every hole with a plus-starter before getting playmakers, most importantly QB.  You have to just do what you need to get the guy you want at some point.  I think many are simply at that phase as fans.  They're entirely cool if that scenario happens. 

I'll admit he did a GREAT job on the O-line!  As I pointed out earlier that defense is suspect. If we don't add any depth in 2022 and Burns ends up missing some games we literally do not have a pass rush.

27 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

I mean, if the QB ends up looking the part, those picks are realistically what? The 3rd-4th best guys at their position group in the 24 & 25 classes? And maybe it's just next year's first.  Somewhere around pick 15 to late 20s? If the QB works out, it's not the same as missing out some on future top-10 studs.

That's a big "IF". Bryce probably weighs less than most of us on this board and could get broken in half in the NFL. CJ Stroud comes from a OHIO STATE program that has NEVER produced a good pro QB the last 65 years. Yet, people feel that we need to mortgage our draft capital b/c these two "might be the guy" We can likely find a competent QB just as good as either at #9. It' like some are saying Frank Reich, McCown, and whoever we hire at OC can't win next year if we don't get Stroud or Young. A lot of us just don't see it that way.