SCO96

3 hours ago, panfanman said:

I would have been totally fine with trading back, getting more picks and taking Hooker.  I think he's going to be as good as any of the other 4.

I like Bryce Young. I admire the willingness of the team to move up and get us out of our QB purgatory. The front office picked him so we have to roll with him.

That said, my thoughts about Hooker are similar to yours. He played against some of the best competition week in and week out in the SEC (TN even beat Bryce and BAMA when they played this past season). Carolina could have probably nabbed him at #39 without giving up DJ, a 2nd and 3rd this year, a #1 in 2024, and a #2 in 2025.

Anyway, the die has been cast. All we can do now is see how things pan out in 2023.

21 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

Young is our marquee guy now, not Burns. We’ve had Burns for 4 years now and have 22 wins. He’s not Von Miller. He’s a solid edge rusher but he’s not winning us a SB.

It isn't Burns' fault we've only had 22 wins the past years. That lies on Tepper's decision to hire Rhule in 2020. Rhule was the worst coaching hire in franchise history. No one will dispute that. As soon as Rhule was shown the door, this team rallied and almost made the playoffs w/out a top 20 player at the QB position.

Burns will probably have a breakout season in 2023 if he can stay healthy. The 3-4 defense may make him even more effective as a pass rusher and the DC is among the best in the league right now. I'm looking forward to seeing how he does with the new scheme and coaching staff.

11 minutes ago, The Natural said:

Then we could spend that draft capital trying to replace him while currently having no other proven pass rushers of his caliber on the roster. Sounds like a great way to neuter the defense.

So glad we didn't make that deal. Those type of trades should happen when you're overstocked at a position, you're tearing down the team for a massive rebuild, or you know there's a guy you can acquire (FA or draft) who is a sure fire bet to equal or exceed the departing players production.

Carolina had 35 sacks last year. Burns had 12.5 of them. Haynes had 5 sacks. No other lineman on our roster exceeded had 3 sacks. Our DT's combined for a total of 2 sacks. Our second best rusher was Frankie Luvu (7 sacks). Our ability to rush the passer would be greatly diminished w/out Burns. Now with the new coordinator, we can better utilize Burns and add more players to strengthen the pass rush.

44 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Yea, other than DL I’d agree that a potential starter at any of those positions is someone we can’t pass on at 39 (with LB including  edge rushing OLBs).  I’d also add TE, even if they’re not necessarily going to start over Hurst on day one, there’s two or three guys that have really high potential to be exceptional players I would hate to pass on too

I mentioned D-line because our DT's combined for 2 sacks last season. We literally have no legitimate pass rushing threat up the middle. I was thinking a solid 3-technique DT in a 4-3 would be hard to pass on. But, I forgot that we're transitioning to a 3-4 for the 2023 season. So, I agree that an Edge rushing OLB would take priority over DT and DE. 

3 hours ago, JawnyBlaze said:

I’d prefer not to trade down from 39, seems like a sweet spot where some guys I think will truly make an impact will be available. I wouldn’t mind trading up from 93 though. Would be awesome to land a top TE at 39 then trade up from 93 for Mingo

I think we should be able to find a starter at #39. If legit pass rusher is available (DE or DT) on the board when we pick we need to take him. I'd say the say the same thing for WR, LB, or CB. 

12 minutes ago, FieldsOverTheField said:

I'm not even a Fields fan, I don't think he is good, which is why CHI sticking w/ him over taking a flyer on a QB this draft is bad news

Fields is only entering his 3rd year. The Bears really couldn't afford to draft another QB in the 1st round. Fields showed improvement last. But, he isn't' a top 10 QB. I think you can make an argument his isn't even top 15. I can't imagine there's a huge trade market for him. It would have been bad for them to have two #1 QB's on their roster. Arizona moved on from Rosen pretty fast to draft Kyler Murray, but Rosen never looked like a legit QB. Fields has at least shown the ability to make big plays. I think they made the right decision to build around him. I just think the Bears have a history of making bad decisions on the offensive side of the ball...and they're QB's suffer for it.

26 minutes ago, FieldsOverTheField said:

 Eberflus / Poles have been there since '22

'historically' is irrelevant

A franchise history is never irrelevant; especially when you have an ownership that makes the same mistake over and over and over, etc.

The two highest rated QB's in Chicago History are Jay Cutler and Sid Luckman. The former had a decent career, but he was never a top 10 guy in the NFL. The latter, Luckman, was a stud...back in the 1940's 

Luckman retired before my 71 year old mother was born, and he still has more TD passes than any QB in Chicago history except Cutler...and he played at a time when teams rarely threw the football.

 Chicago unfortunately is a wasteland for QB's. That franchise has usually emphasized defense over offense; and running the ball over passing it downfield. I'm over 50 years old, and the Bears have only had 2 players on offense make the Hall of Fame in my football viewing lifetime: Walter Payton (RB) and Jimbo Covert (OL). The Bears had a chance to hire an offensive minded coach this past season to help their young QB. What did they do? They hired a defensive minded HC at a time when high powered with QB centered offenses are the current trend.

None of us are prophets, but I bet you Bryce Young will win, play in, or come close to making a SB in Carolina than Justin Fields ever will in Chicago.

55 minutes ago, rmoneyg35 said:

I wish they had limits on what players could get paid. If they are going to have caps then why not limits? Also they should make it to where teams resigning players they drafted don’t cost as much against the cap. I would love if they did something to where you could cancel contracts if a player gets hurt or doesn’t play up to expectations and it won’t hurt the cap.

A lot of people would consider the above statment blasphemous...but I understand your point of view.

If you, me , or others on this board were employed by a company and did a poor job we wouldn't shocked if we were dismissed or had our salary reduced b/c of poor performance. If we were injured or sick and placed on disabilty, we may get some money, but defintely not 100% of our usual salary. The idea of a guaranteed salary without any exceptions for inury and/or poor performance is ridiculous in the everyday world you and I live in. In the NFL you receive a salary bonus upfront and guaranteed minumum even though you may not ever come close to living up to the expectations the team had when the deal was signed.

And, to make make matters worse that contract counts against a salary cap that requires you to pay 52 other players. NFL economics have never made any since to me.

I think we've done a good job in free agency. We need to use this draft to get some immediate playmakers on the field. Whichever QB we choose at #1 is going to help right from the start. If a stud edge rusher, LB, WR, or DB is on the board at #39 we need to bite the bullet and pick the guy.

Like someone mentioned earlier, all of that trading down from the 2nd round in 2021 has yet to pay off. The moves resulted in one solid starter (Brady Christensen), a solid platoon RB (Chubba Hubbard), and a guy we still have no idea how good he is at WR (TMJ). 

7 hours ago, Tbe said:

He also said Corral was the best QB in the draft last year.

Kinda concerns me.

He still may be.

You can’t judge a guy based on one preseason game as a rookie under a Matt Rhule coached team.   Brock Purdy became somewhat of media darling last year. He led his team to the NFC title game despite being the last player taken in the 2022 draft and showed that he belonged in the NFL. He would have looked like every other QB who played in Carolina from 2020-2022…average/mediocrity to terrible/awful.

12 hours ago, MHS831 said:

that is fine--that is an opinion and you did not attack someone else for having one.   I agree, but we are still going to need a starting LB if we cut Shaq, and he seems to know the locker room and is trusted by members of the organization, for what that's worth.  I thought his contract was a bit excessive when signed, but considering the circumstances and where we are now, I get this move--I would not have been in position to have to make it, but I HATE creating dead cap and we are like second in the NFL in that category--like the player or not, dead cap cripples the team more.

By the way, I am of the mindset that you should never have a RB on a second contract---like in college, bring them in, keep them for 4 years, and when they age out, ship them out.  The reason?  At 26 the RB is in his prime.  At 27, they start declining (there is research on this).  by 30, they are usually ineffective (there are exceptions).  Few ever earn their second contract. 

As a general rule, I tend to agree. But, it's not always so cut and dry. I think the decison to go for a 2nd contract depends on two things:

1) The talent of the back. Some guys are just in a class by themselves. Eric Dickerson, Walter Payton, Tony Dorsett, John Riggins, Adrian Peterson, Curtis Martin. Emmitt Smith, and Barry Sanders all had 1,000 yard seasons after the age of 30. It would have made sense to extend them after their 4th year in the league when they were in the 25-27 age range. If they were playing today I'd definitely front load the deal so the cap numbers would be lower at the end of the contract just in case the inevitable drop off began prior to 30.

2) The number of carries/hits they've had. Years ago a couple of guys did a studies on the decline of RB's. They found it wasn't necessarily the age that caused the decline, but the number of carries the RB had. 

a) Most backs who get 370 carries in a season tend to experience a huge drop off the following year.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1271412-why-and-when-do-nfl-running-backs-start-to-decline#:~:text=The Curse of 370&text=A running back with 370,he is named Eric Dickerson.

b) When a back reaches 1,800 carries for a career there will often be a drastic drop off over the next two seasons.

https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/4940/measuring-nfl-running-back-longevity-falling-off-the-1-800-carry-cliff

A great back who averages 250 carries a year or less has a good chance of being productive for 7-8 seasons in the NFL before a drastic decline occurs.

NOTE: If the average age for back is 21-23 upon entering the league and he starts his rookie year, that does seem to coincide with the age 30-31 drop off point. The ideal situation seems to be finding a great back after the 1st round and extending him after the 3rd year (if he turns out to be elite) so the second contract ends before he reaches the 1800 carry/age 30 threshold. Or, getting a stud in round one and keeping him for the length of the 5 year deal, then franchising him for a season (or two) and have a replacement ready by the time he hits 28.

5 hours ago, Wes21 said:

Here's a little nugget...

...the Chicago Bears have never had a 4,000 yard passer.  Jay Cutler holds the season record with 3,812.

Jay Cutler played in Chicago from 2009-2016. He threw 154 TD passes which is the most in franchise history. Now take a look at who is behind him at #2.

SID LUCKMAN! This guy won 4 titles for the Bears back in the day. He was a top QB in his day and finished with 137 TD passes. He averages 8.4 yds per attempt, which would be stellar even in today's pass happy NFL. Here's the amazing thing about his rank on the Bears all time TD list. SID LUCKMAN retired in 1950! He literally retired the year before my nearly 72 year old mother was born (1951)!

No other Bear QB on franchise history has even reached 100 TD passes with the team. Billy Wade Is #3 (68 TDs) He played with Mike Ditka and Gayle Sayers back in the 1960s!  He left the Bears after the 1966 season. Jim McMahon is right behind him at #4 with 67 TDs. Mitch Trubimsky is at #5 with 64. 

There's a reason why Chicago has only won 2world titles (1963-Wade and 1985-McMahon) since LUCKMAN retired in 1950. They have struggled to acquire or develop a true difference maker at the position. History shows that going to the Chicago Bears is one of the worst things that could happen to a young QB.

2 hours ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Would have liked to have seen JR live long enough to witness the Carolina Panthers win a Super Bowl.

RIP JR

...or back to back winning seasons

It's ironic that shortly after we hire our first offensive minded HC, Mr. Richardson dies the following month. I had the opportunity to meet him once in Spartanburg at the Marriot Hotel. Pleasant Encounter. Condolences to the family.

804 Yards , 6 TD's, 67 receptions for the season

Per game average: 47.3 yards, 1 TD every 3 games, 3.9/4.0 receptions per game.

That's worth 18-20 million per year!! 

5 hours ago, top dawg said:

I'm thinking that if it wasn't for the injury, he might even be ranked higher than Levis or Richardson. He may not be ready ready until he's 27. That sounds like day three to me.

The most famous QB in Dallas Cowboy history, Roger Staubach, didn't enter the NFL until he was 27 due to a 4 year stint in the Navy. He didn't become a full time starter until age 29. I'm not saying Hooker is the 2nd coming of Staubach, but I don't think him entering the league at age 25 is in and of itself a big factor in determining how well he plays in the NFL. In fact, the older and maturity could turn out to be a huge positive in his favor.

2 hours ago, Khyber53 said:

We need to be heavily into the Carr interest, especially early on, if for nothing else to drive up the price.

He's a good guy and a good QB, and if we could have him for the right price, he'd be great here. We won't be able to get him for the right price, though, so we should do our best to make sure whichever one of the NFCSouth teams snags him, that there's a nice, hefty contract that will richly reward him and hamstring them for the next four to five years.

I don't see too many post on this forum that I consider  to be twisted and diabolical , yet clever and somewhat brillliant at the same time. 

None of us have a problems with drafting a QB in round 1. We just have issues on how it's done. No team has ever traded up into the top 5 to get a QB and won a Super Bowl with him. I'm sure it may happen one day. You may have a team that is a QB away and they get a guy to put them over the top. What you haven't seen, and will not see, is a bad team with weaknesses on both sides of the ball given away multiple picks in multiple years for a QB and win a SB. Those missing picks will prevent the team from fill the other holes and putting enough talent around him to win.

If we gave up a #1 pick in 2025, the next time we get a #1 pick (2026), the rookie we drafted in 2023 would be eligible for a contract negotiation after the end of his 3rd season, 2025. This will have a major impact on the salary cap should the team opt to extend him at that time.

19 minutes ago, joemac said:

No team in their right mind would pay any sort of high draft picks for Donald.  Hes had one foot out the door for a few years now.  He very well may retire in the next year or so.

Agreed. If the Rams did try to trade Aaron Donald (assuming he doesn't have a no trade clause) I bet he would retire before he'd go to an undesired location. I "could" see him agreeing to go to a team like KC (who wouldn't want to play for those guys right now), Pittsburgh (he went to college there), or a team with a championship window still intact (Bengals, Bills, Philadelphia). He's made enough money to last for several lifetimes. He could probably retire now and leave the games with no regrets and walk Canton in 5 years.

Guys like Richardson need good coaching to reach their potential. If Matt Rhule (or even Ron Rivera) were still calling shots I'd be terrified of drafting him in round 1 because I don't think either coach would handle him correctly. The thought of him playing under Reich, Caldwell, Brown, and McCown is a entirely different matter. Any QB they draft, sign, or mentor (Matt Corrall) is going to get better. That's why I'm totally cool with staying at 9 or maybe moving up a 2-3 slots at most.

43 minutes ago, panther4life said:

Depth is at the bottom of totem pole until we find a QB and that’s precisely the point that I’m making here. We’ve got to do whatever it takes to land a franchise QB, otherwise nothing else matters. 

38 minutes ago, panther4life said:

Bottom line is this, whether you think we have done drafting well in the first or you think we haven’t there’s no harm in trading 2 additional first in an attempt to go land a franchise QB. If we mismanage our first round picks anyway, then who cares if we give a couple away to go get our number 1 choice at QB. Or if you think we’ve done excellent at drafting in the first and it still leaves us as a bottom 5 team, then you should also see the value in letting a couple go to get a top QB.

Why save 2 first and take the 3rd-4th option left at QB unless you think this is a super deep class where multiple QB’s have a shot at becoming the guy we need. I suppose that’s possible but I’m ready to hedge out bets and not settle, let’s go get the best!

It's already been shown that trading up to the top 5 has never produced a Super Bowl winner yet people have deluded themselves into believing that's the only way to get a franchise QB. You don't need to get the top QB in the draft to have success in the NFL. You need to find a QB who is coachable, poised in pressure situations, and physically/mentally talented enough to execute the plays in a team's offensive playbook, and doesn't turn the ball over.

If a guy can do that, it doesn't matter where you find him. It can be top 5, top 10, round 2, round 3, or round 7 for that matter. There's nothing wrong with taking the 3rd or 4th option on the board if he can ball out on the field and fits YOUR OFFENSIVE SCHEME. Lamar Jackson was last pick in round 1 and last of the 5 QB's taken in his draft class. The mentality on this board at times seems to indicate that he wouldn't been considered by some here because he wasn't drafted in the top 5 like Baker Mayfield and Sam Darnold.

This is a long thread. If this has been posted I apologize. I found this on NFL.com. Bucky Brooks is a former player and scout. He's a knowledgeable guy. He has Hooker ranked #3 in this years QB class, just ahead of Levis @ #4. Both reports are worth reading because. Pros and Cons are listed. Both guys would benefit from the strong coaching staff Reich has assembled in Carolina.

https://www.nfl.com/news/bucky-brooks-top-five-2023-nfl-draft-prospects-by-position-1-0-stroud-young-hook

3 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Yea I believe they would because I’m not just going off stats, I’m watching every throw, every decision, every play I can find.  Their stats and wins might not be as impressive at a worse school but what you see them do on tape and videos would be.  The school and talent around then only affects the assessment if all you’re doing is looking at stats and wins.  No one on his team is helping Stroud throw perfect passes with pinpoint accuracy.  It helps the stat sheet when he has great receivers who catch those passes, but if you watch the plays you can see them do things that the others can’t. 

Good points. But, if he's playing behind an offensive line with 4 and 5 star guys he's going to have more time to throw. If he's throwing to 5 star receivers going up against 3-4 star DB's (or worse) he's going to have more guys open. If he has an NFL caliber RB in the backfield that makes him even more dangerous.

I think Young is the most polished QB coming out. That doesn't mean he'll end up the most successful QB in the NFL. So much determines the success of a QB: Draft destination, offensive scheme, front office, talent of skill players, O-line, and even the defense. A lesser talented guy coming out of the draft could end up with better career than the more talented guy just because he end up going to a team with a much stronger foundation.

8 hours ago, JawnyBlaze said:

If Chicago stays at 1, then I’d be ok just moving up to 3 even though I really prefer Stroud to Young. That might save us a 1st, or at least a 2nd to potentially get Young instead of Stroud. But if it’s looking like Chicago will trade to another team taking a QB, that team needs to be us.  The gap between Stroud/Young and Richardson/Levis is huge imo

That's the thing we really do not know. Stroud and Young play for perennial football powers. Every single year their recruiting classes are among the top 10 in the nation...and in most cases top 5. The reason certain teams always seem to be in the top 10 is because their roster is stacked with 4 and 5 star players. When QB's from those teams step on the field most of time they are more talented than the opposition. According to 247sports.com, BAMA and Ohio State are both in the top 5 for recruiting classes.

Will Levis played for Kentucky, a perennial BASKETBALL power. Kentucky can field some good teams, but we know they're never going to win a national championship because they can't even win the SEC EAST. When they go up against GA, BAMA, LSU, Florida, Tenn they are going to be outgunned in most years. My SC Gamecocks were good enough to beat Clemson and Tennessee in back to back weeks, and we still finished 3rd in the SEC East. Kentucky's recruiting class is #31 by 247sports.com

Ask your self this, would Young and Stroud be as dominant playing at Kentucky instead of BAMA and Ohio State? And, How would Levis look if he played on those teams instead of with the Wildcats? We really don't know the answer to either question. Still, I just don't see Bryce Young winning the Heisman Trophy at Kentucky. I am by no means a QB expert, but I have noticed that in recent years that some of the more productive 1st round QB's aren't coming from perennial powerhouse teams. (ex: Mahomes, Jackson, Herbert, Allen). All of the following have won SB's this century: Brees, Big Ben, Eli Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco. All were 1st rounders except Brees ( a high 2nd rounder). None of these guys mentioned above in either list played for a Blue Blood college program. Matt Ryan and Phillip Rivers didn't win SB rings, but both have had solid NFL career. They went to Boston College and NC State.

I'm more impressed with the guys who are able do more with less talent in the collegiate ranks. Those type of guys seem to thrive in the NFL. A great QB can do more with less in the pros. His play can elevate the team and help hide/overcome deficiencies that are bound to exist on team due to the crunch of the salary cap and the movement of players due to free agency.

28 minutes ago, FugginPoo said:

If the QB is franchise you do it and it’s not as bad as it seems because the QB is on rookie deal and instead of those draft picks you sign top tier free agents at positions of need with the savings

You're making a big assumption with this post. Let's not for get that Free agency is before the draft.

Why do you think "top tier" free agents would want to come to a team that hasn't had a winning record since 2017?

Why would top tier free agents get excited about coming to a franchise that has never had back to back winning seasons in its 28 year history?

Why do you think Carolina would be a dream destination for top tier free agents when we are currently several millions of dollars over the cap?

I don't think top tier free agents are dying to come to Carolina knowing that the only two QB's currently  on our roster are Matt Corrall and Jacob Eason?

We'll become a desired destination for "top tier free agents" when/if we establish a winning culture. Or, if someone out there is just thrilled with the prospect of playing under the new coaching staff (which I admit is possible).

We've got some nice pieces in place, but we need more. The draft picks we have in 2023 and 2024 really should lay the foundation for future success if we play our cards right. How successful can any franchise QB, or a potential franchise QB in our case, really be if you don't surround him with any good to elite talent at the skill postions or on the defensive side of the ball?

3 minutes ago, Jay Roosevelt said:

What options? Carr? Ryan Tannehill? Jimmy G?

That's the team-building equivalent to running a prevent defense with 2:00 left in the 4th quarter when you're up by 2.

Those guys aren't studs. We all agree on that.  Yet, even you will agree that as bad as the NFC South was last year, we probably would have won our division with any of those guys starting the majority of the games. We can probably win the division with one of them this year.