BrianS

I agree with the basic premise, which to me is "We need a franchise QB". Our struggle is that we just aren't in a position to acquire an established franchise QB. I find it hilarious how many fans keep up the farce that we can. Our only path to an established QB is through a trade that SOMEHOW involves TB5. Can you see *any* of those teams saying "Sure, send us Teddy!" There is just no way. Likewise, with Bridgewater here there is just no way we can put an established QB on the roster.

How many of you Watson dreamers have looked at our cap? Any trade we do MUST include Teddy. I don't know how you make that deal work. Yes, we can cut KK - will cut KK. That will help. We'll cut Weatherly, and that will help a bit. But we have a (*&#TON of holes to fill. We have Moton to resign. We need a franchise QB . . . Watson is a franchise QB . . . unfortunately there isn't a lot we can do about it. DeShaun may be willing. The Texans may be willing . . . ish. What they won't do is take Bridgewater. They will rightfully want something much more meaningful. Two firsts and a player is the starting point. But we need to unload Bridgewater and they know that, so it will cost us EVEN MORE to do the deal with him involved.

Also, not a possibility. I would love to be wrong. I'm not.

This: Isn't nearly as important as this: When it comes to clutch "franchise QB" play.

This is completely wrong. Curtis being as good as gone here has nothing to do with what he did before this season and EVERYTHING to do with what he did in 2020. There is zero chance he's back. Curtis will command $10 million . . . even if it is just a one year deal. Funchess got $10 million and was never REMOTELY the threat that Curtis showed himself to be. SOMEONE will offer him the money and it won't be us.

Detroit / Holmes. What a (&*@# show that looks to be. I really feel for Stafford. Dude had all the tools but never the team.

And threw it fine this year.

Could be that Rhule told him he'd have to compete, where Pittsburgh said "You'll have the chance to be the heir apparent". We'll never know.

So, the Cam Newton years all over again?

Sirianni hire makes it VERY unlikely they go QB in the first. They clearly want someone to fix Carson. I can't blame them, they are already in a terrible cap spot and Carson's contract is an albatross.

So he's going for laughingstock or amazing success. Got it.

Our system is actually pretty friendly to a rookie QB. Good RB. Lots of checkdown options. High YAC receivers.

I'd rather find the long term solution to our problem than keep stringing "bridge" QB's through the organization. Make no mistake, that's all Stafford would be. YES. He would make us better. But when you really need a long term solution at QB, that's actually NOT a good thing. This draft class currently has the appearance of a VERY strong class at QB. We have a relatively high pick. Get a QB. Let TB5 do his thing until the staff feels like our guy is ready than throw him in. If he fails, try again.

I do agree with this, but I just worry that if our city council decides to take that stance the elected officials in upstate South Carolina won't hesitate to give the help Tepper asks for. It's a very difficult situation for them. Do you want to be the ones in charge when the Panthers move to Rock Hill? Yikes.

I suspect Tepper wants to turn BoA into a soccer / concert stadium and build a new stadium for the Panthers. BoA is a great stadium, no doubt, but it seems clear that our front office wants to build.

I did this math a while back. Round 1 QB's generally make it about 50% of the time (48% to be exact) over the last 25 years. Round 2-7 QB's generally make it about 11% of the time over the last 25 years.

This guy here . . . he might not be as bad as we're led to believe. He does kinda have a reputation as a gunslinger, but I'm not sure it's deserved. His INT% rate is 2.3 for his career . . . while career "game manager" Alex Smith is at 2.1 and Checkdown Teddy is at . . . 2.3. Completion % is at 64% . . . vs 63 and 66. I would be very curious to see someone like that play in our system. Just not sure how we make that work, nor would I want to lose our #1 to find out.

Pretty sure you can only designate two for post-June 1. The third you would have to wait until it's actually June. I don't expect Shaq to get cut, either designated or in reality to June 1. Shaq is solid, just not outstanding. I honestly don't expect Paradis to get cut either. Paradis was much better this year, but still average. While both have relatively high numbers, the chance that you will find a replacement of like value for what you SAVE is not very good. Our cap isn't wonderful, but it's improving. We only have about 30 players who would have ongoing cap ramifications if cut, out of 58 players under contract. This coming season looks like the last one of "The Purge".

Luke is definitely in. The Hall would lose all credibility if he was snubbed. He's the GOAT. End of story. He was the best defender in the league every year he played, not only for his production, but for the way he made players around him better.

That's what I was thinking, I just didn't say it as well. Not that he should transition to slot completely, just that we should consider forcing uncomfortable matchups for the defense with him in that position. Every snap and touch he gets like that is far less punishing than running him into the pile.

My hope for CMC is that we start using him more as a slot receiver. It puts the ball in his hands, which is something we want, but gets him less banged up. I understand CMC is *capable* of running between the tackles, but is that really the best use of his talents? Let Mike Davis or someone else take that punishment. I want to see CMC play for years to come, he's too much fun to watch. Not sure if we'll do that, but anything we can do to lower the punishment he takes and extend his career should be investigated and considered.

Not even close to the same thing. Cam has always been a polarizing figure in the fan base, for better or for worse. Greg was CLEARLY on a downhill slide. Luke was unavoidable. You can look back a year later and say both Cam and Luke were let go for football reasons. You think that will be true of Watson or Watt? Unlikely.

This little nugget right here isn't getting enough attention, and it applies to both parties involved assuming that the trade involves players on both sides, which it likely will. Pretty sure that if you trade a player, you have to eat the remainder of the signing bonus immediately. That's 20 million for DeShaun, and Houston is already 19 million over the cap. The easiest thing for them right now is to cut JJ Watt. Brandin Cooks also looks precarious. Now, can you imagine being the owner in Houston telling your fanbase, yea, we're getting rid of JJ Watt and DeShaun Watson? Brutal.

If the Raiders dump Carr we should absolutely bring him in. Dude is legit.

Talking about compensatory picks is a cart before the horse argument. You know what our real issue is? Hitting on our draft picks in the first place. The more draft picks you hit on to begin with, the greater your chances of losing someone who becomes a free agent. Teams that draft well tend to get more compensatory picks over time because they bring in a lot of talent. The salary cap "forces" the talent to spread out across the league to the extent that it can, which is what triggers those compensatory picks. It generates a snowball effect for teams that draft well. You get more picks, therefore bring in more players, and when drafting well, you bring in more players which you cannot keep all of. So you lose some players, but get compensatory picks for them, taking you back to the beginning of the cycle where you bring in more good players. The bottom line is we simply need to draft better top to bottom, and the compensatory picks will take care of themselves.