Peon Awesome

4 hours ago, WhoKnows said:

Huh? The Burns impact wouldn’t have made them Super Bowl contenders in 2022. They finished worse than us. They also rolled over $450k in cap to 2023. They would have had to make changes as Burns’ 5th year option was more than their 2023 space.

I think McVay might have hung them up as well. Considering their poor 2022 season and the fact that they’d be missing their 1st and 2nd in 2023 and both 2024 and 2025 1sts, he might have decided not to come back.

The 2023 draft the Rams had was fantastic. They got 4 above average starters. I don’t think I’m wrong to say that not having any cap space and not having pick 36 could have easily changed their draft from fantastic to decent. If the Rams didn’t have that draft because of the Burns trade, they easily would have been a non-playoff team. Burns absolutely would have had less impact on their team than 4 plus starters, two of whom had as many or more sacks than Burns in 2023.

You make a couple fair points. But there are some points of clarification. For one, I wasn't suggesting they'd be super bowl contenders in 2022 but 2023, considering they weren't that far without him. Although its fair to think they might have won an extra game or two with him and pick 36 could have been more like pick 42.

Also, Burns didn't have to have as big of an impact as 4 starters, just pick 36, since they only traded pick 36. So my point is they could have made the same draft picks in the other rounds and signed a free agent guard and been in the same position. Also, the Rams don't trade 2 1sts and a 2nd and not sign Burns to a long-term contract. They're not going to let him play on his 5th year contract. His 2023 hit would've been modest and they wouldn't have had to make much of any extra sacrifices to fit him in.

On 3/5/2024 at 11:52 AM, WhoKnows said:

Only the “you aren’t an NFL GM” or “how can we possibly replace Burns” idiots couldn’t see the fleecing we could have done to the Rams. Heck, we’d probably have a better 1st. They found a solid starting G at 36. We might have messed up their entire draft.

Honestly it's a moot point but I think you're way off on this point. The Rams could easily find a serviceable free agent guard. Letting Burns feast next to Aaron Donald would have likely made them super bowl contenders. They barely lost to Detroit with a substandard pass rush. I could see Burns easily having 15+ sacks with Donald commanding triple teams. 

Don't get me wrong; even if the Rams won the super bowl every year with Burns, it'd still be good value for the Panthers so its definitely a big mistake that we turned it down. But people here kept saying the Rams would have been giving us top 10 picks. They already showed how wrong they were this year with the Rams making the playoffs and that's even without Burns impact.

11 hours ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

I think the right call is to let him walk and get the comp pick.  Both the team and Burns could use a break up.  The opportunity to move him has passed us by.  Just accept the sunk cost and move on.

This is probably the worst possible thing we can do. Best case in that scenario is we lose Burns, have to sit out free agency completely to not negate the comp pick and then get essentially the last pick of the 3rd round in 2025. The only viable options are tag and trade or sign to a long term extension. You're deluding yourself if you think we can't do better than what's essentially a 2025 4th round pick if we tag and trade him. 

Patrick Willis getting in pretty much guarantees Luke will get in. Not sure if he'll be 1st ballot but that'd be great. I'm not going to squabble if he doesn't get in till his 2nd year if some people penalize him for his short career. But it's obvious the committee values dominance over longevity which bodes well.

7 hours ago, CPantherKing said:

Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, Reggie Wayne, Tory Holt, Hines Ward & Steve Smith should all be ahead of Andre Johnson.

Fitzgerald is a slam dunk first ballot hall of famer but he's not eligible yet. The others are a legitimate argument. I think there's just a logjam of comparably deserving candidates. 

10 hours ago, PanthersATL said:

 

interesting that NBC and CBS didn’t participate.

Not too surprised. They've got a lot of money invested in their original content on their own platforms (Peacock and Paramount+). If anything, staying out of this strengthens those services. Many people who only have cable for sports may opt to cancel their cable and sign up for this, Peacock and Paramount+ to make sure they don't miss any big sporting events. Fox doesn't have a paid streaming service and this can't get off the ground without ESPN since they have over 50% of the sports market, so makes sense those 2 would partner up.

The problem hasn't been Tepper stubbornly refusing to learn from his mistakes. Tepper's time has been a string of mistakes followed by a 180 shift that still fails. For instance, he hires a college coach with almost no NFL experience with a staff with almost no NFL experience, and then proceeds to hire Frank Reich, a highly experienced coach who assembled an experienced legitimate NFL staff. He was criticized for holding onto Rhule too long, so then he fires Reich midway through his 1st season. He also went  from a couple retread veteran QBs to going all-in for a rookie. 

I think Tepper has shown he's willing to adapt. Just seemingly every move has stunk. I mean, if we take this example and let's say Canales fires Evero and replaces him with an absolute dud of a coordinator, I'm not going to applaud Tepper for being hands off. Bottom line, we need results, no matter how we get them.

12 hours ago, tukafan21 said:

Sure, but then when he fails because Bryce is garbage, he'll never get another HC job again and will be a QB coach and/or OC making peanuts compared to HC's.

If he takes half the money but goes to the Chargers where he has a franchise QB and other pieces and becomes a consistent winner, he'll end up making so much more money in his career.

The guy is only 37, I don't think he wants to get paid for the next 5-7 years, he wants to be a HC for the next 25-30 years.

This is an argument that bears out theoretically but not in reality. There's a reason guaranteed money is such a big deal. In your worst case scenario, Johnson gets $80 million for 1 year of work. He gets fired and either retires comfortably for the rest of his life if he wants or picks up a premium offensive coordinator position immediately if he wants to keep working.

Or he can make half that money working in a position where 1/4 of the coaches get fired every year and coaches staying with the same team for more than 8 years is increasingly rare. Where best case scenario, he works 10 years to make what he made in 1 year in scenario 1, which is already more than he would spend in his lifetime.

We need a great coach and a great playcaller. They don't need to be the same person. People seem too stuck on the head coach having to call plays but that's absolutely not necessary and sometimes detrimental when it causes the coach to be overstretched. 

Two of the biggest turnarounds in recent history don't have offensive coaches: Houston and Detroit. 4 of the best coaches of this generation are not offensive: Mike Tomlin, John Harbaugh, Bill Belichick and Pete Carroll. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't hire an OC as the next head coacb. I'd be super excited if we could nab Ben Johnson. I just don't think we should be completely hellbent on hiring an OC that we essentially rule out hiring a DC from the jump. We just need to make sure any new head coach has a plan to bring along a promising offensive coordinator to fix this offense.

Most of our problems seem to be us course correcting too much in the other direction. Reich is one of the prime examples. 

First we hire Rhule, someone with no NFL experience who hires all his friends basically with little experience to flesh out the staff. So we get enamored with Reich, an experienced former head coach with a clear vision for an experienced and respected coaching staff.

Now take the Bryce pick. We spent 2 years trying out failed qbs from other teams so now we decide to go all in moving up to #1 for our own guy, giving away our next first and our one good offensive skilled player in DJ Moore.

I'd be wary of firing Reich and making Evero the head coach unless you're prepared to take the interim tag off him at year's end. Otherwise we're looking at a Wilks type situation again. Evero has been one of the few bright spots on this team, keeping the defense playing tough despite injuries to some of our key players and the offense putting them in horrible positions with turnovers and multiple 3 and outs. I have to think they'd lean offensive coach for a new head coach so making Evero interim most likely means we lose him altogether. Obviously I'm massively disappointed in the team but at this point this year is lost so I'd focus on setting us up for the best situation next year rather than trying to turn around this one.

1 hour ago, pantherj said:

Yeah Icky gets help, but that comes at a cost. Helping him makes our offense less efficient, but not helping him places Young in extreme danger.

I'd happily sacrifice Hayden Hurst's 2 catches for 15 yards to give Bryce some breathing room against the pass rush.

The problem in these discourses seem to be that people either overstate the implications of this data or argue that they are 100% meaningless. The truth is obviously somewhere in between. This graph says 2 things: Bryce Young throws to open receivers less than any other QB in the league, but when he does, the throw tends to be accurate. That doesn't mean he's an elite qb, it just means what it means. It clearly beats the alternative that he tends to misfire wildly even when the receiver is open. If so, this would be a lost cause. But at least now you say, "Let's at least try to get him a receiver or two with a proven track record of getting separation." It's still possible we do that and he doesn't process the field appropriately, doesn't spot them or throws it too late after they're covered. But at the very least, we have to try so we know for sure if Bryce can ever be the guy.

Finally, those trying to argue the fact that this graph doesn't correlate to who is great or terrible, or for instance to the person saying Bryce is close to Herbert on the graph and Herbert is way better. Of course; the elite qbs aren't the ones that only make throws when receivers are wide open. They are the ones that can make something out of nothing. Herbert is doing a ton more with the 65% of throws the receiver is not open than Bryce is doing with his 75%. So I agree that this is not a graph of eliteness. But that doesn't mean it's meaningless. Bryce may never be a top 10 qb but if he stays a hyperaccurate qb when receivers are open, we have to potential to be a successful team if we can get those receivers open more often.

I have no problem with this. Presumably he wasn't offering any premium picks or the deal would've been done. Trying to low ball for proven wide receivers when that's one of our biggest needs is what I would hope our GM would be doing. People overvalue picks, especially past the 1st round. I imagine we offered like a 3rd for Davante. I don't care if he's 30 years old, I'd rather have a 30 year old Davante Adams than DJ Johnson or Matt Corral. And even if he's going to be way past his prime by the time we are ready to compete, there's value in putting talent around Bryce Young to see definitively what we have with him rather than wonder how much better he might be with all the pieces.

For those saying Sweat is better than Burns, I'm sure a valid argument can be made. But Burns has 2 pro bowl selections to Sweat's zero, playing the same position in the same conference. So there's definitely the perception in the league that Burns is the better player and it's accolades like pro bowl selections that carry more weight at the negotiating table than PFF ratings. So unfortunately I think the starting point at negotiations has to be at least a little higher than Sweat's deal.

They definitely tried to mix it up and call some plays downfield but if anything it only emphasized why our offense has been so heavy on screens and short passes. It seemed like every single successful play downfield came out of a broken play with Bryce scrambling away from pressure. When we actually tried to get a designed pass downfield, the receivers were almost always completely blanketed in coverage, leading to Bryce getting pancaked by a defensive lineman or two while looking for someone to get open. 

The other part of this that gives you some hope with Bryce is that he's been steadily playing better despite nothing else around him being noticeably better: ongoing poor offensive line play, same limited receiving corp, unimaginative playcalling. So to think of the potential when those other elements come together (hopefully) inspires some optimism for the future.

This is when you find out if the demons from the Falcons game have been fully exorcised.

NFL players have such a limited window to earn money. Basically their one shot at a big payday is their second contract, where they're not only in their prime but no longer constrained by the rookie salary structure. For Horn to sabotage that and likely sacrifice what could be in the range of $100 million just so he doesn't have to play in Carolina anymore makes zero sense. No one is going to throw a big guaranteed contract to someone who misses 50% of games in their career.

A much more logical question might be, are the Panthers being overly cautious in keeping Horn on IR during a seemingly lost year with the added benefit of depressing his 2nd contract value and keeping him fresh for a future where we might have more to play for? I don't think that's likely either but seems a thousand times more plausible than what the original post is asking.

40 minutes ago, ncfan said:

If it were only 1 mil sure.

but we’re talking 10-15 mil.

which ain’t worth holding onto a mid CB for that

10 mil in cap plus a 6th would be absurd to turn down for Donte.

https://overthecap.com/calculator/carolina-panthers

Also about 90% of the cap savings will come next year. I'd rather trade him in the offseason when we can have a plan to replace him through free agency/draft/etc. Trading him now when we basically have no one to replace him and no means to replace him, only to save an extra $1 million compared to trading him after the year is over doesn't make sense. Our games will be even more unwatchable counting on CJ Henderson as our #1 CB.

13 minutes ago, ncfan said:

If it were only 1 mil sure.

but we’re talking 10-15 mil.

which ain’t worth holding onto a mid CB for that

10 mil in cap plus a 6th would be absurd to turn down for Donte.

https://overthecap.com/calculator/carolina-panthers

The overall savings does make it more of a consideration although when I do the math using that link it looks to be around $7.4 million (Roughly $1.4 million saved this year since we're a little over a 3rd of the way through the year, plus $6 million saved in 2024).

I guess the point being that outside corners are not easy to replace compared to a WR4 or OLB/safety and given a late draft pick has a better chance than not of being cut within 2 years in the league, we're basically banking on replacing Donte for less than $7 million, which as quickly as contracts are inflating, isn't a foregone conclusion. I'm with Fitterer in that I wouldn't be in a rush to ship him off for a late pick unless we had a built in replacement on the roster and we don't unless Horn suddenly becomes reliably healthy. 

The point is that the potential return on Donte wouldn't be worth the loss. Don't be obtuse. Saving $1 million in cap space to get back something like a 6th round pick when we have zero cb depth as is would be an absurd decision. 

Buying extra low on a disgruntled receiver who already showed flashes he can still be a bona fide #1 this year? OK. Giving away 2 young defensive pieces or alternatively any meaningful draft capital? Heck no.

Barnwell has Davante as worth a 2nd rounder due to his age and massive contract. Would they take our 3rd rounder since it'll basically be a late 2nd? Maybe if the stink gets big enough. I'd definitely consider that to expedite Bryce getting weapons and developing. But more than that? Nah.

It's the epitome of Huddle arrogance to think as a fan you've got your finger on the pulse of the league better than a guy who spends his life analyzing the NFL. If you read the rest of the article the assessments seem pretty on cue. I think we need to acknowledge how much we undervalue our players. DJ Moore and McCaffrey are recent reminders of that. 

1 hour ago, Jaxel said:

I mean Bryce Young will not be traded, so no idea why he would even be listed. No one is giving up on a QB they just payed out the nose on after 5 games.

The article is just trying to assess players' values. He's not factoring in whether the team would actually make the player available. To drive the point home, he has Patrick Mahomes on the list for the Chiefs.