Sgt Schultz

And on the subject of financing, SoFi (Rams, Chargers) was also privately funded. So while StubHub went away, SoFi replaced it. I was surprised Kroenke didn't fleece the taxpayers for more than just tax breaks out of that deal (he's not my favorite person). Privately funded with the NFL doing some of the funding. I think the tab for SoFi ran about twice the original estimate.

This stuff is pretty easy to find. About 3 minutes worth of a search finds that Metlife, StubHub (Chargers), and Gillette were all 100% privately funded. Levi's Stadium (49ers) was 88% privately funded. BofA was 77% privately funded. FedEx and Mercedes-Benz were both about 70% or more privately funded. Even the Jerry's Excess Palace in Arlington, TX was roughly 2/3rds privately funded. I don't like the idea of governments funding these things at all. The economics never work out the way teams and politicians advertise they will. And when they don't work out, they don't miss on the side of the taxpayers. But let's do some due diligence before we make claims that are so easy to disprove that even a caveman can do it.

Our QB depth chart defies the very definition of depth chart. Granted, most teams are screwed if their starting QB goes down these days, but, we take that to an extreme.

I also like the name "Stone" for an offensive lineman (Stone Forsythe, Seattle's 6th round pick).

I was thinking as I read the responses that he was clearly the "biggest" steal of the draft. And biggest of any draft since 1985 gave the world Refrigerator Perry.

Giving up his 8th year of eligibility> Does that equate to this:

I hope he does the number proud. It's been a few years since we had a CB that played like a mad dog.

I'm excited for anybody who can get the TE noticed on game day. I had hopes for Thomas, and he did nothing to justify that hope. Count me in the group that believes that lack of presence hurt our red zone and third down conversion results.

I don't do it just because a post says something I disagree with. Opinions vary. I don't do it when I think somebody has just made a fool out of themselves. That happens to everybody at one time or another. But there is a special brand of foolishness that is worthy. And you are right, it is rather therapeutic!

I've crapped on one post in the time I've been on this forum until today. I've given two posts in this thread the dung. It's not even worth going into the flaws in the OP. People have already hit on them. All we need is Linville to give the OP a lesson in the opportunity cost of Fields vs. Darnold and Horn, because that is what it is. Even then, he probably does not think we need a secondary, probably don't need an OL, we only need a QB that he wants. Guess what: they didn't draft who I would have grabbed in the first or second rounds, either. I liked Fields, and with Sewell off the board I would have been okay with it. He would not have been my pick (most likely Slater), and I initially scratched my head at Horn. But, I read their reasoning and get it. They had their draft board, assessed the values of each player, and went with their research. Not one guy's research, the collective work of several people who have some idea of what they are doing. I'll roll with it. If you (generic you) are so bound up on YOUR view of what the team should have done that your shorts are this much in a bunch over it, move on. Sports is entertainment. If it gets you that wound up, find another form of entertainment that doesn't. Life is too short. Otherwise, does anybody know the record for most piles of poo in one OP? This has to be on the short list.

Other than the last sentence, it sounds like Brett Favre. And no, I am not predicting Favre's level of success for Darnold. I am also hoping Darnold does not have Favre's penchant for boneheaded throws in big games. Somewhere in the middle of the good and bad would be a pretty good settling point.

Power rankings at this point are pretty useless. I don't give them much credence once the season starts until six or so games in. I'm sure some computer whiz-bang and stats maven could come up with a system based on numerical ratings or each player in the league, track the comings and goings, and come up with a power rating based on the current roster at any given time. Problem is, even that would be speculative since the player ratings would be based on last year or some guess about how rookies will perform. All I know is that computer whiz-bang and stats maven will not include me! It is interesting for conversation, though.

Let's give SCP the clap!

I was not happy about that move, either, but I followed my own advice and looked at the draft as a whole, once it was done. This is an outrage. We never had that sort of drama when Hurney was making the picks. After the first round, everybody was in an uproar. Sort of like Philly these days, apparently.

Roseman sort of has 8 x 10 glossies on Lurie over the Chip Kelley hostile takeover. How far that gets him remains to be seen. In some ways, it is almost like the Hurney to Gettleman to Hurney musical chairs, only the owner who thinks he has egg on his face is still in place. Thankfully, not here.

I completely agree. What this draft showed me is the Panthers organization has added a dimension to their thinking we have not seen before. Most fans, and our organization historically, have seen the draft choice as two-dimensional. The first is whether somebody should be on the chart, the second is their ranking/priority against everybody else on the chart. We have added the dimension of their value relative to where we are picking. So, as our picks approached, they looked at who was next our chart and what he was worth. If he was not worth the pick we were going to use, we were not going to fire away (or worse, trade up to get him before someone else swoops in, as somebody infamous in these parts would have done). We will (and did) trade down to either have our pick mesh with our valuation of the prospect, or trade down further, potentially miss out on our next guy, and pick up the chart after him somewhere. That's how you enter a draft with 7 picks, wind up with 11 players out of it, and don't have people wondering what you were thinking by drafting a prospect well ahead of where they seemed to be worth. The Dolphins played this game before the draft, assessing their board and trying to figure out how to get positioned get one of their top two or three at a suitable value and pocket a bounty of other picks. On the opposite side, think of the Raiders picking Leatherwood at #17. I liked Leatherwood a lot coming into this draft.....in the second round. Not so much at #17. The Pats liked Jones enough to pick him at #15. Would they have taken him at #7, if that was the pick they had, or would they have pulled a Miami and traded down a few slots to get him at a more palatable price and pocket something else in the process? I don't know that the Panthers didn't have Slater or Fields on the draft board, but if they did, they didn't have them valued as highly as I did. That's fine since they are paying the tab, so to speak, and have forgotten more about this stuff than I will ever know. Then add to the fact that a lot of people looked at the "Big Four" and maybe Jones as one pool. I've said this on other threads, but it is very likely that almost nobody was interested in all four/five of them. Most probably were interested in two or three, the only difference being who the two or three of the four or five were.

It is a little aggravating. I like to not murder the King's English, and sometimes I fail. By the time I get done scratching my head at what I said, it is too late. At first, I thought maybe it was linked to someone quoting the post, but then I realized I don't say anything important enough for anybody to quote.

You about gave me a heart attack, Mr. Scot. The mention of a name that was familiar brought to mind a certain person who seemed to have nine lives in the Panther organization.

Gawd, I'm old. I remember Joe Delaney and his death. The guy was a great player and left us as a hero, and that is not a word I throw around lightly.

Here's what I think it boils down to. We had a draft board of players we were interested in. As our pick neared, the next guy on the board was not worth the pick we had. So, we traded down. Maybe we lose the next guy or two or three, but in the end, we wind up not spending the #38 pick on a guy who is worth about the #52 pick. In the process, they got more picks. Maybe not prime picks, but picks they could make use of. That takes discipline. In the past, we would salivate over somebody who was a legitimate third round pick, get nervous that somebody was going to grab him before we did (aka overpay), and do something stupid. Personally, I would have grabbed Slater in the first, and if for some reason we didn't, hang with where we were and grab Eichenberg or Jenkins in the second. Guess what? They saw it differently than I did. The kicker: they have forgotten more about these guys than I will ever know, so I will have some faith in their judgement. It is their profession. If they ever start talking about aviation, I hope they call me because I guarantee, I have forgotten more than they will ever know. But in football talent assessment and "the plan," I owe them that same courtesy.

CB is one of the tougher positions to make the transition from college to the NFL. The average NFL WR is better than most of the best they saw in college. They consistently run better routes, are faster, and the ball gets to them at the most opportune time. In college, that would happen once in a great while. Usually, the ones who make an immediate impact are faster than lightning. Deion Sanders was generally awful technically. He couldn't tackle an got out-muscled by physical receivers. What he could do is read the play and close on the ball. Speed makes up for a lot of evils in that position.

I love this quote from PFF Draft: Carolina just drafted the largest human on Earth, Deonte Brown. He didn't allow a single sack at Alabama.

If you look at our recent history (say about 10 years), our coverage has almost always been a soft, bend-but-don't-break zone. This past year it was almost certainly because it was the only thing our talent in the secondary could do. In our 2015 run our defense was not only often stifling, but also good at creating turnovers and often producing points off those turnovers while the offense was on the sidelines. This was largely because Norman was in the face of the opponent's best receiver. That allowed the safeties to cheat toward the other matchups, which made the soft zone much less soft. I don't know if any of our DBs is Norman in 2015 (but not subsequently), but Horn is certainly closer to Norman in 2015 than anyone since. I don't know anything about Taylor, but from what I read, it is worth the shot especially in round 5. If they can help the defense get off the field after a 3rd and 16, it is an improvement. Who knows, maybe we can even get off the field after a 3rd and 6!

I think you are correct. I expected Detroit to pick a WR with #7, so I was waiting eagerly, too. Then, poof.

The issue with Okung is how many game we would get out of him if we do bring him back. When he's on the field, he's fine. But he has played 13 games over the last two seasons. Unfortunately, he forces us to have depth whether we want it or not. And for whatever reason, this team does not seem to want depth at LT. I sometimes wonder if their solution is to just not have a LT.