panthers320

From 2014:

Buzbee has previously gone billboard-big, too. According to his Instagram, in 2014 Buzbee put 10 billboards up around Houston with the message, “Keep Johnny football in Texas!” trying to get the Texans to draft Manziel, the former Texas A&M star and Heisman Trophy winner.

“… I put up 10 billboards up around Houston asking my neighbor Mr. McNair [former Texans owner Bob McNair] to draft the greatest college football player ever,” Buzbee wrote in the caption. “Obviously, it didn’t happen.”

I'd rather go after Adoree Jackson and not give up the 2nd round pick

36 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

My guess is that we're trying to sign him to a multi-year deal. If that fails I expect him to be tendered.

I read somewhere where he changed agents and there is a waiting period before a deal can be done after you change agents. I'm not sure when that waiting period is over but that could be part of the delay.

10 minutes ago, jayflip said:

In a sense that Burns, Chinn, Brown look to be studs, YGM seems to have potential. DJAX played well at times before the injury. I like our D right now A LOT more than I did a year ago at this time. 

Absolutely terrible article. This makes no sense to trade him away if Watson isn't coming back. I agree there are a lot of holes on the team. But a healthy CMC, a half way decent QB (which obviously is tough to do) and a growing D and we arent that far from contending. Also I would argue we would be a step closer to the Super Bowl with drafting a QB. 

Moral of this story, typical offseason BS

15 hours ago, BrizzMachete said:

11 tds and 9 picks in the c-USA is playing at a high level since when ? He had only one good year and that was this year then came up small against the best competition he faced against costal . I’m not buying it just don’t see it . He got a nice arm tho 

I didnt watch the CC game but looking at the stats of just one game is a tough way to judge a QB. If you just look at the stats from the Super Bowl you could say Mahomes choked in the biggest game. 0 TDs, 2 INTs and a 53 Rating. But he was under constant pressure and receivers were dropping balls. Im not advocating for or against Wilson just saying

26 minutes ago, top dawg said:

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but Samuel can legitimately play RB. That was his natural position coming out of college. Can you say the same for these guys?

Samuel is a nice route runner as well.

then take Felton from UCLA who was a RB who caught a lot of balls and is transitioning to WR. 

18 hours ago, Captain Morgan said:

meanwhile....

 

 

 

NFL Rumors & News

 

@nflrums

·

1m

 

Report: #Panthers are high on #Alabama QB Mac Jones he is looked at as someone that could develop behind Teddy Bridgewater and develop.

 

 

 

 

no idea who this person is, and he doesn't credit his "report."

He also said we are targeting Will Fuller, so we will see how reliable he is on that. And Washington is targeting Samuel 

3 minutes ago, Peon Awesome said:

He's actually pretty complimentary of the Panthers, saying we've had "a solid span of drafts", but I agree the analysis is lacking. I'd say trading up and drafting Little was the worst, followed by taking Butler in the 1st to ride the bench for 4 years. Both of those were more detrimental than anything that happened in the later rounds.

Especially when you consider Chris Jones went a few picks after Butler

Or understand how if we tell the jets to draft wilson and then we trade 2 1st for him it is considered different than if we traded 2 1st to the jets then drafted wilson. In both cases we give up the rights to 2 1st round picks and get wilson yet people on here consider the offers different (whether we give up multiple firsts or not)

2 minutes ago, Varking said:

You’re intentionally being difficult for the sake of arguing. 

No im not. I honestly dont understand how giving up 2 1st is not considered giving up multiple 1sts. If we traded up the jets would have control of multiple of our 1st round picks. We give up more than 1. I get one is a swap but then under that logic you consider watson a swap of a 1st and therefore we arent giving up multiple 1sts. 

19 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

The return is not irrelevant, it is the point of the entire matter.

Let's go back to the Jets and Wilson deal.  The moment I make that deal, how many picks do I have in the first round that year?  The answer is zero.  I have Wilson, but I did not pick him, I traded for him.

If that trade takes place before they select Wilson, how many picks do I have the moment the deal is final?  The answer is 1, just a higher pick than I had before. 

All we did was swap picks, with them being compensated for having the better positioned one.  It cost me a pick to trade picks. 

In 2004, San Diego picked Eli Manning, who said he did not want to play for them.  The Giants later picked Rivers.  They then traded the two players, and the Chargers also got a 3rd round 2004 pick, plus 1st and 5th round pick in 2005. 

Did the Giants trade 3 picks and a player to get Manning, or did they trade 4 picks?  Since the 1st round 2004 pick had a name, Philip Rivers, they traded 3. Had they made the trade before they picked Rivers, they would have traded 4.

 

The different scenarios end in the exact same result but you are just choosing to classify one as trading multiple 1sts vs not.

In both cases we have to give up 2 picks, its just whether its for Wilson or for the right to pick Wilson. At the end of the day we would end up with Wilson and the Jets would end up with 2 of our 1st round picks. I agree the net is 1 but at the moment in time before the Jets pick they would own multiple (more than 1) 1st round picks from the Panthers regardless of if we traded for a player or one of their picks. 

1 minute ago, BrizzMachete said:

Why would you gauge interest on someone who isn’t good ? I’m cool with seeing what the market is but usually when you reach out you have some type of interest in having that guy on the team . Idk they seem desperate like i said a couple weeks ago. Rhule came in and said we gonna rebuild this gonna take a while. Now they all over the place tryna rush the process which one is it ? 

This isn't the case but if they find out the Jets are wanting a 2nd for Darnold and they call the Eagles and find out they are wanting a 2nd for Wentz they can judge what the QB market is and they can use that as a base for what Watson/trading up for a QB is worth. Just helps them guage where the market is an what they might have to offer for someone they actually do want. 

Just now, blueandblackattack said:

Josh Allen = the exception to the rule

 

Allen was drafted 7th, the list only includes QBs taken in the top 5

2 minutes ago, BrizzMachete said:

I have to admit this front office is scaring me . I don’t like none of these qbs they hold in high regard . None of them . I bet we wanna trade the 8th pick for him too huh 

Fritterer is keeping true to his "we will be in on every deal". Doesn't necessarily mean we will make an offer on Darnold

1 minute ago, Sgt Schultz said:

But you aren't getting 1 pick back if that pick already has a name.  You are getting a specific player, even though he may have only been in the NFL for 2 minutes. 

If they call 15 minutes earlier and offer to trade us their #2 pick for our #8 and next years first rounder, what we did literally is swap picks and add in another as compensation for theirs being higher this year.  We can select anybody with their number 2 pick: Wilson, Fields, Sewell, or anyone. The choice is ours, even if we opt for Wilson.

The pick offers more flexibility than a specific player, even if ultimately they wind up being the same thing. 

That is, unless your GM is Marty Hurney.  He may use that #2 pick to select Drew Seers, LB, Lindenwood College.  If he is your GM, you probably do not want flexibility.  You probably don't even want the pick in the first place.

Ok what if we tell them hey if you pick Wilson/Fields/Lance we will give you 8 and next years 1st. 

The return is irrelevant because no matter what its going to turn into a player but at the end of the day you are giving up 2 1st round picks to get either a better 1st round pick or a player. But you are still giving up multiple 1st round picks. 

Under you logic the Rams when they traded up for Goff gave up a lot of picks but didnt give up multiple 1sts. 

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Gave you two, got one back so only lost one.

That's the nature of a trade. You can't look at only one side.

Again how is it any different giving up 2 1st to draft wilson or 2 1st to trade for watson. Either way you are giving up multiple 1sts to get 1 back. 

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I mean in simplest terms, think of it as something else.

We've all got a bunch of apples. I give you two of mine. You keep those but give me one of yours. I'm only out one apple.

It not being the same apple I gave up doesn't change that it's an apple.

But how many apples did you give me? Just one or multiple?

It doesnt happen in the NFL but say the Jets drafted Wilson at #2 then immediately turned to the panthers and said we will give you his rights for the #8 and next years 1st. In your logic we would be giving up multiple 1sts for him, but had we traded #8 and next year's 1st to the Jets before the pick was made and we made the pick ourselves we would not be giving up multiple 1st. Please explain that. 

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

I can't help you see this. Not within my powers.

I dont know how you can't see that in either case you are giving up 2 1st round picks. Its just the return that is different not the offer

Just now, kungfoodude said:

That is trading a player for picks. We get no 1st round pick in return for our first round pick(s).

but that 1st round pick turns into a player. Either way you would be trading away 2 1st for either a player or the right to select a player. 

Just now, kungfoodude said:

If we trade our #8 for a #3, we didn't "trade away" another first. We literally get one in return. 

So the cost of that pick swap was one first(2022), a third and a fifth.

you still traded away 2 1st round picks though

10 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I mean, sure but still.....

That is the first mentioned. Our #8 doesn't count, as it is a pick swap.

If we trade #8 and a future 1st for Watson it's multiple 1sts but if we trade #8 and a future 1st to move up to 2 its not multiple 1sts? Both are multiple 1sts

7 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I mean, sure but still.....

That is the first mentioned. Our #8 doesn't count, as it is a pick swap.

So you only consider it multiple 1sts if we trade away 3 1st round picks (this year and 2 future picks)?