Mage

How does that not more or less prove what I'm saying? It falls down to luck. The same team you are praising for drafting Aaron Rodgers, also drafted scrubs like Brian Brohm, Huntley, and in all likelihood, Love. I mean you really think the Patriots drafting Tom Brady has anything to do with anything other than mostly luck? Get real lol if the Patriots had any idea Brady would turn out the way he did, he wouldn't have fell to the 6th. Yeah sure they probably had a solid evaluation on him vs other teams, but again it was a lucky pick that they ended up with the GOAT. You made a post implying smart teams can do it in 1 pick. I replied giving you examples of organizations who needed to trade up to get the guy they want. It comes down to luck and where you are at in the draft. Yes you can obviously get a guy later in the draft, but your chances of hitting are greatly diminished. Then for some reason you responded saying, "smart teams have to make the right evaluation," as if that was ever what was being disputed. But yeah I'm "arguing for the sake of arguing," when my initial post was me just giving you a list of examples of teams lol And why don't you answer my questions? You said teams that need to use less resources to get their QB are smarter than teams who do. So are the Bengals, who fell into the #1 overall pick, a smarter team than the Bills? And don't try and backtrack and add context now, considering this is what you flat-out said: This is a point-blank statement made by you, suggesting that it makes you smarter if you can get a QB while expending fewer resources. Bengals used fewer resources to get said QB than the Bills or Chiefs did. So the Bengals are smarter. Correct?

And you know what I meant when I said stop trying to switch the conversation. Nothing to do with offering different viewpoints than mine, but all to do with the fact that I made a post responding to something you said, and you respond by basically changing what the convo was about. Never had anything to do with the actual evaluations these teams make, and it had all to do with your post implying that there is something wrong or that it is a black mark on an organization to give up a lot of picks to get a QB. If you have a good team, in all likelihood you aren't picking top 10, and in all likelihood you have to be aggressive to get a QB. But please explain to us how that makes a team like the Chiefs less intelligent than the Jaguars. Chargers only needed 1 pick to get their QB. This means they are obviously smarter than the Bills. No context needed whatsoever!

But that wasn't the conversation! You said smart teams only need 1 pick. I gave you countless examples of teams using more than 1 pick to get their guy, teams who would be considered "smart". You do this crap all the time. The conversation was never about teams needing to be smart in their evaluation of QBs. That is obvious... but you have a thing about stating the obvious, again that's your schtick and I get it. However my initial post was responding to your suggestion that smart teams only need 1 pick. "Smart teams can get the right guy with just one." The draft capital you use to get a QB has no bearing on your intelligence. Again, are the Chiefs less intelligent than the Jags? Bills less intelligent than the Chargers? 49ers less intelligent than the Ravens? If you are in a position to get a QB only using one pick, it is usually because you are drafting in the top 10. It has nothing to do with your front office being "smarter" than others. Which was the CONVERSATION. Not "smart teams make better evaluations about QBs than other teams."

Bro, why do you always try to switch gears lol I merely gave you several examples of how teams used a multitude of picks to get their guy, when you suggested that "smart" teams only need 1 pick. The conversation was never that teams need to be smart about the QB they are targeting. It was about the amount of draft capital teams used to get QBs. Yes you still need to make good evaluations. But there is no right or wrong way to go about getting your franchise QB - all that matters is you get them. You are 100% dead wrong to suggest that "smart" teams only need 1 pick. It is all dependent on where you fall in the draft and the strength of the QB class that determines what you will need to give up to acquire a desired QB. Are the Chiefs less smart than the Jags because they needed to trade up for Mahomes? How about Bills? Are they less intelligent than the Chargers? But you have your schtick and I get it.

In today's NFL, odds are if you want a QB, you either need to flame the hell out (Bengals, Jags) or be aggressive as hell (Rams, 49ers, Chiefs). There is nothing wrong with trading picks for an elite QB. They are that worth it. Look at the Bengals last year vs this year, and Burrow ain't even close to his peak yet.

It has nothing to do with being "smart." It is about being in the right position. The Chiefs traded extra picks for Mahomes. Texans traded extra picks for Watson. Bills traded extra picks for Allen. Rams traded for Stafford. Bucs got lucky that Brady wanted to go there. 49ers traded picks for Jimmy. They just traded picks for Lance. If you are in a position to grab your guy without trading anything (Chargers/Herbert), great. But finding a QB isn't a smart team/bad team thing. It really is mostly luck. There are countless examples, as the one I just used, that show there are more than one way for "smart" teams to get a QB. Sometimes you have to be aggressive.

To answer the other question, I would not trade guys like Herbert, Jackson, Allen, etc. for 3 1st round picks unless I somehow was already in a position to draft another highly touted QB (for whatever reason) and/or said QB was trying to force their way out. I don't think there really is a fair value on a QB of that level. We've never seen a young true franchise QB traded in his prime before, not in recent memory anyway.

How good of a franchise QB are we talking? Are we talking Kirk Cousins / Ryan Tannehill level of franchise QB? Then if so, nah. Are we talking Herbert / Jackson / Allen level of franchise QB? If so, then hell freakin' yeah they are worth 3 1st round picks. It is a bit trickier dealing with the draft though, as you just never know with a QB. I don't think I would spend 3 1st round picks to trade up unless I was absolutely convinced about said QB. I don't think I would have done it for Trey Lance - was not a fan of his film, very inaccurate. But I understand why the 49ers made the move. I would have traded 3 1sts for Joe Burrow. Lawrence too.

And again, say you trade him. Are you re-signing Reddick? Why would you re-sign Reddick over keeping Burns for relatively cheap money the next 2 years? And if you can't re-sign him, then you just created a massive hole at DE. Now that makes it even more difficult to advocate taking an OT in the 1st when this is one of the strongest DL drafts in a long, long time. At least at the top. It just makes 0 sense to trade a proven player like Burns at his position. And that's why teams don't do it. You don't get better by creating more holes. Maybe if we had another great DE on the roster, then yeah, trade Burns. But the only other guy is Reddick, who is just as one-dimensional and much, much older. And who will cost more vs keeping Burns for 2 more years (at minimum). You can't trade a guy just because he doesn't check every box. Yeah if Burns is asking for an outrageous contract, like Watt/Garrett money, then of course you move on. But I seriously doubt that will be the case for a myriad of reasons. You can't possibly let this guy go though, especially this offseason when you still have guaranteed seasons left with him. It would be a crazy bad decision.

You build around his flaws. I'm not saying he has to be your best player on defense. So are you saying we should only keep players who check every box? That just isn't reasonable or feasible. There are very few "perfect" players in the NFL. Again, can you name one recent example of a team trading a pass rusher at Burns' skill-level and age? It would be unprecedented, unless Burns asked for the release. There is no reason to trade him. We have the money to pay him. He plays an important position. Trading him because he's not the perfect all-around player would be crazy.

Then build around that. Surround him with larger LBs who can take on blocks. Make sure the other primary edge defender opposite of him isn't also an undersized speed rusher. No player is going to be perfect. Burns is too good of a pass rusher. And again, he's only 23... he has time to get better against the run. You just don't trade a guy like him at his age and with his skill-level. Can you name any recent example of a team trading a DE at Burns' age and his skill-level (unless said player requested trade)? It just doesn't happen. Burns not being an all-around player doesn't mean you get rid of him. It means you take that into consideration when building the rest of your team. Because chances are, the 1st round pick you get back for Burns won't be better than Burns unless its in the top 10. And no team is trading a top 10 pick for Burns.

By trading Brian Burns for a 1st, you make another hole on the defense (unless you re-sign Reddick... and why would you re-sign 27 year old Reddick over 23 year old Burns???). It just doesn't make any sense. You can't trade away every single player on your team that isn't perfect. Ya'll are really undervaluing Brian Burns right now. You 100% do not trade an under-25 year old very good pass rusher for just a 1st. When is the last time a team did something like that?

But why? An edge pass rusher is one of the most important pieces in the NFL. Burns isn't perfect, but he's absolutely one of the best in the NFL at getting after the QB. He's 23 years old. He has so much time in the world to get better seeing as most DEs don't hit their peak until around 26-28. I could understand trading him for players. But you don't trade a productive 23 year old DE for draft picks. You just don't. And I can't think of any team in recent memory that has done it. Jared Allen only got traded because of all his off-the-field issues. And KC continued to suck after, because picks aren't guaranteed.

A final determination? No, but they 100% have a solid evaluation on the players. Obviously how they work out and interview will change some things, but what do you think scouts do throughout the year? They scout players not just in the upcoming draft but in the years to come too. Teams absolutely consider how weak or strong the next year's position group will be in a draft to determine how they should play their cards for the upcoming draft. This is also why you've seen recently a lot of GMs not get fired until June/July.

There is no set standard for being a fan. Let a person be positive if they want to be positive. If you want to be negative, then that is your prerogative, but not everybody has to see it as all doom and gloom like you and others. Just like nobody has to see it as all roses. At the end of the day this is just an online forum. Nothing we say is going to matter or make a difference. So anyone can react however they want to react. A big problem I'm sure some people have though is that there is this expectation that any poster who has any semblance of positivity on this forum is just a "stooge" who is "blind" to what is happening.

How is this even a question

If you want to see it that way, then go ahead. I'm merely stating that it is quite possible Tepper feels it is worth keeping Rhule another season to ensure attracting a better candidate next year, when he will have less teams to compete with for a HC's service.

I mean. It might actually make more sense to wait until next year to look for a candidate. People might hate to hear it, but at this rate, the Panthers could potentially be one of very few teams looking for a new HC next year. We could conceivably have our pick of the litter. And no, this is not me defending Rhule. Just me being rational. Very good chance we have a better opportunity to nab a great candidate next year than this year.

Klint Kubiak would be a good hire.

Highly unlikely Tepper is putting out "feelers" for other head coaches without it leaking.

Look, I'm not fan of Sam Darnold either. He sucks. But of course the HC and GM are going to express support for him. Why? Because it quite frankly makes the most sense to stick with him in 2022. We made a dumb error of committing $18m to him. None of the QBs are worth drafting where we're picking. So the only way you move on is if you are able to swing a trade for one of the top QBs. But there is no guarantee that is going to happen. So why throw your QB under the bus before you have to? That is what we did with Teddy last year, and it is probably the biggest reason we had to trade him. Otherwise you keep Teddy and never make the horrendous Darnold trade. Right now we need stop doubling down on mistakes. You stick with Darnold unless you can secure Watson or one of the other young elites. And even if you get Watson you're gonna probably need Darnold for 6-10 games next year.

Name a single team where the GM tells the HC what coordinators and position coaches he should hire. Yes they should be communicating constantly about the kinds of players and whatnot they are bringing in. The coach should communicate to the general manager what kind of scheme he plans on running. The GM should communicate to the HC the skillset of a player he really likes and how it can fit within the team. But a HC should have full-control of the coaches he surrounds himself with. I cannot think of many cases where the GM and/or owner makes a HC choose an assistant coach. The only one I can think of, off the top of my head, was the Jerry Jones/Jason Garrett/Wade Phillips situation. Other than that, the head coach picks his staff, on every team. This is why the connections that a head coach has is very important. A HC w/ a lot of connections will in all likelihood get the best assistants. The GM has very little to do with it. Unless, of course, you can provide me with examples of the sorts. I'd accept being wrong. Rhule can ask for advice but Scott has always worked in front office. Sure I'd be willing to bet he's made a fair amount of coaching connections and could do his research, but ultimately Rhule needs to be the one who does a better job picking his staff. Just like all the other HCs. And if he can't do that, then he needs to be fired. ... and I do think he needs to be fired. I'm just explaining why HCs should be the ones who pick their staff. Just like GMs should be the ones who pick their scouts.

I was far from a Teddy fan and think he was mediocre at best but moving on from him for Darnold has to be one of the dumbest decisions this organization has ever made. We should have just stuck with Kyle Allen to begin with and completed the tank.

If you're going to have him running a lot of intermediate routes you need to have an accurate QB. Again something he didn't have. Robby isn't someone you should be expecting to make a lot of catches in traffic is my point. No QB on this roster can throw someone open and our passing scheme was quite elementary. I'm not saying he didn't regress, but to fall off the way he did? I think it had a lot to do with Darnold and Newton being that much worse of a passer than Teddy.

Robby is kind of underrated on this forum nowadays. Did he play his best ball at all times last year, nah. But he's proven the kind of player he is in the NFL. A very good deep threat receiver. Unfortunately he never had a single QB this year who could throw even an average deep ball. Certainly not consistently, anyway. That meant he was forced to now run routes that don't fit his skill-set, if he wanted to get touches and be involved in the game-plan. A guy's Y/R for example doesn't drop as steeply as Anderson's did without there being some other circumstances to consider.