MHS831

Lotta chatter for a player not on the market. There is a chance they attempt to reconcile, but the JJ departure was huge because it reflects a coup of sorts, and once a general defects, you do not pull him back and put him back in charge. They had best get rid of him. I would ask all players if they want out, and make a list of unhappy campers--trade them if I could, cut them if I couldn't. You can't paint rotten wood.

Prescott is the only player that might fit that description, but he is not as good as Watkins, imo. I think Dak is overrated, frankly. Has had a good OL, WRs, and RB in Dallas. Still can't win.

Way to dig Person. Good journalism.

All I know is this: If you rearrange the letters in Teddy Bridgewater it spells "Lombardi Trophy" You have to change some of the letters and throw a few away, but it works.

Why the 3-year (2 yrs. guaranteed) deal?

I wear a Panther helmet and shoulder pads under a jersey to work. with Dockers.

I agree, but he seems to have the locker room-we see it--do they?

I am trying to find a blocking/decent receiving TE--the old school hybrid--but the names I am finding are not exciting. Note the bottom of the roster--TE is an area where we have added some developmental players--maybe a hidden gem or two--they re-signed Colin Thompson, they signed the PS player Fits was high on in Seattle (Sullivan), and they signed Stevens, the QB/TE experiment from New Orleans. Maybe that is the plan this year-- Sullivan is a 6-5 coverted WR who was just learning TE at LSU when he was drafted. While I doubt he is much of a blocker, he has good hands and could be a weapon--maybe that is all they plan to do at TE this year--we shall see.

When your point is illustrated by a name that references pro wrestling, I am pretty sure that nullifies the attempt to make a valid point.

To click or not to click, that is the question.

Until the 3-3-5, I was not under the impression that Burns was a good fit. Now? He fits--he is not an ideal replacement for Watt. So I would trade away Jackson, Thompson, and even CMC as part of a package. Jackson and Thompson and 2 firsts is my preference. We have to get rid of 1 big contract to take on Watson, unless TB is part of the deal-and he has to be.

I will be honest, anyone criticizing Mr Scot does not understand what he does for the Huddle. Full Stop. I do not always agree with him, but that is not the issue--he puts it out there and keeps it fresh.

Not going much past 5 though--thought 4 was his ceiling.

Agree. Cannot believe you missed the opportunity to directly reference Jones in Dallas.

It is a crap shoot.

I think this guy (Fields) is a smaller Cam as his downside--but he has the tools to be more accurate as a passer. Not saying he has the athleticism or running ability of Cam, but he does not lack it on a different level. Cam's problem was that his running ability always bailed him out, so his arm was looking to pass while his feet were looking to run--that caused mechanical issues. Rivera, instead of developing his mechanics, decided to let him run it. That was like saying, "We hope to get 8-10 years out Cam." It was tragic. If Fields can become a better passer than Cam, and if we can give him better blocking and weaponry, I see why we like him. He could be very special. People get mad when I mention Cam and how he was wasted by Ron Rivera and Marty Hurney/Dave Gettlemen. But he was.

Probably. Why would you talk about Fields and Jones, no mention of Lance? Silly click bait.

If teams were holding cards close to the vest, would they let this out? The only way I see this information being relevant is if they are willing to trade with Miami--knowing Fields will be there--- To me, this may be the better play, if you do not want Atlanta getting fields. Is the fact that they do not mention Lance a tell? Is THAT the player they covet?

He strikes me as the kind of player Rhule gets the most out of--highly emotional, perhaps damaged goods, etc.

Frankly, I do not know how you can be an owner of a team and NOT make suggestions in general. It is no secret that the NFL teams that succeed have good QBs. There is no difference of opinion concerning QB in Carolina. So from that perspective, I assume that he is engaged. As far as evaluating talent, etc. I would think not. The comment from Fits--"We are going to be involved in every QB deal" (paraphrasing) is what I am basing this on---Tepper is barking a bit. Maybe I am wrong, but Tepper is involved to some degree--the only debate is to what degree.

I know, but maybe he is (as suggested by his front office changes) surrounding him with football minds and he is just the kid in the back seat screaming, "Are we there yet?" Except this kid in the backseat is also the one with the credit card for gas.

Jordan's hands are suspect--I think your TE needs reliable hands.

It sure sounds as if Tepper is ready to make his move now. Got rid of Marty, got his coach, and he saw us stay in games wiht a huge dead cap figure, undrafted free agents all over the place, and injuries to Okung, CMC,--with a terrible situation at LG---and we still were in most games--within a score, and us without a QB who can get us over the hump. So I have a feeling we are going all in.

I don't want to lose any of these young guys, but a young franchise qb is going to hurt in some areas--current players for future first rounders. having said that, they need to proceed as if he is not available.

Houston will want players over picks, so I have no problem with a Shaq Thompson + Burns if we only throw in 2 firsts. But one of the players has to be a big contract, and Chinn and Burns is not that. Now, we could offer TB (the contract purge), Burns and Chinn and a first rounder for Watson--but not 2 or 3 firsts. That would give Houston an emergency, backup QB, a pass rusher, and a S/LB. I would rather not lose Chinn, but if that is the deal, I count him as a first rounder.