TheMostInterestingMan

1 hour ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

Why is this a thread?

Yes, he's the best QB on the team. No, he shouldn't be our starter. I think we should all be on that same page. There are like ... maybe two Sam homers on here who actually think he's elite. Then there are like eight angry trolls who despise Sam for some reason and will argue til they are blue in the face that he's pure trash.

So why don't the 10 of you go create a group chat somewhere and stop spamming the damn board. Threads about Sam are soooooo last year.

Someone on here thinks he's elite? Holy poo.

1 minute ago, TheCasillas said:

I shared a tweet earlier in the thread showing data that is the opposite of this statement. 

Well you are more in the know of these sorts of things then I am. That said, I don’t think he’s had a 3 TD game in over two years so the idea he’s winning games is hard for me to imagine. 
 

Im not disagreeing with you. If we fall out of he top 5 I would be strongly considering Carr. But a guy that rarely even has 2 TD games doesn’t strike me as someone that is just going out winning games for his team. 

2 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

I dont understand how he has slipped.... he has thrown 11 TDs to 2 INTs over the last 8 games with a 89 QBR and over 65% completion percentage. McDaniels is destroying yet another franchise with his system. I didnt think McD would be bad again... thats a different topic. 

Do you have examples that I could review of Carr slipping? Are we sure it's not the system?

To be honest, I think he would be winning a lot of games on this current flavor of the Panthers. A strong defense and a strong running game. He rarely wins games for the Raiders and hes certainly not sexy. But he also very rarely loses them games. I think we take the division half asleep with Carr on this roster. That said, I would certainly prefer draft one of the top prospects. But if we win too many games to push ourselves out of that conversation then Carr I would be very interested in. I tend to agree that I don't want another retread but Carr is different to me than the other recent attempts. 

I can’t imagine that’s a real quote

38 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

It happens every year. Predicting what qb's will emerge as top candidates a year early is a fools errand.  You have to let it play out in the year they come out and the last game is played. Then you will see who rises to the top.

And even then there’s no telling really. I think we all thought Lawrence would be an absolute home run and he’s been extremely average so far. Not to say he won’t become elite but the trajectory doesn’t put him there currently. It’s just simply the hardest position to assess.

3 minutes ago, Waldo said:

We let Riddick walk for nothing and he is a better edge. He is good and also overrated by a big chunk of this fanbase.

I’ll be honest, I love Burns and he’s quite possibly my favorite Panther over the last 3 years. That said, I was fully on board for trading him for two 1sts. That’s before I was even aware there was a 2nd involved.

I’m still hesitant to call him overreacted. I think it’s more accurate to say he’s a star player playing in the wrong system. Our defense doesn’t utilize him properly, but he’s still a damn good player for us. In a 3-4 I do believe he would be a superstar and the fact a team offered us two 1sts and a 2nd confirms that in my mind. They don’t think he’s overrated either clearly, so it’s not just our fan base. But we are in a rebuild he doesn’t exactly fit our system like a glove. We should have jumped all over that trade in a second. 

1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

Nah. You just can't accept you aren't the most interesting or the most knowledgeable man on this board. Keep reaching like that and you might pull something.

I’m not sure what your problem with me is, but it’s pretty bizarre. And I can assure you that I know I’m not the most knowledgeable person on this board. As for most interesting? Your immature responses tells me you are too young to even know what my name is referencing. Cheers.

34 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

That isn't what the board said about trading him for future firsts. Those folks wanted to do the deal.  That is what the folks who didn't want to trade him like myself said given future picks are devalued and not worth the same as a 2023 1st. Once again you are the one who seems rather confused.

I’m not going to scroll back through 40 pages to show you that this is factually wrong. So I’ll just leave it here. But you are factually wrong lol

7 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Again no one said you should accept a third for a future 1st. Just that from a value point of view, future picks are devalued by GMs who do this every day. That is a reality. You can spin it how you want but that is how the system currently works. Glad you arent the GM apparently you have no clue how future picks are valued.

Champ I’m talking about fans on this board saying we should trade Burns because the future 1sts are equivalent to a mid round pick. Get a clue. 

2 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Again stupid logic.  First of all we didn't take the trade so this is all moot. But since we don't know what position any will be drafting in 2 years from now teams aren't going to make a bunch of trades for draft picks down the road. Most trades are for players for future picks or for the current draft where you know what you are getting. The future draft picks unless high ones are enticements to do the deal but not what teams are banking on unless they know you are drafting in the top 10. Too much uncertainty. 

There are always holes you can fill and also having draft capital gives you cap flexibility. I’m done discussing this. Arguing future 1sts are = current 3rds is nonsense. There’s no way around it haha 

4 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Does perception matter? I argue no. 

Then again, I'm of the firm opinion that the entire accounting industry is basically just a shell game of book cooking anyway so there's that too.

I agree with you there haha. But in this context it seems to me that perception does matter. Because the value of a 1st round pick is a 1st round pick. But if it’s perceived by GMs to only be worth a 3rd this year, then they are devaluing the future 1st. But when 2025 rolls around, they will value you at as a 1st. 
 

Does this make much sense? Not really. I understand they want to keep their jobs and this having more ammo in current drafts is valuable. But big picture a 1st rounder is always significantly more valuable than a 3rd. So their perception in allocating artificial values to future picks means everything.

8 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It's not "gaining" anything. The value of the pick is devalued because the return is not immediate and there's the uncertainty of where the pick will fall within the round. That doesn't mean that it gains real value like a bond maturing.

Gotta disagree here. He does have a valid point. If it’s perceived that a 1st in 2025 is only worth a 3rd now, it does gain perceived value with each passing month. 

23 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

Acknowledging that’s how GM’s view picks (not just Fitt, but the Rams GM too) means…

 

…more picks need to be in the trade. A fans value of a pick is irrelevant. The way GM’s value picks is highly relevant. 
 

Does pointing this out make me, others, and/or the concept itself stupid? You seriously think that?

Of course not and I wasn’t calling you stupid. I’m sorry if you misunderstood me for saying that. But some are saying that we shouldn’t trade Burns for two future 1sts because they are worth mid rounders. And THAT is what’s stupid. 

39 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

No what you said is stupid logic.  Who know what happens in 2025? You don't value potential which can vary from a number 1 pick to a number 32 pick the same as a proven commodity. Burns cost us a top 10 pick and has been everything we thought he would be.  He has stayed healthy and is the best DE we have.  Future picks are always valued less than current picks and should be.  While we aren't a player or two away we also don't need a complete rebuild. He is a core of the defense and teams gameplan against him. That is worth more than what we could get years from now.

No. This is stupid lmao. If em this were true, we would trade our 3rd for a future 1st two years from now every single year and in two years become the greatest dynasty in NFL history because we would have two 1st round picks every single season. You see how illogical this is? Lol

51 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

It's not because the people making trades have their jobs based on if they win or not. 
 

That’s why future picks are valued less. 
 

A GM isn’t valuing a 1st two years from now as high as a 1st this year, because 4 years down the road when the player picked is developed and playing well, it is highly likely a new coach and front office are the ones benefitting from it. 

Yes but why would we as fans value them differently? Cause there are fans on this board making that argument. And that is stupid.

2 minutes ago, CRA said:

Yep. 

A first round in 2025 is worth a first round pick in 2025.   Same for a 2024.   It's a first round pick and it carries that value in 2024.

It's worth less to someone else today....because most are trying to win now or in the immediate future.  So yeah, it's not worth much to the Rams.  Right now is their moment.  That's not us.  Future picks in all honesty shouldn't hold the same value on all teams.  Because they aren't all in the same place. We should be focused on building something new. 

And I don't care to start off the next new HC era by drastically overpaying a one dimensional DE as the cornerstone of a defense.  Especially when the pass rushing specialist isn't actually a monster at the one thing he is noted for. 

 

I’m with you completely on the picks and I’m definitely in the camp of trading Burns for two 1sts. And I love Burns, but I don’t even see him as our most important defensive player of defense. For me, Derrick Browns development this year along with an elite Jaycee when he’s healthy and Chinn back in the role that nearly made him rookie of the year are arguably all bigger components. Burns is great at what he does. But with where our team is currently at, this trade feels obvious. 

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

That's a simplistic way of looking at this.  

The whole “a 1st in two years is worth a 3rd this year” is the absolute dumbest way to value picks ever. I hate it and it’s absolutely illogical. I know teams use this scale but it makes no sense. Cause come 2025 that logic goes completely out the window and suddenly that pick is worth multiple future 1sts.

1 minute ago, Snake said:

It's going to take a really good effort for the Falcons to beat us again. If we didn't give the game away we win pretty easy last Sunday. Us beating Denver is a likely possibility. Can you really say the Steelers are going to beat us? We also actually have to lose to the Lions as well. I don't see but 3 sure fire losses and that the Bengals,Hawks and Ravens. 

I dunno. I think you are giving us too much credit atm. People are really overrating PJ around here right now. I like him and am very happy for him but  he’s nowhere near the QB Goff or Pickett are. And teams are still adjusting to game planning for PJ at QB and a power runner inserted into the offense in Foreman. 
 

A healthy Lions I see finishing ahead. They are amongst the highest scoring teams in the entire league, they just can’t get stops. And they’ve been doing that without their two best offensive weapons for half the year. At some point their defense will get a turnover or two to swing a couple of games in their favor. The only team I think that is truly worse than us are the Texans. 

4 hours ago, Snake said:

We are not even promised that this year. We win one more game and we are picking 5 through 7. Do you think we are going to be able to outsuck the Lions and Texans? Do you feel Fitt isn't capable of drafting a QB? Thought? 

I don’t see us finishing worse than the Texans but I do think we could finish worse than the Lions. They are somewhat unlucky to not have more wins right now and they are really scoring a ton of points. They get a healthy Swift back and St Brown at 100% and they’ll win more than us in the end imo. I think we end up picking #2 when it’s all said and done. 

3 hours ago, Varking said:

Bears will now only have to make decisions on extending Montgomery and Mooney now. And they have all the cap space in the world to help build a team now. 

Khalil Herbert already looks miles better than Montgomery. Can’t imagine they’ll feel the need to give Montgomery very much at all.

8 hours ago, PantherFan1981 said:

we already replaced CMC with Foreman. what the blue hell are you talking about? 

We had our franchise QB the whole time and traded him lol

Taking a kicker a #2 overall 

 I don't think I have ever heard this... but if its been said, I could have told them that was stupid long before today lol

Just now, uNc4eva said:

kepp ma name outta mouth

I just don’t think we understand the words coming out of your mouth lol