Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Gil Brandt: Five best offseasons of 2017


Recommended Posts

3) Carolina Panthers

The Panthers finished at the bottom of the NFC South with a 6-10 record -- but they also lost six games by three points or fewer, meaning there wasn't that much separating them from contention. Cam Newton's cast of pass catchers was lacking in 2016, but the Panthers' first two draft picks (the ultra-versatile Christian McCaffrey and the sure-handed Curtis Samuel) both project as matchup nightmares who can provide some serious juice to this aerial attack. I'm not worried about Newton's surgically-repaired shoulder, but I am extremely high on McCaffrey and Samuel, and I'm confident the rookies will help Carolina's QB return to his MVP form after a down season.

I liked what Carolina did in bringing back defensive end Julius Peppers and cornerback Captain Munnerlyn. They might be late in their careers, but I think it made sense in terms of fit and locker-room impact. Peppers is only one year removed from a 10.5-sack season, while Munnerlyn can provide guidance to the youngsters in the secondary. This defense plays pretty well, and adding pass rusher Daeshon Hall in the third round will only help. Locking up Kawann Short was huge. Adding veteran Matt Kalil and rookie Taylor Moton will boost the offensive line. Ultimately, McCaffrey and Samuel are the keys, and I think they have Newton and the Panthers primed for a turnaround.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, KillerKat said:

Just imagine if DG did his job last season. We'd be a power house.

We definitely wouldn't have Daeshon Hall.  We probably wouldn't have Short after this year.  VERY unlikely McCaffrey is a Panther.  And, maybe, the Falcons wouldn't have been able to blow a 25 point lead.  It was worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nails said:

We definitely wouldn't have Daeshon Hall.  We probably wouldn't have Short after this year.  VERY unlikely McCaffrey is a Panther.  And, maybe, the Falcons wouldn't have been able to blow a 25 point lead.  It was worth it.

Yup gotta think of the butterfly affect essentially. You can change one small thing and that could totally change a bunch of different outcomes of the future. 

Maybe keeping norman would have let us win a few more games, but if we had the same injuries occur our record probably still would have been mediocre. Our 2016 draft would have been totally different and 2017 draft also. 

The one thing you can say is its highly unlikely we get McCaffrey if we kept norman . So alot is hinging on how well our 2nd year CBs do, if Butler has any impact this season, and if McCaffrey/Samuel can electrify the offense. If all these things work and we have a deep playoff run, losing norman was worth it . If we spirial into mediocrity again for the 2ndstrait season? The conspiracy theroists will be everywhere haha. That and a bunch of coaches should be fired if we miss the playoffs 2 strait years after going to a super bowl 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

I recall multiple media people criticizing the Panthers for their offseason, prior to the draft.

They killed DG for spending so much on Matt Kalil

that'll still be a pretty valid criticism if Kalil is as bad as his most recent years with the Vikings. There's a hell of alot riding on him , Oher's health, and Moton's potential to effectively play on either side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

I recall multiple media people criticizing the Panthers for their offseason, prior to the draft.

They killed DG for spending so much on Matt Kalil

Actually, once the details came out, it's a VERY team-friendly deal that won't cost us much to cut the rope after 2 years. Not as bad of a contract like everyone originally assumed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hoenheim said:

that'll still be a pretty valid criticism if Kalil is as bad as his most recent years with the Vikings. There's a hell of alot riding on him , Oher's health, and Moton's potential to effectively play on either side. 

indeed. Gman gambled and won big with Oher a few years ago. He's gambling once again and needs Kalil to, at the very least, stay healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...