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!

     

Panthers Top 15 Paid Players at Position


kungfoodude
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

I thought that last year when we invested so heavily in guards. I was wrong because they sure made a difference.

Hubbard and Brown seem to be worth the money or possibly even bargains.

And Horn, that was a lot of money there, but it probably is just resetting the marketplace and he'll be down the list in the next few weeks. Still, I'm wondering about the balance between the impact he made last season and his availability through his career. It's a roll of the dice and I'm not sure how much is guaranteed. 

 

Glad to see you admit it, I was all for it and pointed it out repeatedly! Lol Last years investment will be even better this year with a season playing together under their belts.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

Still, I'm wondering about the balance between the impact he made last season and his availability through his career.

He showed up in a contract year when he hasn't before. I'm sure getting paid won't be the lure to playing as much as is hoped. He's going to go back to doing what he's done his whole career.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jayboogieman said:

And the second. Talk about an all time blunder. Fitt should have been fired just as soon as he turned down that offer.

Agreed. Although I would have sent Burns instead of Moore....  I don't understand sending the second best receiver your franchise has ever drafted when your taking a rookie QB.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PantherChris said:

Agreed. Although I would have sent Burns instead of Moore....  I don't understand sending the second best receiver your franchise has ever drafted when your taking a rookie QB.

Yeah, that was dumb too, especially with how bare the WR closet was behind Moore.

  • Pie 1
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

I thought that last year when we invested so heavily in guards. I was wrong because they sure made a difference.

Hubbard and Brown seem to be worth the money or possibly even bargains.

And Horn, that was a lot of money there, but it probably is just resetting the marketplace and he'll be down the list in the next few weeks. Still, I'm wondering about the balance between the impact he made last season and his availability through his career. It's a roll of the dice and I'm not sure how much is guaranteed. 

 

I don't think you will see a CB eclipse that until maybe next offseason. I don't believe there are any imminent deals for guys on rookie deals. The FA market does not have anyone that should be getting anywhere near that.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

One has to wonder what happens if our win total is around 5-6 

I see no reason why that wouldn't generally be the range of expected wins. Say 5-7.

I think that is well within what we should be expecting as of today. The draft or further roster moves may move that line but I would like to hear the justification for this roster suddenly being massively better. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah, the Horn deal is bananas. He is genuinely not a top 10 player at his position, even when healthy. They are paying him for future performance and, TBH, I don't see it going well.

I just don't think we had any option. He was our only homegrown guy that is an above average starter (other than DBrown). We have to keep that kind of talent around even if it is expensive. 

I get that it is a lot to pay a guy who has been barely healthy. But I much prefer the idea of paying someone for future performance rather than past performance. So many guys in FA get paid based on a good season or two in a specific situation. Horn played pretty well despite being in an historically bad defense. If we can generate a little more pressure and stop the run better this may look like a good deal in a couple of years (provided he stays healthy). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Admiral Ackbar said:

The only player's contract I have a problem with is Horn. Time will tell with Moehrig. All others are justified or deserving IMO

In a vacuum each of the guard contacts is fine and don't get me wrong I love investing in OL and DL, but I'm not really a fan of paying 2 guards big $. Pay your tackle(s), go younger/cheaper on the interior. But otherwise generally agree 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kornicova said:

I just don't think we had any option. He was our only homegrown guy that is an above average starter (other than DBrown). We have to keep that kind of talent around even if it is expensive. 

I get that it is a lot to pay a guy who has been barely healthy. But I much prefer the idea of paying someone for future performance rather than past performance. So many guys in FA get paid based on a good season or two in a specific situation. Horn played pretty well despite being in an historically bad defense. If we can generate a little more pressure and stop the run better this may look like a good deal in a couple of years (provided he stays healthy). 

We did have an option(trade) but I do get that replacement is basically draft or nothing. 

I agree we criminally overpay on past performance(see CMC deal as a result example) but I don't know that gambling on quite literally the highest DB contract in NFL history is a good idea. Especially because of those healthy issues. Even more so because....he really hasn't consistently been elite.

I love the player and I absolutely want to keep him around but the money is going to make that pretty difficult. If he spends the next two seasons dinged up again, he's probably literally going to be a cap casualty with no real compensation at all.

It's just way more in the freewheel gambling realm than I am comfortable with.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, t96 said:

In a vacuum each of the guard contacts is fine and don't get me wrong I love investing in OL and DL, but I'm not really a fan of paying 2 guards big $. Pay your tackle(s), go younger/cheaper on the interior. But otherwise generally agree 

Or at least make the OG's be "homegrown" guys so that actual average compensation is at least offsef by a rookie deal. 

Two massive FA deals still seems like an unwise long term financial move.

But, you can't question their impact to the OL. It has been night and day.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah, the Horn deal is bananas. He is genuinely not a top 10 player at his position, even when healthy. They are paying him for future performance and, TBH, I don't see it going well.

 

Ok but is the alternative? He is not going to sign for a lesser contract, so then do you release him?

We did that with Burns... see how that is working out. You can save the cap but you still need to replace the player. You can argue that we should have be preparing to replace Horn when his deal came up but we dealt those picks to get a QB. 

Im curious to know how you would have handled it differently..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I see no reason why that wouldn't generally be the range of expected wins. Say 5-7.

I think that is well within what we should be expecting as of today. The draft or further roster moves may move that line but I would like to hear the justification for this roster suddenly being massively better. 

Vegas will tell you what to expect from the Panthers.  Check the line around minicamp to see what it is.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

 

Ok but is the alternative? He is not going to sign for a lesser contract, so then do you release him?

We did that with Burns... see how that is working out. You can save the cap but you still need to replace the player. You can argue that we should have be preparing to replace Horn when his deal came up but we dealt those picks to get a QB. 

Im curious to know how you would have handled it differently..

If only there were some mechanism for exchanging players for draft picks.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to compete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...