Hurney and mortgaging the future...

[CarolinaCatBrigade]

It definitely will hurt come April and we don't have the #33 overall pick.

[CarolinaCatBrigade]

meh...i was waiting for you to check them. want a cookie?

No. But I will settle for some pie.

[rayzor]

pie and rep. that's as good as you're gonna get. satisfaction for proving me wrong about something would matter if that hadn't been done so many times....or if it bothered me.

anyway...you have to admit that he is prone to some very questionable gambles that the main benefactors are teams that i despise but keep on putting together incredible teams like the pats.

[mav1234]

anyway...you have to admit that he is prone to some very questionable gambles that the main benefactors are teams that i despise but keep on putting together incredible teams like the pats.

true 'nuff. I think a lot of that is the urge to win now, so hopefully they can turn to building for the future now.

[Mr. Scot]

I like an SEC tested Ryan Mallett. That may be just me though.

It may indeed :sosp:

[mav1234]

is this where someone says any SEC team could take the Panthers?

but seriously. I don't want Mallett, I just don't like what I've seen from him.

[Brooklyn Bully]

Cliff Notes: You put a good product on the field first, then you add some youth and ask them to cut their teeth. You don't throw kids out there and hope it all pans out.

The problem with building for the future is that if it doesn't work out, you could be screwed. Look at the history of the Panthers since Fox got here. We've really not been that good. In fact, this team has never been that great since the very start. The team we had last year? Simply average. But they decided to bring in rookies and pair them with that squad (actually less than the 09 squad). You should only "go young" when you can cover for a rookie's mistakes. We can't this year.

Just look at the Colts, Pats, and Steelers. They had a solid team...and brought up youngsters at the same time. When Bettis was the main guy in Pittsburgh, they groomed Willie Parker (busted). When Parker was the guy for a quick minute, Mendenhall was groomed. Hines Ward was the main man at WR, and they brought in Holmes (traded). Now Wallace is the star and Sanders is being groomed. In Indy, Harrison was the man as they groomed Wayne. Now Wayne is the man while Garcon and Collie get their reps. And the Pats always have a mix of young and old.

The key, though, is the QB for those three. If everyone here is confidant Clausen is top tier, more power to you, you're braver than I. I just have a problem with the risk our FO took. Instead of the above way of getting things done, they flatly admitted they were going young, not grooming young. I sure hope it works out. Because if we fall flat with nothing to back up the youth with, nothing will ever change here.

[CarolinaCatBrigade]

anyway...you have to admit that he is prone to some very questionable gambles that the main benefactors are teams that i despise but keep on putting together incredible teams like the pats.

Of course he is. I've yet to see the benefits of trading away the #33 pick for Armanti Edwards. He may be good in 3 years, but he's not worth the #33 overall.

[Sandy Claws]

But hasn't the team essentially conceded a bad move when they draft a WR in LaFell and the very next pick is Edwards (who was drafted as a WR, not a QB) and then you draft yet another WR further down the road. Just how many WRs did the Panthers need to replace? Drafting three in hopes of getting one good one to replace Moose/Jarrett?

I believe that's called drafting the best player avaialable. We kept them all without releasing anything of quality. You seem to be willing to reach in the draft to fill positions.

[Cavscout]

I believe that's called drafting the best player avaialable. We kept them all without releasing anything of quality. You seem to be willing to reach in the draft to fill positions.

You're saying that Armanti "I can't catch a punt" Edwards was the best player available?

[Sandy Claws]

anyway...you have to admit that he is prone to some very questionable gambles that the main benefactors are teams that i despise but keep on putting together incredible teams like the pats.

I don't know that you can lay that entirely on Hurney. We pretty much stood with our own picks for quite a few years following the Gilbert deal. We dealt some through the later rounds but rarely any first day deals. That changed in 2008. Add in some questionable FA moves and the cap moves required to keep Peppers since 2008, and the fingers don't all point at Hurney. I tend to lean toward those decision being made by Fox and the Richardson boys. Jerry was down with his heart issues during this time. He came back and fired his boys, refused to extend Fox but did offer an extension to Hurney. I think that tells where he places blame.

[Sandy Claws]

You're saying that Armanti "I can't catch a punt" Edwards was the best player available?

How did you know he couldn't catch a punt before the draft?

[Ohio]

why? for stumbling onto the best QB to come out of college in years and taking advantage of the opportunity? clausen is not a franchise QB. you don't pass up on a franchise QB if you don't have one. you take advantage of opportunities that fall into your lap.

1.WRONG. Sam Bradford, Matt Ryan, are all better QB's. Jimmy was supposed to be a "franchise" QB as well, dont you remember?

you aren't considering clausen a failure if you draft luck. you're simply admitting that you found a better QB and you're willing to take him.

2. WRONG. That's like saying San Diego would take Peyton Manning over Phillip Rivers. Why take a QB if you all ready drafted a "franchise" one and not giving him time to develop? My goodness if Luck goes 1-15 in his rookie year, should we just draft another QB?

if clausen was entrenched into the role..if the offense was built around him... if there were a couple years invested into the program... if he showed some dominance and was taking control of the team...if we didn't have a new coaching staff coming in next year... if any of these things were the case, then there would be a better argument for not drafting luck first overall. if luck isn't in the draft next year or for some reason we don't wind up with the first pick overall, then i would be fine sticking with clausen and drafting aj green or trading down, although i have serious doubts about his potential at the moment.

3. I have serious doubts about Lucks potential. I dont see him on the heisman races, who exactly has he beat thats any good?

if clausen really is worth keeping, he'll win us more games and that will probably knock us out of the luck chase anyway, making the discussion moot.

4. You can NOT blame Clausen because our team is atrocious. If you put winning on 1 guy, then you dont know football.

if clausen doesn't win many more games this year, you have to question whether he can. now, you can say that no one, esp. a green QB like clausen, could win with this team and offense. that means that the position remains at best a '?'. if you have a '?' at QB, you don't pass up on a franchise QB like luck.

5. Stop saying Luck is a franchise QB, because besides Aaron Rogers, how many Pac 10 QB's in the NFL are any good right now? Can you name me a top defense that Luck has faced this year?

also...new regimes typically bring in their own QB within the first couple years. when is the new coach going to have the opportunity to draft someone special like luck? what are the chances that this team will be picking in the top 3 overall spots in the next draft? when is the new coach going to find an opportunity like this?

6. True they typically do bring in their own guy. There you go again saying Luck is special. WHY? Has he shown he can carry Stanford on their back? I dont think so.

Using your logic, if dont win with a rookie QB, we should just keep drafting rookie QB's until we get one that wins for us? If that was the case, Peyton Manning wouldnt be on the Colts because they went 3-13 his rookie year. Think about that, using your own logic, the Colts would have dumped Manning....

[rayzor]

luck>clausen

luck = franchise QB

if we don't get luck then we stick with clausen but bring in a vet QB.

that's my logic.

your logic...stick with mediocre QB talent because its here and don't risk trying to get better players because they could be worse. if that isn't an accurate interpretation of your logic then i would call that being even.

oh...luck is a franchise QB.

hate on.