Nick Fairley

Maybe they want first contact to be in person? shrugs?

 

Trading down is not impossible as some seem to think. Teams WILL make offers. Bowers is a player Cincinnati or Tennessee would love. Maybe we get a second or a pick in 2012, but there will be options. I imagine the offers will not be great, but if we are just as happy with Dareus or decide we want a QB, we may be willing to give a team a deal instead of drafting a need too high. Other teams know the Panther's situation and will have some offers.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that this year's draft will fall into the patterns of drafts before it. VERY different. First, we are drafting (probably) BEFORE free agency. That means teams will need starters in the draft because they will not know for sure if they can sign veterans. Secondly, in 2010, the first overall pick was guaranteed about $50 million. With the rookie salary cap, one of the conditions everyone agrees on, the first pick will cost half that. These factors should generate more interest, but to say that nobody will want our pick and call people out for suggesting it means that you haven't thought it through. There has never been a draft like this one. NEVER.

 

I'm not against a starting corner around #5, and we have the need (my biggest want to look the other way with Fairley's problems include the gaping need at his spot, and my concern we couldn't possibly fill one or two holes the way we could with a single #1). The choice between the two would be nice - and it's possible - but I'd take either if one went ahead of us.


still, as much as it'd be great to have a shot at the next Revis/Woodson/Asomugha, the feeling I get is that I'd love to see a competition including a 3rd and moving down Pugh, because that kid's a ballplayer.

 

Interesting idea, but I think that will make teams even more hesitant to trade away picks because they don't know for sure that they'll be able to sign guys to fill out the roster. Someone like New England with a ton of picks and not much roster space would be ideal, but they're too far down to be worried about us. That said, if the Patriots offered 17, 28, and 92 for the #1 then I'd do it. Moreover, I do believe that teams are willing to trade up into the top 5, I just don't believe they'll move up to #1.

True, and the point about potential change to compensation is valid, but this is also the weakest draft I can ever remember.

 

And it's the Panthers luck (pun intended) to get the #1 in a weak draft.

 

That's why I think I'm actually hoping for a full-season lockout.

 

If the Eagles had the need for a dominant DT (and I don't believe they do), they would probably call your friend Hurney and offer their #1 and Kolb for our #1 and perhaps a #5 or 6.

Of course, there are a wide range of opinions on Kolb. I've seen him play, and I don't think he would do a poor job here.

 

Was going to do a thread of some youtubes for some other players... but dont see the need. Agree or not, I'm convinced Fairley is our guy.

I also don't believe there will be a lock out. I still believe the Commisioner of the NFL is one of the most powerful men in the country and he's not going to allow it to go down under his watch.

 

I was going to do a thread of Bob DeNiro clips from 1978-1992, but I have a job.

 

I agree, although if they do something unexpected and choose Gabbert then I'm pretty sure I will have an aneurysm and die, so you can cheer for that.

I don't know what to think about this. The owners are the ones driving the labor unrest this time, which makes me think that it's less likely to end quickly. The 18 game schedule request is asinine, but if they're serious about that then it's going to be a huge sticking point. Demanding that players get a smaller slice of revenue is never going to be accepted either. I get where the owners are coming from on that, because it is a fair point about less public money financing the creation or maintenance of stadiums, and the owners want those expenses to be factored into the equation when it currently isn't. But regardless of the logic, all the players hear is that they'll be getting a smaller percentage. The rookie cap thing doesn't even seem like that big a deal in comparison, and me being a know-it-all, I've suggested that union agree to an NBA-style slotting system for the first round in exchange for arbitration rights during a player's third, fourth, and fifth years of service where the player can argue before an independent party that they have significantly exceeded the value of their rookie contract.