Who would you rather have?

On a side note
ESPN likes what we did in off season
Carolina Panthers A-
Key additions: Charles Johnson (re-signed), DeAngelo Williams (re-signed), James Anderson (re-signed), Thomas Davis (re-signed), Greg Olsen, Ron Edwards, Olindo Mare, Omar Gaither, Derek Anderson, Ben Hartsock
Key losses: Matt Moore, Dante Rosario



Analysis: Bringing back a lot of your own players after just selecting first overall in the draft is often considered a bad idea. But the Panthers brought back quality football players and had a fortune to spend. The Panthers paid Johnson a ton, but he has produced in Carolina whenever given an opportunity -- he was simply outstanding last season. The Panthers also are loaded at linebacker. This front seven might be a high-end defensive tackle from being extremely good. I am not knocking Williams, but I wouldn't have spent the money that the Panthers did to bring him back. They were already strong at running back, and Williams' durability is a concern.

Instead, I would have used that money on a defensive tackle, an impact defensive back or even a wide receiver. Carolina took a calculated risk by trading for tight end Olsen, then quickly signed him to a long-term deal. This new coaching staff comes over from San Diego, where they know a thing or two about featuring the tight end in the passing game. Olsen isn't much of a blocker, but he was underused as a receiver in Chicago and could step up his game in this new environment. With Olsen, Jeremy Shockey and Hartsock, the Panthers have three new tight ends who could all contribute in their own ways. Edwards is not the high-end defensive tackle I alluded to, but he can stuff the run and help his linebackers get to the ball more readily.

 

A different ESPN article said the Panthers were idiots and clearly the biggest losers in free agency. Also weird that they give an A- then go on to criticize the contracts.

 

I think I will use my brain to prove my exact point. As McNabb said, teams have to take a chance to create a successful team. McNabb also points out in his interview that the most important part of success is building chemistry. Why not spend the money on our own players to lay down the foundation for a winning organization?

 

Did the Eagles overpay to re-sign Quintin Mikell? No. Did they overpay to re-sign David Akers? No. Did they overpay to re-sign Stewart Bradley? No. Did they overpay to re-sign Ernie Sims? No. Did they overpay to re-sign Max Jean-Gilles? No. Did they overpay to re-sign Omar Gaither? No.

You couldn't possibly have picked a better team to illustrate why you are wrong. Philadelphia had 15 of their own players enter free agency and re-signed exactly none of them. You don't re-sign players just to maintain chemistry, and especially not if you're coming off of a 2-14 season. What the Eagles did was to take their cap room and bring in new talent. That's how you improve your team. The Panthers could have done the same, but instead they chose to grossly overpay to re-sign their own players and add very few new players of consequence.

 

I have used my brain to anticipate your response.

As you can see, McNabb points out spending money can lead to a winning football team, but it means nothing without the chemistry to make it successful. The Panthers have considered both elements.

 

It's bizarre that what you quote isn't anything like what you say afterward. It's also weird that you completely ignore how the Eagles let their free agents walk while bringing in new talent, then claim the Panthers did the same thing. Just spare yourself further embarrassment and stop posting.

 

What part don't you understand? McNabb says that signing those Free Agents could lead to potential chemistry problems with players that have not signed big deals that are already on the team. Our strategy is to avoid that problem by paying our own drafted players. You don't have to agree with his strategy, but I can understand the team's position.

 

Good lord. Nothing in anything you quoted said anything about chemistry. He's talking about contract issues with Jackson and Vick, not chemistry.

 

I am aware that McNabb does not use the word chemistry. He is inferring that the new players and lack of roles could cause problems. So can we move past the comprehension level and really start evaluating based on the fact that McNabb supports my argument?

 

I vote for another couple rounds of comprehension level instead of realistic discussion. If you can even understand these words, goon.