Muhammad's Salary this year and next

What else could have been done? (other than not pick Nelson.)

Gross has been a great pick, IMHO. Much less $$ than a similar quality FA, if one was available.

We had no cap space for another receiver.

We *potentially* fucked up large in round 2.

Seriously - what something would you have done differently?

 

Re: ...

No, yes, and yes.

Carruth, I can't say whether or not we overlooked charachter cause I can't remember any prior skeletons. But I can critisize lack of measurables in that pick.

Morgan - He's been hurt, and that's the last thing one would expect given his collegiate history. Bad luck, thus far. Perhaps also because he may need to be weakside as was suggested in the draft discussions back then.

Based on ability, yes, good value. Even based on production, when healthy, he's an impact player. Its just staying on the field and keeping Towns off that needs to be addressed.

Weinke - In the 4th round? Critisizing value of a 4th round pick QB, still on the team abd able to fight off another mid round guy, not starting? C'mon.

Did we really get good value out of Mangum? I guess, for a 7th rounder not getting cut its ok. Cause he's starting now? Is he a starting level TE, league wide. Was he a good fit backing up Walls? No, and no.

 

That cap figure is too big for Moose. I'd draft a WR in round 1 (speed WR) and get one in FA if possible. Moose's cap figure is way too big to keep him around. Got to resign Smith though. Got too.

Dyson is too frail to count on. We will need 2 new WRs.

 

That first part isn't not entirely true, Rosenthals contract was decent, affordable, and he's playing well. At least a lot of people say the Minnesota line is good now. Not that I'm unhappy with Gross. But their were other options that would have allowed us to go with BPA instead of need.

Not that Gross was a reach. Wasn't. We are fortunate in that regard.

Nelson was a reach, though, and wasn't a need, which is the curious thing.

 

Dyson got a 1 year "prove to me - (or we'll look elseware next year) deal"

I don't think it was presupmtious at all to think that Dyson was an upgrade over Byrd, Hankton, and Bright on a run first offense

 

Re: ...

Yes.
Peter, to some, was good value. To me, Holliday was better value, better fit.

Value isn't a guarantee of a good, wholesome, perfect player and you're as aware of that now as when you asked the question. I think we're above equating someone to Jason Peter.




I don't think we "have" to resign Smith. To be honest, I'd still really not mind getting a 3rd rounder for him. I still don't find him a starter, and if he starts 04 so be it, but we need two starting receivers. Getting under a couple deep balls in trash time? Sure, he's done that plenty. Doesn't make him Laverneus Coles.

And yes, Proehl and Dyson were both going to be better than Hankton. Byrd seriously declined in 02, as well. He was better than Hayes, IMO, in 01.
That doesn't make it a solution. We can't take baby steps toward one good receiver in ten installments.


>>We *potentially* fucked up large in round 2.

Seriously - what something would you have done differently?

Your question and answer are closely tied, yes?

See also: round 4. We reached, twice, for backup players that weren't as needy as WR, with good receivers on the table.

As well, there were in fact other wide receivers out there in FA. Doesn't mean you have to put money and picks into Coles or Price, but believe it or not there were players available. There were, in fact, more available than just the two we signed and the ones that exchanged hands for picks (or Boston).

IMO, Curtis Conway exceeds all we've brought around, and that's sad. Marcus Robinson exceeds all, and he even had injury risk as well (less than Dyson, naturally). Derrius Thompson wouldn't have been a bad roleplayer in this O. Brandon Stokely has been the most productive of this group. There are others, like Frank Sanders, that haven't worked out great. But there were plenty of options, including primarily the draft, that suggest we didn't have to throw $50 million at the wide receiver situation to improve it in hopes that more help would come. We've had two years, and we've done very little.

 

Magnus, your points are well taken. The Panthers have, in fact, pushed WR further down on the priority list than it should have been.

But let me offer this counter: to pick up an upper level (not a blue chip) WR, I would submit that some acquisition somewhere would have to be sacrificed. Bruce Nelson obviously comes to mind first, and I doubt anyone on this board would argue. Are there other sacrifices you would have made to bring in a 2nd tier WR sometime over the past 2 years? Would that have been the best and fastest way to become competitive in our division, in your opinion?

I'm asking out of genuine curiosity here because it seems like you're very passionate and convinced that Hurney and Fox have not made the right moves to rebuild this offense so far -- that given the resources available, we should have better personnel on the roster. Not getting into actual usage or game planning of those players, just the acquisitions. Please help me understand your position more because I still can't see the reason for what seems to me like fairly strong criticism.

 

>>Are there other sacrifices you would have made to bring in a 2nd tier WR sometime over the past 2 years? Would that have been the best and fastest way to become competitive in our division, in your opinion?

Well, loading up on receivers doesn't make us ultra-competitive. IMO, our philosophy works best for our division compared to most anyone you'll draw outside the division.

However, besides the 2nd, I've already noted the 4th as a spot where we didn't have to get who we got, and probably didn't get a good enough player. Last year, in the 5th, and later, we got a bunch of nothing. Granted, those two spots aren't absolutely incredible spots to get wide receivers. But they're spots.

Moreso than that, for instance - money. FA. We brought in players to bolster the defensive line, a team strength. Dissuade the need for a DT, draft an end, and pick up a guy to compete after training camp starts to be the 4th DT. Most of us have been happy with what Tony Brown did, and his hustle would work well on ST if needed as well. That's what most teams' 9th defensive lineman is anyway - see also Rasmussen.

By putting that FA money of Pittman into a receiver, that's a spot.

As well, there were plenty of spots last season as well, where we spent wisely everywhere but WR, for the most part. It's not a complete position, but picking out a 2nd rounder, and a bit more money to go get that third starter that we enjoy at both DE and DT, without altering the team structure (for instance, having the option to cut Tuten, Richardson, and Mangum for cap space). There are more options. These should be enough.

>>Not getting into actual usage or game planning of those players, just the acquisitions.

That's certainly a big part as well.


>>Please help me understand your position more because I still can't see the reason for what seems to me like fairly strong criticism.

Are our WRs bad? Yes.
Do we overemphasize the run, and seem to neglect the pass? Yes.

 

But that's not what you've said before. Your argument has been that they're improperly used. You've argued against most of the forum for about 2 weeks now that Muhammad is not a bad receiver, he's just not being assigned routes that compliment his playing style, and he's not being thrown to.

You have said Smith is a slot receiver at best, and I think few of us would disagree. But he seems to be doing reasonably well playing over his head. Certainly he's not much better than a band-aid there, and we need talent to push him back to #3. But is Smith really bad in your opinion?

Agreed, but couldn't one argue that's due to a lack of talent in our WR corps rather than negligence in another area?

 

>>But that's not what you've said before. Your argument has been that they're improperly used.

I've said that before, as well. They're not mutually exclusive - just ask SemperFi. I've never argued that we did, in fact, have a ton of talent. Does that mean we neglect them, and use them badly? Not IMO.

>>You've argued against most of the forum for about 2 weeks now that Muhammad is not a bad receiver, he's just not being assigned routes that compliment his playing style, and he's not being thrown to.

I find those to both be true. I also find him to be a declining player who I've wanted a replacement for, and haven't received. Both those situations are troubling, to me. Remember that whole slop about how we were going to tailor our offense to our talent?

Then again, you watched this game, and you were asking how many drops Muhammad had this week.

>> But is Smith really bad in your opinion?

In a role? No. As an every down player, it's a lot to ask of him. Unless we have someone really good across from him.

Would we be talking about how great he is, if he'd had his 4, 5, 6, 5, 5, and 5 yard receptions, the same kickoff returns, and one -2 yard rush? I have no suggestions that a good defense like TN's lets Smith, nor Moose, get 60 yards multiple times if this game's a ten point game. Smith had three really nice plays in two weeks. The rest were pitch-catch, get knocked back.

That's not good usage either, and the thing is you can't have a little guy go deep every play.


>>Agreed, but couldn't one argue that's due to a lack of talent in our WR corps rather than negligence in another area?

Complaining about offensive play selection problems, timing in the passing game, and other problems we've talked about in the last year and a half suggest that it's not merely a lack of WRs, which either way, you're talking about a pretty severe problem. I wish it were simply a matter of WR talent.