Panthers acquire Baker Mayfield for a Frosty and Wendy's Single

The Carolina Panthers are adding a new quarterback to their depth chart, as they are sending a fifth-round pick to the Cleveland Browns for Baker Mayfield. According to NFL Network, the fifth-round pick can convert to a fourth-rounder based on playing time. The Panthers and Browns will also split the money Mayfield is owed in 2022. 
Money was always an issue in trade negotiations, as Mayfield was due a fully guaranteed $18.85 million in the final year of his rookie deal. Per NFL Network, the Browns will pay Mayfield $10.5 million in 2022 while the Panthers will pay about $5 million. Mayfield also reportedly agreed to take about a $3.5 million pay cut.

Great move by the Panthers.  They only give up, most likely a 4th rounder, and 5 million for a one year try out on Baker.  Baker led the Browns to their first playoff win in over 20years and beat the Steelers twice to do so.  Got zero love from the Browns for doing so and then gutting out an injury riddled season.  I have become a fan of Baker through this process mostly because of the way the Browns screwed around with him.  I now hope that Watson is a bust in Cleveland after his lengthy suspension and Baker can lead the Panthers back to respectability.

thats it?  well good for him.  I hope he goes onto do well for the panthers and the browns slip back into oblivion.

Good for Baker!  Hope he has success in Carolina!  Screw the Browns, hope they fail this year and that Watson is permanently banned from the NFL...

The Panthers traded more to move up for Matt Corral than they did for Baker Mayfield

the Panthers really traded away...

2nd
3rd
4th
4th
5th
6th

all to assemble a QB room of:

Sam Darnold
Baker Mayfield
Matt Corral

— Warren Sharp (@SharpFootball) July 6, 2022

I wonder if they’ll say Baker’s our guy, or if this will be an open competition in camp with Darnold and maybe even with the rookie. Baker has been much better than Sam up to this point, but has also had much better teams around him. 

Don't think Baker's the guy either. 

I know the NFL has had some recent success with draft picks (Allen, Herbert, Burrow), but I really think the best route to a good QB is the one taken by the Vikings, Bucs, Rams and Broncos.

Don't futz around with draft picks whose hit rate is around 15%, and veterans like Darnold and Baker who may or may not be able to play in this league. Open the vault for a proven veteran. And if you don't have to trade for him (Brady, Cousins), it's like stealing. 

@"MaroonBells" said: The Panthers traded more to move up for Matt Corral than they did for Baker Mayfield

https://twitter.com/SharpFootball/status/1544746419801788423?s=20&t=vZbR1W-iB8UBZLyNTscdzw

For anyone keeping score, the Browns in the 2017 draft passed on Mahomes at 10 and then traded their #12 pick to Houston who took Watson and the Browns instead took Jabril Peppers, then the next year they took Baker at #1 (Josh Allen was taken 7), now they have traded 3 #1s for Watson the guy they could have just drafted in 2018 and ended up getting a 5th rounder back for their #1 pick Baker.  And they are unsure if Watson can play.  You could not mess things up that much if you tried!

Carolina in the meantime ends up with the 1st and 3rd picks of the 2018 draft at QB.  

Ok now I am thinking about Wendy's, glad for Baker though.

@"Vikergirl" said: Ok now I am thinking about Wendy's, glad for Baker though.

@"MaroonBells" said: Don't think Baker's the guy either. 

I know the NFL has had some recent success with draft picks (Allen, Herbert, Burrow), but I really think the best route to a good QB is the one taken by the Vikings, Bucs, Rams and Broncos.

Don't futz around with draft picks whose hit rate is around 15%, and veterans like Darnold and Baker who may or may not be able to play in this league. Open the vault for a proven veteran. And if you don't have to trade for him (Brady, Cousins), it's like stealing. 

But the vast majority of QB's who play in the SB were drafted by that team.  Unless you want to wait 19 years for your next opportunity for Tom Brady who I don't think would have decided to come to Minnesota.  Or you can wait and hope that after 13 years Peyton would have chosen to be in Minnesota.  Those two were proven SB commodities and could dictate where they would go.

Then there is the unique Stafford (non SB proven) situation where the Rams assumed the last two years of his Detroit contract for a CAP hit last year of 20 million and this year 13.5.  Total CAP hit of 33.5 million for two years with a SB trophy in year 1.  Kirk's CAP hit was about 31 million last year and is 31 million this year according to Spotrac.  That is an extra 29 million (2 years) in CAP Space for the Rams to surround the QB with proven commodities and extend players like Ramsey, Donald etc.

The Broncos move to get a proven SB QB in Russel Wilson most resembles what the Rams were able to do with Stafford (IMO) but not with as much CAP savings.  Wilson's Cap hit this year will be 24 million and then 27 million.  Not crippling at all and you get a proven SB winning QB.  

The Cousins situation has also been unique because he is not a Brady/Peyton, of course, nor is he a Stafford situation contract (CAP saver) wise either.   We have paid top dollar for mediocre results.  We are paying Kirk the 3rd highest CAP hit this year at 31 million (Tannehill and Mahomes).

I know we are playing around with the 15% hit rate on a rookie QB but when you look at all the situations above on what are proven veteran starters it maybe even less likely then 15% that a Brady/Peyton/Wilson would have even come here, or that the stars align, and we aren't locked in on 30+ million QB already when they hit the market.  Once Spelly put all his chips in on Kirk we didn't seriously look at the top QB's in any of the last few drafts.  I hope that doesn't keep repeating itself because I think we have been in a circle jerk :) of always being a player away and that player isn't at QB because Kirk might be good enough.  Of course, you know that I don't think Kirk is good enough unless on a fully loaded team like the Ravens/Bears etc were at the times.  I am not convinced that Kirk would have won with the SB with Rams team last year.  

The big lottery win is in drafting a franchise QB on a rookie contract and build from that CAP savings.  Then when said rookie QB flops you can try your approach on the proven vet.  The last 8 years we have not chosen to go that route.  We have been in the supposed proven vet game way too long for my liking, since Teddy.  But I advocate drafting the franchise QB first (if our evaluation warrants of course) otherwise you are assuming your organization can't find a franchise QB in the draft but maybe the next Brady/Peyton/Wilson or an on the cheap Stafford falls into your lap.  

@"minny65" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: Don't think Baker's the guy either. 

I know the NFL has had some recent success with draft picks (Allen, Herbert, Burrow), but I really think the best route to a good QB is the one taken by the Vikings, Bucs, Rams and Broncos.

Don't futz around with draft picks whose hit rate is around 15%, and veterans like Darnold and Baker who may or may not be able to play in this league. Open the vault for a proven veteran. And if you don't have to trade for him (Brady, Cousins), it's like stealing. 

But the vast majority of QB's who play in the SB were drafted by that team.  Unless you want to wait 19 years for your next opportunity for Tom Brady who I don't think would have decided to come to Minnesota.  Or you can wait and hope that after 13 years Peyton would have chosen to be in Minnesota.  Those two were proven SB commodities and could dictate where they would go.

Then there is the unique Stafford (non SB proven) situation where the Rams assumed the last two years of his Detroit contract for a CAP hit last year of 20 million and this year 13.5.  Total CAP hit of 33.5 million for two years with a SB trophy in year 1.  Kirk's CAP hit was about 31 million last year and is 31 million this year according to Spotrac.  That is an extra 29 million (2 years) in CAP Space for the Rams to surround the QB with proven commodities and extend players like Ramsey, Donald etc.

The Broncos move to get a proven SB QB in Russel Wilson most resembles what the Rams were able to do with Stafford (IMO) but not with as much CAP savings.  Wilson's Cap hit this year will be 24 million and then 27 million.  Not crippling at all and you get a proven SB winning QB.  

The Cousins situation has also been unique because he is not a Brady/Peyton, of course, nor is he a Stafford situation contract (CAP saver) wise either.   We have paid top dollar for mediocre results.  We are paying Kirk the 3rd highest CAP hit this year at 31 million (Tannehill and Mahomes).

I know we are playing around with the 15% hit rate on a rookie QB but when you look at all the situations above on what are proven veteran starters it maybe even less likely then 15% that a Brady/Peyton/Wilson would have even come here, or that the stars align, and we aren't locked in on 30+ million QB already when they hit the market.  Once Spelly put all his chips in on Kirk we didn't seriously look at the top QB's in any of the last few drafts.  I hope that doesn't keep repeating itself because I think we have been in a circle jerk :) of always being a player away and that player isn't at QB because Kirk might be good enough.  Of course, you know that I don't think Kirk is good enough unless on a fully loaded team like the Ravens/Bears etc were at the times.  I am not convinced that Kirk would have won with the SB with Rams team last year.  

The big lottery win is in drafting a franchise QB on a rookie contract and build from that CAP savings.  Then when said rookie QB flops you can try your approach on the proven vet.  The last 8 years we have not chosen to go that route.  We have been in the supposed proven vet game way too long for my liking, since Teddy.  But I advocate drafting the franchise QB first (if our evaluation warrants of course) otherwise you are assuming your organization can't find a franchise QB in the draft but maybe the next Brady/Peyton/Wilson or an on the cheap Stafford falls into your lap.  

Cousins is good enough to win a Super Bowl. We would have been a playoff team the last two years with even just an average defense. 

I think we’re trending back towards average on defense and I’m excited to try something new on offense. 

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"minny65" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: Don't think Baker's the guy either. 

I know the NFL has had some recent success with draft picks (Allen, Herbert, Burrow), but I really think the best route to a good QB is the one taken by the Vikings, Bucs, Rams and Broncos.

Don't futz around with draft picks whose hit rate is around 15%, and veterans like Darnold and Baker who may or may not be able to play in this league. Open the vault for a proven veteran. And if you don't have to trade for him (Brady, Cousins), it's like stealing. 

But the vast majority of QB's who play in the SB were drafted by that team.  Unless you want to wait 19 years for your next opportunity for Tom Brady who I don't think would have decided to come to Minnesota.  Or you can wait and hope that after 13 years Peyton would have chosen to be in Minnesota.  Those two were proven SB commodities and could dictate where they would go.

Then there is the unique Stafford (non SB proven) situation where the Rams assumed the last two years of his Detroit contract for a CAP hit last year of 20 million and this year 13.5.  Total CAP hit of 33.5 million for two years with a SB trophy in year 1.  Kirk's CAP hit was about 31 million last year and is 31 million this year according to Spotrac.  That is an extra 29 million (2 years) in CAP Space for the Rams to surround the QB with proven commodities and extend players like Ramsey, Donald etc.

The Broncos move to get a proven SB QB in Russel Wilson most resembles what the Rams were able to do with Stafford (IMO) but not with as much CAP savings.  Wilson's Cap hit this year will be 24 million and then 27 million.  Not crippling at all and you get a proven SB winning QB.  

The Cousins situation has also been unique because he is not a Brady/Peyton, of course, nor is he a Stafford situation contract (CAP saver) wise either.   We have paid top dollar for mediocre results.  We are paying Kirk the 3rd highest CAP hit this year at 31 million (Tannehill and Mahomes).

I know we are playing around with the 15% hit rate on a rookie QB but when you look at all the situations above on what are proven veteran starters it maybe even less likely then 15% that a Brady/Peyton/Wilson would have even come here, or that the stars align, and we aren't locked in on 30+ million QB already when they hit the market.  Once Spelly put all his chips in on Kirk we didn't seriously look at the top QB's in any of the last few drafts.  I hope that doesn't keep repeating itself because I think we have been in a circle jerk :) of always being a player away and that player isn't at QB because Kirk might be good enough.  Of course, you know that I don't think Kirk is good enough unless on a fully loaded team like the Ravens/Bears etc were at the times.  I am not convinced that Kirk would have won with the SB with Rams team last year.  

The big lottery win is in drafting a franchise QB on a rookie contract and build from that CAP savings.  Then when said rookie QB flops you can try your approach on the proven vet.  The last 8 years we have not chosen to go that route.  We have been in the supposed proven vet game way too long for my liking, since Teddy.  But I advocate drafting the franchise QB first (if our evaluation warrants of course) otherwise you are assuming your organization can't find a franchise QB in the draft but maybe the next Brady/Peyton/Wilson or an on the cheap Stafford falls into your lap.  

I think that's exactly what we did. Draft Ponder-miss. Draft Teddy-career threatening injury. Bradford was the right move to correct those misses, but alas injury struck again. Finally got it right with Cousins. Actually, I think the injuries to Teddy and Sam are part of the reason we went with a QB known for his durability. 

@"minny65" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"minny65" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: Don't think Baker's the guy either. 

I know the NFL has had some recent success with draft picks (Allen, Herbert, Burrow), but I really think the best route to a good QB is the one taken by the Vikings, Bucs, Rams and Broncos.

Don't futz around with draft picks whose hit rate is around 15%, and veterans like Darnold and Baker who may or may not be able to play in this league. Open the vault for a proven veteran. And if you don't have to trade for him (Brady, Cousins), it's like stealing. 

But the vast majority of QB's who play in the SB were drafted by that team.  Unless you want to wait 19 years for your next opportunity for Tom Brady who I don't think would have decided to come to Minnesota.  Or you can wait and hope that after 13 years Peyton would have chosen to be in Minnesota.  Those two were proven SB commodities and could dictate where they would go.

Then there is the unique Stafford (non SB proven) situation where the Rams assumed the last two years of his Detroit contract for a CAP hit last year of 20 million and this year 13.5.  Total CAP hit of 33.5 million for two years with a SB trophy in year 1.  Kirk's CAP hit was about 31 million last year and is 31 million this year according to Spotrac.  That is an extra 29 million (2 years) in CAP Space for the Rams to surround the QB with proven commodities and extend players like Ramsey, Donald etc.

The Broncos move to get a proven SB QB in Russel Wilson most resembles what the Rams were able to do with Stafford (IMO) but not with as much CAP savings.  Wilson's Cap hit this year will be 24 million and then 27 million.  Not crippling at all and you get a proven SB winning QB.  

The Cousins situation has also been unique because he is not a Brady/Peyton, of course, nor is he a Stafford situation contract (CAP saver) wise either.   We have paid top dollar for mediocre results.  We are paying Kirk the 3rd highest CAP hit this year at 31 million (Tannehill and Mahomes).

I know we are playing around with the 15% hit rate on a rookie QB but when you look at all the situations above on what are proven veteran starters it maybe even less likely then 15% that a Brady/Peyton/Wilson would have even come here, or that the stars align, and we aren't locked in on 30+ million QB already when they hit the market.  Once Spelly put all his chips in on Kirk we didn't seriously look at the top QB's in any of the last few drafts.  I hope that doesn't keep repeating itself because I think we have been in a circle jerk :) of always being a player away and that player isn't at QB because Kirk might be good enough.  Of course, you know that I don't think Kirk is good enough unless on a fully loaded team like the Ravens/Bears etc were at the times.  I am not convinced that Kirk would have won with the SB with Rams team last year.  

The big lottery win is in drafting a franchise QB on a rookie contract and build from that CAP savings.  Then when said rookie QB flops you can try your approach on the proven vet.  The last 8 years we have not chosen to go that route.  We have been in the supposed proven vet game way too long for my liking, since Teddy.  But I advocate drafting the franchise QB first (if our evaluation warrants of course) otherwise you are assuming your organization can't find a franchise QB in the draft but maybe the next Brady/Peyton/Wilson or an on the cheap Stafford falls into your lap.  

I think that's exactly what we did. Draft Ponder-miss. Draft Teddy-career threatening injury. Bradford was the right move to correct those misses, but alas injury struck again. Finally got it right with Cousins. Actually, I think the injuries to Teddy and Sam are part of the reason we went with a QB known for his durability. 

Yea, I know we disagree overall on Cousins and QB approach, but I would like us to take more first round swings at QB then 3 times in 24 years.  Ponder was a have to pick a QB no matter what move out of desperation which is hardly ever a good idea unless picking Top 3 maybe.  Culpepper and Teddy (move back to tail end of 1st) were good moves and we should have done more often IMO.  

For all the Brady/Cousins moves you reference there are a lot more Bradfords, McNabbs, Cassels, Freemans:) around the league plus right now I put Cousins in the Bradford category not Brady.  

I knew Mayfield would get picked up once the money was right. Now we shall see if he was the accurate passer of two years ago that showed some potential to improve or the terrible QB of last year, playing with an injury. I tend to believe he is a journeyman long term.

With regard to the free agent QB vs. drafting a QB. It requires some context. Randall Cunningham and Brett Favre were excellent acquisitions. Favre elevated an average offense and Cunningham had Moss, Carter, and Reed.
But the vast majority of free agent Vikings QB's have been busts or mediocre at best.
 
Drafting of QB's in the Spielman era isn't difficult to evaluate. He couldn't find a great QB if he tripped over one. Even Teddy, who is a great guy, doesn't appear to be a top tier QB.

I agree with Minny. The formula for success is drafting a franchise QB and building the team around him while he develops during the inexpensive contract years. It can be done with free agent QB's like Stafford, but the odds are low with either approach.

My hope is it works with Cousins. But if not, perhaps the new regime will be able to evaluate and acquire a great QB in the draft. Lord knows Spielman couldn't and rarely tried!
 

I think there’s going to be a viable strategy going forward,
where superstar QBs make a huge stink and choose to go to whichever team gives
them the best chance to win a SB.  The
new team has a solid roster, isn’t in cap hell, and can add new talent while backloading
contracts to make a run.  Then when the
cap starts to be a problem again the QB just moves to a new team.  Kind of like the NBA super teams.

I think guys like Brady, Wilson, and Rodgers (if he wasn’t
given that massive contract) kind of fit that mold.

You can kind of try that strategy with a mid level QB like
Stafford or Cousins, but I think it is what it is, which is much less likely to
pay off with a SB.  I still think your
best bet to win a SB is with an elite QB, and you should be prepared to draft enough
to get them.

@"jargomcfargo" said: I knew Mayfield would get picked up once the money was right. Now we shall see if he was the accurate passer of two years ago that showed some potential to improve or the terrible QB of last year, playing with an injury. I tend to believe he is a journeyman long term.

With regard to the free agent QB vs. drafting a QB. It requires some context. Randall Cunningham and Brett Favre were excellent acquisitions. Favre elevated an average offense and Cunningham had Moss, Carter, and Reed.
But the vast majority of free agent Vikings QB's have been busts or mediocre at best.
 
Drafting of QB's in the Spielman era isn't difficult to evaluate. He couldn't find a great QB if he tripped over one. Even Teddy, who is a great guy, doesn't appear to be a top tier QB.

I agree with Minny. The formula for success is drafting a franchise QB and building the team around him while he develops during the inexpensive contract years. It can be done with free agent QB's like Stafford, but the odds are low with either approach.

My hope is it works with Cousins. But if not, perhaps the new regime will be able to evaluate and acquire a great QB in the draft. Lord knows Spielman couldn't and rarely tried!
 

The odds are low with either approach.  If you take out the Goat.  Wilson and Mahomes are the only 2 active QBs to make it to 2 super bowls. No active QB has won more then 1 (minus the Goat). 

Both Wilson and Mahomes went back to back during their rookie contracts for what its worth.

not sure if this got mentioned or not,  but week one the panthers host the browns.... and the browns will be paying almost 600K of Bakers salary that game... that is just funny right there.

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"minny65" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"minny65" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: Don't think Baker's the guy either. 

I know the NFL has had some recent success with draft picks (Allen, Herbert, Burrow), but I really think the best route to a good QB is the one taken by the Vikings, Bucs, Rams and Broncos.

Don't futz around with draft picks whose hit rate is around 15%, and veterans like Darnold and Baker who may or may not be able to play in this league. Open the vault for a proven veteran. And if you don't have to trade for him (Brady, Cousins), it's like stealing. 

But the vast majority of QB's who play in the SB were drafted by that team.  Unless you want to wait 19 years for your next opportunity for Tom Brady who I don't think would have decided to come to Minnesota.  Or you can wait and hope that after 13 years Peyton would have chosen to be in Minnesota.  Those two were proven SB commodities and could dictate where they would go.

Then there is the unique Stafford (non SB proven) situation where the Rams assumed the last two years of his Detroit contract for a CAP hit last year of 20 million and this year 13.5.  Total CAP hit of 33.5 million for two years with a SB trophy in year 1.  Kirk's CAP hit was about 31 million last year and is 31 million this year according to Spotrac.  That is an extra 29 million (2 years) in CAP Space for the Rams to surround the QB with proven commodities and extend players like Ramsey, Donald etc.

The Broncos move to get a proven SB QB in Russel Wilson most resembles what the Rams were able to do with Stafford (IMO) but not with as much CAP savings.  Wilson's Cap hit this year will be 24 million and then 27 million.  Not crippling at all and you get a proven SB winning QB.  

The Cousins situation has also been unique because he is not a Brady/Peyton, of course, nor is he a Stafford situation contract (CAP saver) wise either.   We have paid top dollar for mediocre results.  We are paying Kirk the 3rd highest CAP hit this year at 31 million (Tannehill and Mahomes).

I know we are playing around with the 15% hit rate on a rookie QB but when you look at all the situations above on what are proven veteran starters it maybe even less likely then 15% that a Brady/Peyton/Wilson would have even come here, or that the stars align, and we aren't locked in on 30+ million QB already when they hit the market.  Once Spelly put all his chips in on Kirk we didn't seriously look at the top QB's in any of the last few drafts.  I hope that doesn't keep repeating itself because I think we have been in a circle jerk :) of always being a player away and that player isn't at QB because Kirk might be good enough.  Of course, you know that I don't think Kirk is good enough unless on a fully loaded team like the Ravens/Bears etc were at the times.  I am not convinced that Kirk would have won with the SB with Rams team last year.  

The big lottery win is in drafting a franchise QB on a rookie contract and build from that CAP savings.  Then when said rookie QB flops you can try your approach on the proven vet.  The last 8 years we have not chosen to go that route.  We have been in the supposed proven vet game way too long for my liking, since Teddy.  But I advocate drafting the franchise QB first (if our evaluation warrants of course) otherwise you are assuming your organization can't find a franchise QB in the draft but maybe the next Brady/Peyton/Wilson or an on the cheap Stafford falls into your lap.  

I think that's exactly what we did. Draft Ponder-miss. Draft Teddy-career threatening injury. Bradford was the right move to correct those misses, but alas injury struck again. Finally got it right with Cousins. Actually, I think the injuries to Teddy and Sam are part of the reason we went with a QB known for his durability. 

Yea, I know we disagree overall on Cousins and QB approach, but I would like us to take more first round swings at QB then 3 times in 24 years.  Ponder was a have to pick a QB no matter what move out of desperation which is hardly ever a good idea unless picking Top 3 maybe.  Culpepper and Teddy (move back to tail end of 1st) were good moves and we should have done more often IMO.  

For all the Brady/Cousins moves you reference there are a lot more Bradfords, McNabbs, Cassels, Freemans:) around the league plus right now I put Cousins in the Bradford category not Brady.  

I'd put all three are in the same category: QBs you can win with.