Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NanceUSMC

What On Earth Is Hurney Thinking?

52 posts in this topic

Sup newb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sup newb

Have we met? Your name sounds familiar, but I can't quite place the face... ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I mention how the 'experts' grade drafts:

Top needs: DT, CB, DE, WR, OLB

Summary: Given all the health problems in their linebacking corps over the last couple years, and an inability to defend the run, Luke Kuechly at No. 9 was no surprise. That's where I had him projected, and I obviously love what he can do -- he's among my top 10 players in the draft, which is saying something for an inside linebacker. I'm pretty shocked they didn't get a single defensive tackle. That was a glaring weakness in 2011, not at all helped by injuries. Frank Alexander has some ability as a pass-rusher, and I can see Josh Norman developing into a starter. As much as I like Kuechly, they drop a little because they didn't hit the top need. Hopefully their young defensive tackles continue to develop.

Now, mind you HE is the one that sets the team 'needs'... We addressed the linebackers exceptionally... We addressed the receivers with an explosive threat... Added a DE that has the potential to contribute significantly... And we addressed the DB's with two value selections... That alone (again by Mel's own analysis) addresses 80% of the 'needs' defined... Yet the grade is a C for how well we drafted based on 'need'... To me, this is a head scratcher... While I am never a fan of drafting based on needs, I fully believe we had at the very least an above average draft in terms of how well we addressed the needs of the team... Also, Mel has labelled our 'top need' as DT... This is a subjective point of view, and short-sights the fact that we played two rookies (who played like you'd expect rookies to play) all season, and missed a complete year from a solid veteran DT... Taking the big picture into consideration (which I don't personally feel was adequately done in this analysis), is DT really the biggest need? I agree, of course, that it would have been nice to have added another body here, but are we really at a point where we should give up on the youngsters after 16 games? And no points for getting the veteran back? Wow... Tough crowd, Mel... Tough crowd...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice write up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey brother! I've been around... With all the hostility around here these days, I spend most of my time in lurk mode...

Yeah, it's not like it used to be....but still fun to check out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir, it is obvious that your presence has been sorely missed here. I only hope and pray that your sage wisdom rubs off on some of the newer guys around here. It has been pretty intolerable with the occasional Mr. Scott insight to offer a ray of hope. Perhaps the two of you can turn the tide of perpetual Jerry Springer mob that has plagued us for this insufferable off-season.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir, it is obvious that your presence has been sorely missed here. I only hope and pray that your sage wisdom rubs off on some of the newer guys around here. It has been pretty intolerable with the occasional Mr. Scott insight to offer a ray of hope. Perhaps the two of you can turn the tide of perpetual Jerry Springer mob that has plagued us for this insufferable off-season.

can I get an amen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, it's hard to be mad about this. We had more pressing needs, but the gaps filled with Kuechly and the guard were pressing needs, just not as much, and both were great picks. As long as we got our punter, that's what matters most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I can't make a thread supporting and explaining why Silatolu was a great pick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I mention how the 'experts' grade drafts:

Now, mind you HE is the one that sets the team 'needs'... We addressed the linebackers exceptionally... We addressed the receivers with an explosive threat... Added a DE that has the potential to contribute significantly... And we addressed the DB's with two value selections... That alone (again by Mel's own analysis) addresses 80% of the 'needs' defined... Yet the grade is a C for how well we drafted based on 'need'... To me, this is a head scratcher... While I am never a fan of drafting based on needs, I fully believe we had at the very least an above average draft in terms of how well we addressed the needs of the team... Also, Mel has labelled our 'top need' as DT... This is a subjective point of view, and short-sights the fact that we played two rookies (who played like you'd expect rookies to play) all season, and missed a complete year from a solid veteran DT... Taking the big picture into consideration (which I don't personally feel was adequately done in this analysis), is DT really the biggest need? I agree, of course, that it would have been nice to have added another body here, but are we really at a point where we should give up on the youngsters after 16 games? And no points for getting the veteran back? Wow... Tough crowd, Mel... Tough crowd...

Seems like he (and many others) forgot that Ron Edwards is still on our roster. DT was a need for sure, but we havent been able to have all of our LBs or our OL make it through a season in how long?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites