Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Gross's new contract voids in 2014. OT now moves up priority list


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#106 ThunderKatt

ThunderKatt

    Hello to All my Haters

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts
  • LocationIn yo moma

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:29 PM

From what I watched Gross had a tough time early but he got better but I remember seeing amini struggle all season as well as Geoff. Bell looked good sometimes but his head was on a swivel checking his left. Personally, I want a safety, slb or a nose tackle with the first round. If a ot is there and that guy then sounds like a good idea but right now we have bigger fish to fry.

#107 C47

C47

    89...Panther for Life...

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,209 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:30 PM

a Sam in the first......wow......

#108 ThunderKatt

ThunderKatt

    Hello to All my Haters

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts
  • LocationIn yo moma

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:35 PM

Sure when, I know on third and longs the boys we have we give up the big one. I've seen the same thing for years now and the fact we have a division full of premium tight ends we need the security to stop them on third down and get off the field. Our boys were tired all year in the 4th quarter because they played extended time on 3rd downs when most teams would've been off the field. I don't know about you but I don't like seeing my safety come down to check a tight end in cover 1.

#109 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • ALL-PRO
  • 11,397 posts
  • LocationConcord, NC

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:37 PM

Hurney influenced selection a slb in the first would be.

#110 C47

C47

    89...Panther for Life...

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,209 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:38 PM

So you would reach for a guy just because of a position? Because limiting it to three positions that you feel are worth addressing is doing just that.....

#111 ThunderKatt

ThunderKatt

    Hello to All my Haters

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts
  • LocationIn yo moma

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:44 PM

Like I said BPA but I know what I feel should be address based on the previous years of on the field product. Either way, if we go your way then the other tackle spot will be the weak side as you put it. I just feel like the tackle soot was not as bad as you are making out to be. Also, I guess leaving a slb position weak for all season 3rd and long conversions will do the trick huh? Or forgetting the fact we don't have a solid nt or a ss that can check a te in even if we decide to use cover 1 on 3rd and longs is cool too huh.?

#112 C47

C47

    89...Panther for Life...

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,209 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:53 PM

Like I said BPA but I know what I feel should be address based on the previous years of on the field product. Either way, if we go your way then the other tackle spot will be the weak side as you put it. I just feel like the tackle soot was not as bad as you are making out to be. Also, I guess leaving a slb position weak for all season 3rd and long conversions will do the trick huh? Or forgetting the fact we don't have a solid nt or a ss that can check a te in even we decide to use cover 1 on 3rd and longs is cool too huh.?


There isn't a solid NT or SAM prospect that wouldn't be a reach at the fourteenth pick, safety I could see as a possibility and if they have Vaccaro (who I'm honestly not that high on) or Cyprien rated as a top 15 guy then that would be fine. Saying the Tackle position isn't "bad" is the same kind of thing that made our WR position an eyesore. Every year for the last four years we've needed a new number one WR so Smitty could take advantage of mismatches, and every year we've settled for average production from the #2 spot. Now we have a WR roster full of a bunch of number threes or worse, and a number one who while still a damn good receiver is also rapidly approaching retirement age. It's the exact same thing with the OT position. I'm not saying we HAVE to get an OT in the first round. What I'm saying is if Lane Johnson is on the board at 14 you absolutely take him and thank whatever deity you want that he was there. NT, SAM, SS and OG positions are MUCH easier to fill then finding a franchise LT to protect your most important investment, your QB.....

#113 ThunderKatt

ThunderKatt

    Hello to All my Haters

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts
  • LocationIn yo moma

Posted 28 March 2013 - 12:02 AM

There isn't a solid NT or SAM prospect that wouldn't be a reach at the fourteenth pick, safety I could see as a possibility and if they have Vaccaro (who I'm honestly not that high on) or Cyprien rated as a top 15 guy then that would be fine. Saying the Tackle position isn't "bad" is the same kind of thing that made our WR position an eyesore. Every year for the last four years we've needed a new number one WR so Smitty could take advantage of mismatches, and every year we've settled for average production from the #2 spot. Now we have a WR roster full of a bunch of number threes or worse, and a number one who while still a damn good receiver is also rapidly approaching retirement age. It's the exact same thing with the OT position. I'm not saying we HAVE to get an OT in the first round. What I'm saying is if Lane Johnson is on the board at 14 you absolutely take him and thank whatever deity you want that he was there. NT, SAM, SS and OG positions are MUCH easier to fill then finding a franchise LT to protect your most important investment, your QB.....

we lost most of our games down the stretch and I think the main reason was because of our defense. Bell isn't horrible and I think a lt can be picked up in a later round. Those picks are there because talent is there but for me to say yea take a Mr in the first round is a must f everything else is something I will never say. It's like your aren't hearing me, I said BPA. If its a lt fine or any of the other positions fine. I just don't think lt will make us a complete team.

#114 C47

C47

    89...Panther for Life...

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,209 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 12:10 AM

we lost most of our games down the stretch and I think the main reason was because of our defense. Bell isn't horrible and I think a lt can be picked up in a later round. Those picks are there because talent is there but for me to say yea take a Mr in the first round is a must f everything else is something I will never say. It's like your aren't hearing me, I said BPA. If its a lt fine or any of the other positions fine. I just don't think lt will make us a complete team.


This isn't a deep draft for OT though. It's really top heavy with three likely top ten picks, and there's a select few in the second and third round range who can be quality starters. Other then that you're looking at guys who are likely career backups. On the flip side, there's quality starters to be found at NT/SS/CB/WR/OG in the second/third/fourth and possibly fifth round. Not to mention there's some deep sleepers at WR like Marquess Wilson who due to very minimal character concerns could slide badly and be a future number one. Same thing with NT. There's Hankins, all three of the Williams, Jenkins, Barnes, Hughes etc. CB there's no less than ten guys who could play at a high level early. And I do hear what you're saying, but you're not seeing my point either. You keep saying BPA which I agree with. If Lane Johnson was on the board at our pick he would almost certainly be far and away the BPA.....

#115 ThunderKatt

ThunderKatt

    Hello to All my Haters

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts
  • LocationIn yo moma

Posted 28 March 2013 - 12:18 AM

I get your point and the reason Gross restructured could mean an offensive tackle might be the pick. I want a solid tackle as much as anyone if its going to get the smash mouth offense going but I won't be disappointed if they choose to go in a different direction. You make complete sense if the draft goes that way and that's why I won't debate you.

#116 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,823 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 28 March 2013 - 06:38 AM

This isn't a deep draft for OT though. It's really top heavy with three likely top ten picks, and there's a select few in the second and third round range who can be quality starters. Other then that you're looking at guys who are likely career backups. On the flip side, there's quality starters to be found at NT/SS/CB/WR/OG in the second/third/fourth and possibly fifth round. Not to mention there's some deep sleepers at WR like Marquess Wilson who due to very minimal character concerns could slide badly and be a future number one. Same thing with NT. There's Hankins, all three of the Williams, Jenkins, Barnes, Hughes etc. CB there's no less than ten guys who could play at a high level early. And I do hear what you're saying, but you're not seeing my point either. You keep saying BPA which I agree with. If Lane Johnson was on the board at our pick he would almost certainly be far and away the BPA.....


I fully expect the top 3 OT's to be off the board at #14 (Joeckle, Fisher, and Johnson). I hope that we do not reach at that position for a guy like Fluker (from Alabama). I think he is solid, but not an elite prospect.

#117 C47

C47

    89...Panther for Life...

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,209 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 06:54 AM

I fully expect the top 3 OT's to be off the board at #14 (Joeckle, Fisher, and Johnson). I hope that we do not reach at that position for a guy like Fluker (from Alabama). I think he is solid, but not an elite prospect.


I agree with this completely. While I would be ecstatic for one of them to be available at 14, it's just not very likely. If the most likely scenario played out I would want to try to trade down into the 20's where I could possibly get a guy like Trufant or Allen in a BPA scenario. Then you can maybe have 44, and another later second. At 44 you can get your NT or SS of the future, and with the other second go get Kyle Long to play OG this year, and kick out to LT when Gross is gone....

#118 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,823 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 28 March 2013 - 07:17 AM

I agree with this completely. While I would be ecstatic for one of them to be available at 14, it's just not very likely. If the most likely scenario played out I would want to try to trade down into the 20's where I could possibly get a guy like Trufant or Allen in a BPA scenario. Then you can maybe have 44, and another later second. At 44 you can get your NT or SS of the future, and with the other second go get Kyle Long to play OG this year, and kick out to LT when Gross is gone....


I would be OK if we were able to trade down a bit and get a guy like Fluker.....i just want another 2nd in hand to do it (so we could get two potential starters at WR, DT, OG, or S/CB in the second).


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com