MHS831

It means you have a good eye and are in the wrong business.

Exactly--"Durability is the major concern. He has a history of injuries, including a torn ACL, MCL, and PCL from his time at Colorado, and has never played a full season at the collegiate level." How did it work with Brooks? For their needs (Coker, Legette, and TMac are larger WRs), Concepcion (Z Receiver who can play slot) makes more sense. But when I see Carnell Tate falling to 16--for the record, I would not take Concepcion if trading back is an option. I am thinking we should let teams know who might be interested in the draft's QB 2 that we are open for business. Note that they have the Panthers NOT taking Freeling (OT) or Thienemen (S) or the DTs McDonald or Woods. The draft, to me, seems to drop off around the 14th pick--trade back if you can.

Much appreciated, TD--you have been bringing it lately. I give credit when it is due. I like Hurst too--if we don't take Concepcion. A WR might cause the Huddle to erupt. I see us getting a LB in round 2 and I guess we could go DT in round 3-- I see a CB in there somewhere.

I agree with you, if all things are equal--assuming we are on the same page as to what that means. If a DT and OT are there at 19 and you have them equal, which do you take? The DT would be rotational and get 25 snaps a game or so, and the OT is probably a reserve for most of the season. What if Walker plays out of his mind and Ickey comes back strong? To me, there are just too many variables at T and Morgan met the needs for 2 starters. Nothing about that screams lets "go OT in round 1" to me. I could see an Edge or a DT at 19 before I see OT. I could see a TE or S before an OT--and I (personally) would rather have an OT over DT, Edge, TE, or S--but I do not see the logic. In fact, CB is a position that resembles OT--who do we have behind our starters and are we happy with Smith-Wade? A CB would be on the field more than a reserve OT. How is the Walker at LT situation different than the the Bryce situation? He is basically on a 1-year deal and if he is injured, Forsythe becomes Pickett. Would you take Simpson in the draft? Dont get me wrong--I usually agree with you and I get your point. I am an OL guru--but I just do not see this particular group of Tackles making us better than Walker. In addition, I think we can address OT once the Ickey situation clears up. Short arms, poor run blocking, issues with strength--I am simply not impressed with the OTs. For clarity, "developmental" refers to players who are still a year or two away from starting. We are all developmental, but there are prospects who need a season to transition to the pro game. I see 1--maybe 2 OTs who could step into a starting role right now. In college, for example, taking snaps under center requires a different approach than blocking for the shotgun. There is less to learn if you play a position that does not require much adjustment to transition to the NFL.

Yes. When I mock, I load up on OL, but that first rounder is how you make or break the draft. If we have Walker as a rental swing T because a ready-to-play rookie is on the board. That is different. Like QB and Edge, OTs are already a reach in the draft because they are rare.

Are you suggesting that the situations were the same? As I recall, Hurney traded away the chance to get Revis and he drafted Beason as an OLB (where he STARTED as a rookie) and when Morgan went down with an injury, Beason was moved inside--he was on the field, however. Are you suggesting that GMs should use first-rounders for depth? If so, I wonder how many GMs, aside from those taking QBs, will draft a player that does not start this season in round 1? The argument that we will have an option to draft a player who is ready to step in and perform at a high level as a rookie at OT is not consistent with most of the reviews. Most of them, except maybe 1 or 2, are developmental. An isolated incident does not apply to all future situations. Beason was going to start, so it is not comparable. That same draft-Kalil played Guard as a rookie when we knew he was going to be a center--but he started. You don't reach for developmental non-starters in round 1 of the draft.

If he is not starting, how is saying "not going to play" wishful thinking when you support your premise with a hypothetical situation about your future vision of a probable injury? Isn't that "wishful thinking?" Now, you could say the same about Derrick Brown, bryce Young, TMac, or either CB--all critically important positions. WHy not draft depth at those positions with the 19th pick? A CB, WR, or DT is more likely to contribute that a reserve OT. I enjoy discussions, but I can't argue with hypothetical hypocrisy-we will just wait and see.

Here is what I heard and I should know--when you all were dating, I was studying how coaches communicate to reporters. Who's laughing now? First, what we know: He does not have any serious talks (that we know of) to extend him at this point. Second, Canales says that we do not need to be changing things just to change them. I thought that was an interesting statement. Why would a QB do that? What is the reason? In that answer, you find the source of DC's frustration. Finally, the reality of Bryce has to be setting in. Bryce's agent is likely contacting Dan Morgan about the fifth year or second contract. For Bryce to be effective, is he really going to need an elite TE, a $100m offensive line, two thousand-yard rushers, a stable full of WRs, and a defense that keeps him from playing from behind (making him one dimensional and a thrower?) If Bryce wants $50m, we simply can't afford the supporting cast.

I am too. You have to consider how a player would make others around him better. A S, for example, could make the back 4-5 secondary players better. An Inside LB makes the front 7 better. A WR would make Bryce and TMac better. (I like Caden Curry too, as well as Crownover) I have mocked your first two picks more than once. I like OTs converted to C like Parker from Duke because they could play OT in a pinch. However, the C wealth in this draft is sick.

I am aware. We are 1 injury away from Kenny Pickett too--does that mean we should draft Simpson? So you are saying that the Panthers should draft an OT and that is the only course of action a responsible GM would take? You are not wrong, CSX, but to me, timing, other needs, the Ickey situation, etc. make it more complicated than you are making it.

You could say that-- but if we don't need a starting OT this year, why would you draft a flawed one that is not going to play? (We are coming from different underlying assumptions and perspectives--I see your argument and don't disagree with the premise) Your thinking is based on the assumption that an OT for the future is more important than immediate needs at other positions, or that we can meet other needs in later rounds even if we take the OT in round 1. I do not think there is but 1 OT worthy of a first-round grade---they are mocked based on need and demand--if we do not have a need for a starter right now, a team at 18 may grab a T that is the 33rd best player--worth it if you have no starting T, but not if you have a starter. So just because they are mocked around the middle of the first it does not mean that the players are good values--teams get desperate. QBs are a great example. Simpson may be worth it in round 1 for the Cardinals, but not the Jets, because they have Geno Smith. Sure, they will need a QB by next year, but taking Simpson is a reach. I do not see our need, with 2 starters (Walker and Moton) and another possibly returning by the end of the season enough to justify ranking OT over positions like Safety, Will LB--I do not think we replaced A Shawn Robinson (We gonna put a NT out there? Wharton (280lbs)? So do we reach in round 1 for a player who may not play much or do we get a Will LB that can cover? A deep free safety? A quality center? A playmaking TE? A DT to replace Robinson? A wide receiver to balance the secondary? Long term, if the right player was there, you would be right. Short term, OT is a luxury at this point, in my view.

Nuff said.

I think, based on what I guess GMs are thinking, that he is LT #2. He sure takes a steep drop vs. speed rushers--that bothers me, but hey, you get it back in other ways. I would be happy if that is what they think we need to do. To me, it would me that they are not expecting Ickey to return to form OR Moton's knee is worse than we hoped. (reading tea leaves).

I definitely understand the "draft a T" move--it is just not what I would do right now in this situation. thanks

This is a good thread--I definitely see both sides--just explaining how I feel on April 3...Nice to have civil discourse.