MHS831

Pricey for a punter. 1 year deal?

BPA!!! Wouldn't life be great if it were that simple? Need??? To some degree. I realize that we like life simple: Instant oatmeal. self-stick envelopes. I get it. BPA people: Go back and look at teams' needs in prior drafts--even when they scream BPA!, they end up drafting for need. I guess you should say, "BPA4U" (Best Player Available for Us). There are many variables. You should know the skill sets for your system. You should understand your locker room and gauge character. In my view, another consideration should play into your decision of how you rate a player to be the "best" and the cost of meeting your overall needs. All needs are not equal. The talent pool drops off and dries up at different points for different positions. Each draft is unique. We have inflation for some positions in free agency, yet the rookie pay scale is based on a formula that is not determined by position or player evaluations: The 1st overall pick receives the highest salary, with each subsequent pick earning less, regardless of position. Therefore, if you have seven needs, and three are at positions that pay veterans a ton of money--you should draft those players over those who play positions that would not save you much money. You have to consider the savings and what that means to the cap as a whole--not just focus on BPA or need. These numbers are based on the average salary of all players and then only the starters by position: Now take a look at what the players make based on the position they are drafted: Sorry they did this in pink. So let's say the Jets think Sadiq is the BPA on their board with the second pick. He meets their biggest need, aside from QB, but there are no QBs close to checking the BPA box. Are you going to pay a rookie TE $13m per year for 4 years ($52m guaranteed)? According to the chart above, a STARTING TE costs half that. So Need and BPA are not the only factors (this was an example only). It makes more sense to draft, especially in the first round, a QB, edge, WR, OT, or DT if they are one of your needs and one of the BPAs. At worst you are getting close to market value if they start. Looking at the Panthers needs, expected BPAs at #19, and cost vs. what a starting-level free agent makes, we are spending about $5m per year. Many of us want to draft a S there--if the rookie starts, we'd save about $1.7m per year. The difference would add a bottom-of-the-roster depth player. If we drafted a LB, for example, the difference is $1.4m. I see our needs (right now) as follows: S, ILB Will, OT, C, TE, and DT. Of those needs, a veteran starter at OT or DT would save us the most. For example, an OT veteran who starts averages $13m. We'd get the player for 4 years (not including the 5th year option for this) and we'd save $8m per year. To be honest, Walker is an average OT and we got him for a bargain at $10m. So if we draft an OT, we not only have a starter for next year (regardless of Ickey), we have 2 starting-level LTs on the roster NOW for $15m. If the OT we draft works out and we do not re-sign Walker, we save $8m x 3 years--$24m. So the BPA model might be the code you live or die by, but I ask it this way: Would you rather have a Safety and $1.4m in cap room savings or an OT and $8m per year cap savings? Both are needs. Both would be rated in the middle of the draft's first round. The OT and the $8m in savings would get you a starting OT AND the $8m would get you a starting free agency safety, if you think about it. If you step back and see the big picture, use the rookie scale to your advantage, you can improve your roster beyond merely taking the BPA, whatever that means. Looking at the Panther's draft, if they draft OT in round 1, DT in round 2, and both start, they could save about $16m of cap space per year when compared to what average veteran free agents would cost. LB, C, TE, and S can come later, if you follow this blueprint. I am not saying that I would draft based solely on this concept, but I am saying that it would be a variable--a big one.

I literally do not remember anything about him

Rae Carruth was not available at the time.

I think Bryce's first pick was over the middle. I wondered then about his ability to see the field in that area.

We also have to consider cause and effect. Maybe the reason we don't target TEs is not by design, it is due to personnel. If we are going to use 12 (2 TEs) and 13 (3 TEs) sets to improve the run game, we need some TE options. It is ridiculous to think we can do that without TEs who can run the seams and move the chains in the pass game. I think that is the plan folks. We ran 3 TEs about 1 in 12 plays last year, and we did not have the TE personnel to do that as effectively as needed. If we had better TEs, we might run 3 TE sets more--say 10%, and 2 TE sets 20% of the time. You always need the pass option when you do this, and frankly, nobody was scared with Tremble, Evans, and Sanders out there. It is an area they are likely to address.

Conspiracy theory: They only spoke to one TE (based on the list I saw) and it was Joly. They are telling us: If we draft a TE, it will be day 3, and it will be Joly or we will stay with what we have.

THE WALKER BACKGROUND Here is where this gets weird. Walker is a serviceable LT who could benefit from Gilbert's experience and coaching. However, he is known for below-average run blocking and frequent penalties. As you know, a penalty from a LT is a drive killer. A former 7th round pick, Walker has outperformed expectations, but he still ranks around the middle of the pack when compared to other tackles. Having said that, it seems as if the Panthers are banking on Walker for a year and will then make a decision on Ickey. In Green Bay, Walker was the starter, but the Packers weren't exactly sold on him. While most people think the oft-injured David Bakhtiari retired in 2023, he really wanted to keep playing. He was released on March, 11, 2024. Walker stepped in and took the reserve LT job from Nijman in that 2023 season, but they were close--probably because Nijman was more of a swing OT. However, Nijman was a free agent in 2024, so the Panthers signed him just a week after Bakhtiari was released, leaving the Packers only Walker to play LT. A month later, the Packers drafted a LT in the first round, Jordan Morgan out of Arizona. Most Packer fans believe that Morgan would have beat out Walker for the LT job in 2024, but he had some shoulder injuries and went to IR after 6 games. In 2025, when the Packers had an injury at G during the season, instead of putting Morgan in at LT for Walker as planned, they played Morgan to guard because Walker can only play 1 position. The Packers currently project Morgan back to LT for 2026, which is probably why they did not seek to retain Walker, at least in part. Based on this history, it is safe to say this: Walker is better than Nijman. We have the benefit of them being on the same team in a direct competition to help us see that. Walker is probably closer to Ickey, except for the penalties. That bothers me a lot. Bryce sucks when we get behind the sticks, and a run-first offense with a poor run-blocking LT is not ideal. Regardless, I think Ickey and the Panthers find themselves in limbo right now, so the Walker deal comes at a perfect time for the GM. Gilbert, perhaps, can work on the penalties and maybe a TE like Tremble can help offset the run blocking issues, so maybe we can actually stay the course at OT. Maybe we do not draft a LT--maybe we draft a RT to groom behind Moton. Maybe we draft a C. At LT, the Panthers do not want to overreact, especially if Ickey returns to form or Walker demonstrates improvement. Depth is certainly a concern, but a solid RT can be that depth. I doubt the Panthers draft a LT in rounds one or maybe two. It seems we have bigger needs at Will LB, DT, TE, and maybe S.

I agree. Some situations are all we should ask--shadow the qb (someone suggested that) or cover a TE, or blitz from the big nickel position. Forget S, edge, CB,LB--

I work with social emotional learning and I don't know why a player with all the tools (to Snow's point) sucks when he was a top 10 player in college. It is not talent, and it is usually not due to some learning disability-. It comes down to dispositions or emotions in a lot of cases. The reason I pointed out Simmons in particular is because he was drafted to be a DC's new weapon. I have friends who played in the NFL and they talk about the amount they throw at you--and those were guys who played 1 position. Simmons shows his ability on special teams--where you are a bit more turned loose than scripted or forced to read blocking schemes or pass routes, etc. See ball, get ball. Simmons has been tried at CB, nickel, S , LB edge and he has had 5 different coordinators if you do not count the STs guy. This would overwhelm most people. Nobody knows what it does to your confidence and motivation to go from the best player on your team and a top college player to getting cut. I just think that players like this can be saved. To say, "He just isn't good" is not to answer the question, "Why was this not noticed during the interviews? game film? Combine? References? etc. No, there has to be something more to it than that. I think Isaiah needs one job and that job should be aligned with a strength. If he fails then, fine. Maybe he lost his mojo. Maybe he never had it. But to understand what he has been through is to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. If you played in high school, you got a happy meal version of what it is like in college. College was an appetizer when compared to pros. We shall see. But I am more optimistic about Simmons than I am XL. Simmons was asked to things most NFL players cannot do. XL just needs to catch the damn ball in bounds. Middle schoolers do it every day.

I had him as a hopeful 4th rounder, but he might not be there.

To the best of my knowledge, he is the only one we have talked to...he can run the full route tree. They showed us their "type" of TE when they showed interest in Njoku. I think they would rather have a veteran. Over the past 2 years, they have done some "bottom fishing" for a gem on day 3 (Sanders, Evans)

I hear you and I have said the same thing at times, but blanket statements are accurate part of the time at best. I have also coached kids who had the "tools" but they were slow and unproductive on the field--and a few adjustments to the scheme or teaching techniques, and the light comes on. We call them "late bloomers." Based on my limited experience, it should be called "coaching." As a former coach, if you gave me kids with the tools and I could not get them to perform at the level of their ability, then I have failed. The coaches know this, so their timetables to win may be shorter than the time they have to develop a player--I think a lot of talent goes down the disposal, which is why the success rate for drafted players is so low. In my view, based on my career as a professor and researcher, my job is to produce successful people for the workplace. I use data to identify central problems and I use my relationships with my students to strengthen weaknesses. I have a limited amount of time to do this before a decision is made about their development. In this case, I would look at the variables (data and the situational influences unique to this individual that may have stunted growth) and not the ineffective player as the center of the problem. The team has already interviewed him, talked to his college coaches, measured him, etc. So I would minimize the assumption that the kid is the problem and look at his system of support and teaching strategies. Nobody wants to admit THEY might be the problem. To blame a first-rounder for failing, you have to admit either you did not properly identify the prospect's potential (which is your job) or you were unable to prepare that prospect (with all the tools that got him the job) to succeed (also your job). So are we going to blame the 24-year-old kid with all the tools to succeed for sucking or are we going to take responsibility for his success as his mentors and teachers?

I am sorry. I must have missed it. I did not recall seeing one (I was very swamped the first week of March) and I did not search to see if it had been shared. I always appreciate your contributions. I would have simply added this spreadsheet to your thread. Either way, thanks to you, we now have a cornucopia of tracked visit intel. We are blessed with knowledge and insight!!

Sorted by Position Player Name Position College Draft Projection Nick Dawkins C Penn St. UDFA Austin Leausa C BYU UDFA Andre Fuller CB Toledo 7th Ayden Garnes CB Arizona UDFA Al'zillion Hamilton CB Fresno St. UDFA Marcus Allen CB North Carolina UDFA Rashad Battle CB Pittsburgh UDFA Elijah Culp CB James Madison UDFA Gavin Gibson CB North Carolina UDFA Daylen Everette CB Georgia 4th Darrell Jackson Jr. DT Florida St. 3rd Caleb Banks DT Florida 1st Brandon Cleveland DT NC State UDFA Landon Robinson DT Navy 7th Kaleb Proctor DT SE Louisiana 6th Gabe Jacas EDGE Illinois 2nd Romello Height EDGE Texas Tech 3rd Derrick Moore EDGE Michigan 2nd Mason Reiger EDGE Wisconsin 6th Kedrick Faulk EDGE Auburn 1st Delby Lemieux IOL Dartmouth UDFA Fintan Brose IOL Delaware UDFA Jacob Rodriguez LB Texas Tech 2nd Kyle Louis LB Pittsburgh 3rd West Weeks LB LSU UDFA Sonny Styles LB Ohio State 1st CJ Allen LB Georgia 1st Kaleb Elarms-Orr LB TCU 5th Reuben Unije OT UCLA UDFA Jude Bowry OT Boston Col. 4th Austin Barber OT Florida 4th Kage Casey OT Boise St. 4th Tristan Leigh OT Clemson UDFA Sawyer Robertson QB Baylor 5th Adam Randall RB Clemson 6th Jalon Kilgore S South Carolina 4th Jalen Huskey S Maryland 6th Genesis Smith S Arizona 3rd Justin Joly TE NC State 4th Ted Hurst WR Georgia St. 3rd Emmanuel Henderson WR Kansas UDFA Camden Brown WR Georgia Southern UDFA