MHS831

People take a young guy whose team was surrounded by more talent that the opposition 95% of the time in college, put him on a bad NFL team in his early 20s, and suddenly, he sucks.  People develop at different rates.  My experience is that success is usually determined by the system of support as much as anything else.  When the coaches are desperate, the team is underqualified, and the fan base is brutally impatient and critical, I can see a player failing to reach expectations.

10 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Who's t?

Mr. T

Seriously, I did not realize there was a window open and I had teed it.

I think three or four of these names were considered first-rounders this year. 

Quote

 t

12 minutes ago, Shocker said:

I would go 3 as this guy can get some pressure from there.  

I know he is listed as a nose (0-1) but I see the athleticism.

worth the cap relief alone.

I think we will draft (day 3 another qb) 

28 minutes ago, Chief Keek said:

Defense without a doubt. If one of the top S is available, they need to pull the trigger. Same thing if one of the LB fall.

I think--based on value more than need, perhaps, that we will go with a Tackle --either defensive or offensive---early.  I think we could trade back--watch the Ty Simpson action--if he gets by 15, a team like the Cardinals or Jets could move up.  (Save this post and use it against me after the draft.) 

2 minutes ago, Shocker said:

DT seems like a big need to me.  Hope we take Kayden McDonald.

Glad you said this because this is where I am--question--would you call McDonald a 1 or 3?  I think he could play the DE and we could use Wharton as a change of pace and passing down guy--but I don't know enough about it in relation to Evero's scheme--what say you?

8 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

I'm good with BPA of S, CB or DT at 19

CB seems to growing as a need--maybe I am just realizing it.  I would be happy with an Edge or OT --but that is just me, I assume.

35 minutes ago, Basbear said:

55 minutes ago, Basbear said:

Can we even buy real ham now?? I swear 95% of the stuff is injected with 15-30% "solution" whatever the fug that salty chemcail soup. 

 

Im been a dak guy for sooo long Im scared to know what its in it now....I can not say the times Ive gotten a3 am slice/s in the mouth....God help me if theres cheese within reach when the monster is out...

Man some stone mustard, dak ham, and 40 cal "mystery" bread is one of gotos as poor poor man.....

Bingo!! I miss mom's Spam casserole. 

1 hour ago, App Panther said:

I thought a ham sandwich was overpaying. This is great.

I could debate this, but first I must know:  Are we talking Black Forest?

Defense and it is not even close--not even based on last year, how we have recently drafted, etc. 

On D, we could use a starting FS, LB, and DT.  Depth at CB.

On O, we need our future LT and possibly RT, but neither is likely to start right away.    Center?  depth and maybe next year's starter.  Starting TE.

On 3/17/2026 at 3:39 AM, csx said:

Build from trenches out. Dont overthink it.

Good thought and I agree.  Nothing about this process compromises that premise. In fact, the process involves meeting more needs so you can do that. 

If I can get an Edge on a rookie contract when my biggest need is LB, then I have enough $$ saved on the overall cap to get an elite rookie edge in the draft and sign a veteran LB in free agency. If I draft the LB first, my biggest need, then my savings against the cap (when looking at the 53-man roster) is minimal.  I have not saved enough $$ to sign the edge in free agency, so I have to try to draft the edge later, getting a lesser player.  Even if you draft an edge and the roster is full of them, you have trade capital because a lot of teams need a good edge.  This lends credence to the BPA theory if it is aligned with positions that are expensive on second contracts.

In the cap era, you have to think it through-it is like a puzzle.   That is why I did not like it when Marty was drafting RBs (Willliams and Stewart) in the first round.  If you recall, that necessitated moving up for Otah, trading away next year's first rounder to do so.  That is the draft we really needed an edge, but since we did not have a first rounder, we took Everette Brown to fill that need.  Then it got worse.  We had 2 RBs on second contracts, Brown busted, that led to drafting Clausen, etc. 

If you can get 2 starters for the price of one, that is what I would call smart--not overthinking, if I understand you.  I do agree, but that does not mean draft your trench players first.   It could mean draft an edge and use the cap savings to sign a trench player.

I am not sure about the TE or CB in round 1, but the rest is spot on.   Wonder why he did not mention S?  Does he think we are set there with Scott?  Wonder why he did not mention DE?  Does he think Wharton and D Brown got it? 

Personally, I do not think Walker prevents us from drafting an OT no more that M. Jackson and Horn suggest that we draft a CB.  I would understand it, but with Walker on a 1-year deal and Ickey a question mark (average when healthy), and Moton starting to get SS checks...

I think we HAVE to go DT and OT in rounds 1 and 2.  That is right.  I said it.  

5 hours ago, BeenPounding said:

Here is my perfect mock draft...I have no idea why McDonald fell so far, but I would supplement him with Domonique "Big Citrus" Orange in real life.  This draft would cook!!!!

5 hours ago, BeenPounding said:

Here is my perfect mock draft...I have no idea why McDonald fell so far, but I would supplement him with Domonique "Big Citrus" Orange in real life.  This draft would cook!!!!

I like this.  Really like the Stanford TE, McDonald, and Iheanachor -- 

9 hours ago, Basbear said:

Surprised CB is that low. 

19th is odd spot. For many recent drafts, teams only felt there were around 14 first round players. 

So to many 19 is just an early second and doesn't hold the value of a first. 

If you go off- the smart path of LT, QB, edge, WR, CB, etc. Whatever your OG, Safety, ILB, etc needs to be a difference maker, that's the key point. I've said the 8th best edge is better than the 1st safety. Same for QB and even WRs.

You should 100% factor in position value. 

MHS you've been wanting a FS, let me tell you its super difficult to be a difference making FS. You're just sooo farrrr away from the action and the end result most times. If you're in the play, defense made mistakes in order. Now to talk out of both sides, maaaaaann that white boy from Oregon....I thought he crushed the combine and honestly that alone made me rethink "is he worth 19 now?!?!" he's now in the discussion for me, but still below others. 

 

Plus I feel TE is vastly underrated in value terms. But looking at the last 20 years of TEs in the first, its down right bad. You're better like X10 better drafting one in 4th or 5th.  

this made me re-thing a lot of stuff.  the S issue is one of them.

2 hours ago, Panthers Fan 69 said:

App state boy!

then this is likely his last job.

(Kidding--long story about ASU and me--still not over it)  He was very good last year.

Pricey for a punter.  1 year deal?

Just now, Joe Bear said:

Rae wasn't a good enough player to get away with it.

I literally do not remember anything about him

26 minutes ago, Joe Bear said:

Frankly I'm surprised he's still a color guy on the preseason broadcasts. It was like nothing happened. Kinda like December 2002.

Rae Carruth was not available at the time.

26 minutes ago, frankw said:

You can add the TE we seek but opposing defenses still have to believe the QB can deliver him the ball at a high level particularly over the middle which is where the really good TE's thrive and that hasn't exactly been an area of the field our passing O has thrown to at a high % the last 3 years we've had a whole thread on that already. You can bet opposing defenses with nearly 50 games of tape will certainly be licking their chops waiting to see us try.

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

12 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Not what I said. They know within the building why we aren't utilizing TEs more. If the rumors were true that we were seriously pursuing a couple of decent receiving TEs that strongly points toward a lack of quality receiving TEs currently on the roster. Does that mean we consider drafting one at 19? I don't know, but it wouldn't shock me and if we did there's only one guy it would be. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see TE drafting somewhere in the first three rounds. 

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. 

15 hours ago, 45catfan said:

 

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.