MHS831

16 minutes ago, Basbear said:

That and If there's a strong 50/50 split among two important groups. UDFA that's some brownie points, I heard " They were the only team to give me a 30, so I had to come here" Why not, what bugs me is each year they only use 27-28, Id make sure each year 30. Plus I would wear out the local loophole.

 

How about this- the record falls this year!! Panthers will draft a tiger, witness me!!

 

I had the same thought--there are 4-5 Tigers they could use--DT, Edge, RT, (I don't want to say QB, but) QB.  Tex AM seems solid in areas of need. Last week I might have said Oregon. Of course, Ohio State's entire roster will be drafted before 19...but if one falls....

so where do you scholars go for your draft info?  I don't really read much more than you guys because other sources know less than we do---I can say that I think a few of these draft gurus have some inside info, but nothing great.  

I used to talk to Brandon Bean-we are both from Stanly County (both knew each other from S Stanly High)-but he would basically share his opinion and it did not usually match Hurney's views.  He did tell me that MH followed the coaches recommendations for the most part--and Richardson would ask questions about the prospects he liked but would never tell anyone who to take.  Thats about it.  Point?  If they trust you with the information, you can guess with more accuracy.

As of 8:08 PM:

13 people say defensive back

12 people say TE or WR

11 people say OT

12 people say DT/DE

4 people say LB (Probably because round 2 is where the LBs live)

I dropped this and igored it for several hours. It is pretty balanced. 

2 hours ago, Basbear said:

Rest easy, they have looked at every single draft eligible player. 

If I were a GM, I would use most of the 30 visits to recruit UDFA candidates.  Telegraph nothing.

2 minutes ago, TD alt said:

If Concepcion is nothing else, he's a hard guy to project, and profiles may appear to be all over the place in some respects, but he is probably the most purely explosive receiver in the draft. Based upon potential, he will be a steal for someone if he lives up to it.

Cosell's bit about the Z WR makes a strong case for Concepcion's skill set here.  It makes sense.

I am not trying to be mean, but Concepcion has a pretty severe stutter.  It is a serious problem.  But with XL on the roster, let's hope they never become captains.  the coin toss would take 30 minutes.  

OK, I am punishing myself by suspending all MHS posts for 2 hours.  I was wrong.

17 minutes ago, XClown1986 said:

 

Here is what I see (and you can determine what it means):  Seems to be a lot of early-round attention at WR and LB. 

At WR, the Z-WR (off ball, lined up on TE side, goes in motion a lot.  Can cause mismatches) seems to be the focus.  We really don't have one with Coker or XL.  I have a feeling that Concepcion or Cooper are high on the board.  This tells me they are going to grab a WR early--probably in round 1.

Linebacker is most obviously and certainly the second round pick.  Rodgriquez, Hill, or Golday.

The fact that there is no contact with a Center is interesting, but there are guards.  Chase Bisontis is an interesting name that stands out.  Carver Willis is a short-armed OT that could be a swing T, G, or....C.  He is very good at run blocking. 

OT?  If we are drafting a T early, they sure are keeping it close to the vest.  Visits do not mean interest--it could mean they want a closer look.  Still, No top OTs, No top Centers--what is going on?  This is going to be interesting.

Safety--This is interesting because the talk is that Smiith-Wade might move to FS-but that does not explain why the CBs on this list are unimpressive.  The Safeties they have listed are day 2 players, fwiw, and both were 30 visits.

Edge--bottom of the roster guys.

If I were to guess, based on this, here is what I would wager:  

There would be a high probability of a trade back from 19.  Watch a team moving up for bama QB Simpson.

• Round 1: WR--Concepcion and Cooper both project to late first rounders.  Both are perfect fits for the Z WR (the WR that is not on the line of scrimmage outside the TE)  We don't have that guy right now.   I think we think the offense opens up with a strong Z WR.  MHS Prediction:  Cooper.
• Round 2:  LB--Hill, Golday, and Rodriguez are second-rounders.  One of them will be a Panther.  If we trade back, we could move up for a S.  MHS Prediction:  Rodriguez.

NOTE: Bisontis (C) and McDonald (DT) are wild cards--if either drop in round 2, we take them and move up back into the second for the LB.  If not, we draft the LB and move back up for Haulsy (S) so we have 4 starting-caliber players on days 1 and 2.  

Day 3: TE (Delp is my guess), OT (Travis Burke is my guess), CB, and DT.

Thanks X Clown--we need fresh info to keep us from arguing about crap when both sides are wrong..

13 hours ago, rodeo said:

Matt Corral is in the UFL throwing punt return style picks

https://www.twitter.com/primetimecar/status/2040923693300199520

Fittermagic.  He was the absolute worst GM I have ever seen--worse than Matt Millen.

What say ye?

On 4/3/2026 at 11:20 AM, jfra78 said:

Fixed it for you

17 hours ago, Daddy_Uncle said:

Yasss I was just about to comment that we need more glitter

Too much would be tacky--so  I tried to strike a tasteful balance.

38 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

So the two guys I originally wanted all the way back in December, that were projected around pick 20 are now mocked to go #3 and #5 overall; Bailey and Styles, respectively.  Go figure.

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

On 4/3/2026 at 6:48 PM, Jon Snow said:

"If he can stay healthy". Let that sink in for a minute and tell me that sounds like a first round pick. 

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.

2 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

Nobody is suggesting that we do draft developmental players. I'm suggesting that if everything is equal take the tackle. And by the way every player drafted need some form of development.

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.

2 hours ago, jfra78 said:

I personally wouldn't mind OT as long as he's a true starter and not a reach

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.

2 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

I guess it's good thing Marty didn't think that way when he drafted Luke while he had Beason already as the starter. 

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.  

11 hours ago, csx said:

Not going to play is a huge dose of wishful thinking. He could start every game due to injury. We are one injury away from Stone Cold Forsythe being a starter and one season away from needing a true starter if not two.

Why draft Aaron Rodgers? Why draft Mahhomes? Because  you have to think and see beyond the end of your nose 

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.

1 minute ago, BeenPounding said:

I'm warming up the the idea of a WR in the first round.  It's a toss up there between WR and DT.  I'm trade back all day if possible.

I like Shelton or Crownover even if we need to go a round early.  2nd round is a prime spot for a LB if it is Hill, Rodriguez, or Golday.

CB is a sneaky need.  There are a bunch of nickel guys, but I'd rather hit on a tall boundary corner.  My perfect draft hit on sticktothemodel:

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.

17 minutes ago, csx said:

Not going to play is a huge dose of wishful thinking. He could start every game due to injury. We are one injury away from Stone Cold Forsythe being a starter and one season away from needing a true starter if not two.

Why draft Aaron Rodgers? Why draft Mahhomes? Because  you have to think and see beyond the end of your nose 

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.  

21 minutes ago, csx said:

There are a number of tackles graded and mocked in our area. We've had contact with several.

You seem to be looking for a perfect prospect at 19 and using draft media negatives bullet points to rule everyone out.  

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.