Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Lance: starting SG or SF?


bLACKpANTHER

Should Lance start at SG or SF?  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Lance start at SG or SF?

    • SG (MKG at SF)
      32
    • SF (Hendo at SG)
      1


Recommended Posts

SG. Hendo will be a great 6th man and MKG needs to start for defensive reasons. I'd still trust whatever decision coach cliff makes.

Henderson is a great role player and glue guy. He is a poor starter and would be a terrible 6th man. The 6th man needs to be a scoring punch and spark off the bench to lead the 2nd unit. That isn't Henderson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Henderson is a great role player and glue guy. He is a poor starter and would be a terrible 6th man. The 6th man needs to be a scoring punch and spark off the bench to lead the 2nd unit. That isn't Henderson.

if that was the case Henderson shouldn't even be on our roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Torn on this one. If MKG's shot is still horrific I'd be fine with Lance at the 3. Hendo would be a fine 6th man if he'd be more aggressive and stop taking fall away jumpers and long 2's. If he's your first option off the bench playing against the opposing second string, and is aggressive driving using his athleticism, then he would be a good 6th man. It's not like our bench options are any more explosive. My main question is, unless Lance gets a lot of burn at the 3, who is backing up MKG?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yep. I was hoping for and calling for a day three guy. But I didn’t research the position to say if we should or should‘t have jumped at a particular guy at a particular spot.    And everything I read said it was a poor draft for RBs depth wise. I guess when Seattle takes a backup RB in the 1st, that kind of backs that up.    I definitely think we should keep 4 running backs and if King can play well enough then keep him too.    I believe I heard Canales say we are a running team (talking about drafting a WR he will be needing to block as well as catch). Well if we are gonna be a running team by identity we don’t need to stock the WR room to overflowing. If one room has to sacrifice, it should not be the RB room given our circumstances. 
    • If there's a pattern I'm definitely picking up from Dan and company is a philosophy of making trades where we try not to sacrifice the number of draft picks we have by day's end. In other words, we're not giving up three picks for one, or giving up a future pick to make a pick today. And even if we give up something at the start, we make trades later to make up for that initial loss. Here's how it stacked up for 2026: How we started: 19, 51, 83, 119, 158, 159, 200 How we ended: 19, 49, 83, 129, 144, 151, 227 (no future picks sacrificed) Ultimately, we moved up two spots in the second to ensure we got someone we coveted, gave up a few spots for our fourth round pick, but then had better picks in the 5th (and got really good value out of them), and had a worse 7th rounder which isn't that big of a loss anyways.  At this point, we can question who they draft, but they're pretty good maneuvering across the draft board.
    • I just saw the funniest thing...or very disappointing, depending how you handle misery. A guy on YouTube did a 2027 'way too early' mock draft.  If I told you the simulator has the Panthers selecting in the top 10 , what would you say?  If I told you it was pick #8 and only two QBs were taken in the top 7, what would you say?  If I told you this dude had us taking a defensive player, what would you say?
×
×
  • Create New...