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!

     

Carolina Panthers select DT Vernon Butler


Jeremy Igo

Recommended Posts

In retrospect, reading all the responses here remind me a bit of when we drafted Luke. My mind was going "But we have Beast. LB is not the biggest need. Why?" Imagine if had we filled another need back then (Quinton Coples was popular here, iirc). Would doing that would have been worth not having Kuechly today, even if Beast never got injured?

Grant you, no player is a guarantee to be a success. Needs do need adressing but on draft day, leaning heavily toward needs means you risk settling for something less when you could've had more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People keep saying this is "leverage" in negotiations with Star. That's not what "leverage" means. Star is going to be looking to get paid. It won't matter to him whether or not we have a quality replacement on the roster. 

This is "insurance" if we actually plan on seriously negotiating with Star --- and by the way, no one that posts here knows for sure - and it's the "investment" in case we do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, outlaw4 said:

In retrospect, reading all the responses here remind me a bit of when we drafted Luke. My mind was going "But we have Beast. LB is not the biggest need. Why?" Imagine if had we filled another need back then (Quinton Coples was popular here, iirc). Would doing that would have been worth not having Kuechly today, even if Beast never got injured?

Grant you, no player is a guarantee to be a success. Needs do need adressing but on draft day, leaning heavily toward needs means you risk settling for something less when you could've had more.

This pick doesn't relate to Beason/Luke.

KK's body isn't a mess trying to see if he can get back.  On top of that Beason's best was extremely good.  KK's best appears to be approaching Sapp like dominance.

you want KK Short on the field and their are no doubts about him

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Icebox said:

People keep saying this is "leverage" in negotiations with Star. That's not what "leverage" means. Star is going to be looking to get paid. It won't matter to him whether or not we have a quality replacement on the roster. 

This is "insurance" if we actually plan on seriously negotiating with Star --- and by the way, no one that posts here knows for sure - and it's the "investment" in case we do not.

Who is Star's quality replacement? The new kid doesn't pose Star a threat.  Annoyed one would be KK IMO.  Leverage to not pay him potentially HUGE money if he continues where he left off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aussiePanther said:

It seems to me that far too many people fail to see the obvious and basic difference between "rotational" and "depth". You need more than 2 DTs on a roster.

Also for some reason after seeing it work for three years the idea that you draft true BPA (for your system/schemes) and fill needs in FA seems to be hard to grasp.

Good insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have people not learned ANYTHING from BPA? Imagine us missing out on Luke just because we already had "one of the best MLB in the game in Beason". For a team who's motto is "big guys let you compete", a team who puts a premium on DT's, and for a team that always stresses depth, why are people still questioning this pick?

This will be fun looking back at this thread at the end of year when we are just anniihilating O-lines for 60 minutes instead of 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Castavar said:

Have people not learned ANYTHING from BPA? Imagine us missing out on Luke just because we already had "one of the best MLB in the game in Beason". For a team who's motto is "big guys let you compete", a team who puts a premium on DT's, and for a team that always stresses depth, why are people still questioning this pick?

This will be fun looking back at this thread at the end of year when we are just anniihilating O-lines for 60 minutes instead of 50.

Beason was a broken vet.  Luke made sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KB_fan said:

Seems like this could be a great pick for 3rd downs.  KK & Butler.  Be very afraid...! 

SWEET.

Understand why it's hard for some to love.   I was definitely shaking my head last year with the picks of Shaq & Mayo, so yeah, I get feeling like we're not addressing needs.

I had an idea this morning that I don't know whether it makes any sense.  DG and Ron have shown that they are sometimes ahead of the curve in how the game is trending...  Right now, everyone is focused on DEs, having watched Von Miller beat us in the SB.  Everyone wants a pass rush like Denver.  So... maybe O coordinators are going to be primarily game planning for pass rushes from the outside, but NOT so much against the pass rush from the inside?  Could DG & Ron be planning to exploit that obsession with edge rushers against opposing offenses to our benefit?

Just a crazy thought I had...

Your first sentence I agree with. Remember how we led the league in rushing attempts vs. passing attempts? That tells me the rest of the league throws more than we do. By extension, Star, Soliai, and Love (primarily run-stoppers) see less snaps because they don't rush the passer as well as KK, or even half as well as KK. That was the purpose of rotating Kony inside on some passing downs, to create pressure from inside as well as outside.

Now that Butler is here, we finally have another pass-rush DT like Dwan used to be before he got real old real quick last year. That's the method I see in Gettleman's "madness". As much as I like them, Star, Soliai, and Love just don't have natural pass-rush talent. With our opponents passing more than rushing, it makes sense to bring in Butler to play next to KK on the more numerous passing downs we will face, preventing KK from getting worn down in the 4th quarter by double-teams all game long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JawnyBlaze said:

We already had interior rush. We don't have much outside rush. I mean look no further than the fact that our leading sacker was a DT and he had more than any other two players combined...maybe any three others combined. I'd have to check on that. 

True, but we lost Dwan Edwards and needed to replace his production in our rotation. A good inside rush will help the outside rush by driving the QB out of the pocket towards the edges (assuming he's able to escape). KK was so good at getting to the passer last year that our outside rush didn't have much of a chance. No way the DE beats the DT to the QB when the DT is getting the kind of penetration KK was getting. 

Much easier for a QB to step up in the pocket (and throw) to avoid outside rush then escape the pocket to avoid interior rush (and hold the ball a little longer in the process). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Um, no, just no. Bills, Chiefs, Chargers, Ravens, Bengals, Texans, Eagles, Commanders are 8 teams that it's not even a debate, they aren't trading their QB for Purdy. Patriots, Broncos, Titans, Giants, Bears, Vikings, Falcons are 7 more teams with QBs drafted in the last 2 years that also would rather stick with them than trade for Purdy as they all have more upside than he does. Lions, Packers, Cowboys, Bucs are 4 more that would likely keep their QB's as well, age aside for Goff, Dak, and Baker. Panthers and Colts are two teams in the same situation, QB's who have both struggled and shown flashes to where the teams probably stick with them because they drafted them, but in a re-draft of all QB's, they probably take Purdy over the guy they currently have. Jags, Cardinals, Dolphins, are 3 more with QB's who probably have a higher upside than Purdy but come with their own question marks, so debatable if they'd take Purdy over who they already have. That leaves Jets, Raiders, Steelers, Browns, Saints, Seahawks, and Rams. Rams would take him over Stafford for the future of course, but not for 2025, and I'd think the Seahawks would take him over Darnold, but honestly not sure if they would take him over Milroe at this moment as they really like his potential and have him for 4 years really cheap. That leaves 5 teams that I see who would absolutely take him over their current situation right now, and a handful of others who MIGHT take him over their current guy, a far cry from your 20.  
    • Agreed. Also as soon as they received the top pick in the next draft it was over. Bears won that trade. Gave up a top overall pick got one the next year plus pick 9, a couple 2nds, and DJ Moore a proven young WR. Had their 2024 pick from us be in the late teens or later it would be more debatable IMO. 
    • Option A:  Pay your starting QB starting QB money. Option B:  Look for a starting QB for 4-10 years (or longer) while wasting the talent at every other position.    How many of the top 20 QB's do you think are worth what they are being paid?   When you factor in the last year of his present deal his contract is really an average of 45 million per year which in today's QB market is a very, very good deal. I wish we'd had found a Brock Purdy to pay 50+ million a year right after we parted ways with Cam.  Ya'll go ahead and live in fairy tale land where good to great (much less elite) QB's are available to pay. Just the fact that they had the chance to pay Brock after the disaster of trading up for Lance is a testament that when you find a quarter back you can win with, complete in the playoffs and superbowls with, you pay him.  
×
×
  • Create New...