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!

     

Matt Miller of Bleacher Report: "I give the pick a B, they have other needs but I've realized not to go against G-Man."


nctarheel0619

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Lobo said:

Hate it when ppl grade based on need. Shows they have no idea what they are talking about. You grade on the player you got that's it. 

I wouldn't say that. Hypothetically if we have Cam Newton, and get another QB in the first who is BPA. But we have a huge hole at CB and there is a very good CB on the board.

Would you consider that an A?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PantherBoy95 said:

I wouldn't say that. Hypothetically if we have Cam Newton, and get another QB in the first who is BPA. But we have a huge hole at CB and there is a very good CB on the board.

Would you consider that an A?

I really think most GM's don't add QBs into the BPA equation.

You either need a QB... or you don't.

If you have one, you don't need one.  At other positions you can have adequate starters but you will always need depth at those positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tiger7_88 said:

I really think most GM's don't add QBs into the BPA equation.

You either need a QB... or you don't.

If you have one, you don't need one.  At other positions you can have adequate starters but you will always need depth at those positions.

True, I was trying to greatly exaggerate to make the point. I do think grades should be PARTIALLY based on need. If you have good depth at RB and BPA is RB, but you have a Byron Bell at LT and a good LT is out there I think you take the LT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • fans view “box safety” with the same disdain they have when they hear “game manager” QB.   but there’s a reason most 1st round safeties are “box safeties”-it’s a much longer list of requisite skills to be a good box safety than it is to be a guy whose only real responsibility is to not get beat over the top. Fans crave the ed reed type and as someone who has never been able to enjoy this franchise having a guy like that, I get the enthusiasm-but I’m not really prepared to spend a first round pick on a free safety. If it happens it’ll be fun, it’ll address a need with a good player and that’s well and good. But those guys end up walking after their first contract because their pedigree usually outpaces what their teams feel like they’re adding to their overall win total.
    • Its criminal that the upcoming season is mainly in the tiny hands of BY.  I still member the time I did a full turn, if you member his first off-season from that Panthers all-time worst team....... Answering questions at his first presser, he goes along the lines " I didn't do nothing, no weight room or throwing" " I needed to get away". I was fully out with him, the guy didn't even try to improve his football mind, body, strength, in the biggest joke of panther football. I could not believe it, what a leader or dare say "point guard"(lols @ NBA point guards as a ref)
    • I view FS almost as the NT of the secondary. Oftentimes the true measure of his impact isn't necessarily in the plays that he makes but what he allows you to do with the rest of your defense to allow them to make plays. When you have that elite true sideline to sideline FS safety blanket over the top of the defense it allows you to be a lot more aggressive with everyone else. Where as when you have a Nick Scott as your last line of defense you gotta be mindful to not have to rely too heavily on that.
×
×
  • Create New...