Trai Turner says Michael Oher plans to keep playing

[top dawg]

15 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Are you factoring in the spots at which they drafted?

Yeah, I thought about that, but it's difficult to compare given all the dynamics, so I think you just have to make a judgment call.

Gettleman, in my mind anyway, has been the better, (if not more complete) drafter of talent overall, though I kinda look askance at his trading up.

[Mr. Scot]

11 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Yeah, I thought about that, but it's difficult to compare given all the dynamics, so I think you just have to make a judgment call.

Gettleman, in my mind anyway, has been the better, (if not more complete) drafter of talent overall, though I kinda look askance at his trading up.

Trading up I'm okay with.

Trading away future first and second round picks? Not so much.

[TheSpecialJuan]

4 hours ago, Borat said:

https://imgur.com/a/V9jWF#DLYhTXD

PFF grades for every team's OL

Good stuff

[panthers55]

5 hours ago, Saca312 said:

Here's my take. You're asking us to reach for an OT because you think that's our number 1 need.

You're being blind to a need we desperately need. Have you noticed we only have 1 starter level player at safety? 

Kurt Coleman, bless his heart, has been frantically attempting to play SS while Tre Boston FS, and it hasn't worked well this year - Kurt's obviously a FS. Sure, Kurt got better, but Boston was still Boston. 

If we get a starter level SS (Jamaal Adams) from the first, he starts and makes an impact. He'll start rounding up a secondary that needs a solid communicator, and we have a solid starting group of safeties with one decent backup.

Plus, I don't think Gettleman will ignore OT for long - getting a project OT in the 3rd or so is logical. Your argument that it has to be a 1st rounder is quite illogical; it'd be an obvious reach and I don't see an immediate impact.

As far as Gettleman's draft - he hasn't gotten a chance to even pick a top 15 pick; Hurney has had plenty of chances. Of course his picks would be better so far.

No I think safety is a big need as well. But you can sign a vet safety much cheaper than a vet LT.  Plus safety tends to be deeper in later rounds because there aren't always runs on them in the first. Safety would be on my list for the 2nd or 3rd. But again I want the draft to develop guys not to start them.

[Saca312]

Just now, panthers55 said:

No I think safety is a big need as well. But you can sign a vet safety much cheaper than a vet LT.  Plus safety tends to be deeper in later rounds because there aren't always runs on them in the first. Safety would be on my list for the 2nd or 3rd. But again I want the draft to develop guys not to start them.

The thing is, name me an OT from this draft that'd be a good guy to start day one.

I'll name you a safety that will start for any team day one. 

[panthers55]

4 hours ago, Saca312 said:

The thing is, name me an OT from this draft that'd be a good guy to start day one.

I'll name you a safety that will start for any team day one. 

If we draft a safety and start him day 1 the same thing will happen that happened with Bradbury, he will suck until he learns our defense and where he has to be on every play. Our defense is highly accountable and mistakes give up big plays.  I want a guy who sits behind a vet and learns the game. So for  me I would rather it be our LT. Draft a safety further down the draft and develop him also. Meanwhile get a vet safety by acquisition or trade that can play well day one. Like we did with Mitchell and Harper.

[Ivan The Awesome]

13 hours ago, Mvp2014 said:

He just missed 13 games on a concussion thats why

Doesn't mean he was going to retire. 

[Swaggasaurus]

37 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

If we draft a safety and start him day 1 the same thing will happen that happened with Bradbury, he will suck until he learns our defense and where he has to be on every play. Our defense is highly accountable and mistakes give up big plays.  I want a guy who sits behind a vet and learns the game. So for  me I would rather it be our LT. Draft a safety further down the draft and develop him also. Meanwhile get a vet safety by acquisition or trade that can play well day one. Like we did with Mitchell and Harper.

You can get a day one starter at pick 9. We need to focus on an impact player. Adams or Peppers would start day one. Barnett, Fournette, Cook, these guys are elite at their position. The OT'e aren't elite in this draft and Robinson is simply better than the other guys. 

[iamhubby1]

14 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Because we all know that picking 14 with Davis versus 25th for Shaq was a huge difference.  I get that Cam at one was a gift but Russell Wilson says you can get a guy outside of the first who is as good as a number 1 pick.  

 

I see where you are going with this. But the big ting is, the further you get from that 1st pick, the more the talent drops. Theoretically, 1>10>15>20 and so on.

 

So, if you want a play maker. The higher you take him, the better chance you have of him succeeding. That does not mean that you cannot find talent later in the draft. It only means that the later you pick, the more difficult it becomes to find talent.

 

For most teams. You want those 1st and 2nd rounders to push to start. Maybe even your 3rd. So those last 4 rounds are usually for depth, and potential. You may get lucky with later round picks, or even UDFAs. But more often than not, you just don't get much from later in the draft.

 

The better your team, the harder it is for draft picks to even make your team. So, for the better teams, it is important to hit on those 1st 2, or 3 rounds.

 

IMO, the only time you don't take the best athlete on the board, is if there is a LT you just have to have. Give me a team chock full of athletes any time.

[Panthers8969]

if fournette is gone i would still love mike mcGlinchey (sp?- LT out of ND). don't have to start him right away and can learn from a solid vet 

 

edit- saw this turned into a S vs LT discussion. I would also love adams, but i feel like LT is the bigger need