More from Panthers.com: Vernon Butler

[Mr. Scot]

Putting the tinfoil hat back on...

He could certainly save his health by being a backup.

Anyone know a team with an OC that used to work with Bradford who's looking for a backup QB?

[LinvilleGorge]

40 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Rivera sounds like he wants Butler to play Star's spot.

Washington sounds like he doesn't.

I imagine they'll have to hash that out between them.

I think Rivera probably just wants his two most talented DTs on the field the majority of the time. Use Love primarily in short yardage situations and other likely running downs.

[Moo Daeng]

Quote

"He's a big, athletic guy who is explosive and quick – a lot in the mold of KK," Rivera said. "But he can (play like Lotulelei) because of his size and his strength."

Washington is saying he is quick like KK and big an strong like Lotulelei. That's not Washington saying he doesn't think Butler to play Star's role....it's literally Washington saying he he can when you look at his words.

[Moo Daeng]

I misread the original quote above. What appeared to be from Washington was from Rivera so yeah, some mixed opinions. 

[Davidson Deac II]

7 hours ago, top dawg said:

Nah. No way we should have passed on Landon Collins, Marshon Lattimore, or either Henry. No way! 

Or Aaron Rodgers, or Richard Sherman, or James Harrison, etc....

Drafting is a crapshoot, always has been, always will be.  There are always some steals, some players you wish you had picked, and some that don't belong in the NFL

[TheRed]

8 hours ago, frash.exe said:

what if butler has a break out year in 2018? which draft pick will be highlighted as a bust so ppl can keep shitting on gettleman’s drafting?

I actually liked the Butler pick at the time once I warmed up to the reality that Short was likely gone.

But we all know how things played out.

Luxury picks have been an issue the last several years. By the time picks like Shaq and Butler get real starting time, their rookie contracts will be up and we will become forced to make tough decisions due to obvious cap restraints. That's a lack in basic foresight. If you can't find any issue at all here, you're just willfully blind to it.

[Ace_Aladdin]

8 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Star is important. So is Norwell.

But come September, both of them are likely to be important to other teams.

Nope they aren't

[frash.exe]

1 hour ago, TheRed said:

I actually liked the Butler pick at the time once I warmed up to the reality that Short was likely gone.

But we all know how things played out.

Luxury picks have been an issue the last several years. By the time picks like Shaq and Butler get real starting time, their rookie contracts will be up and we will become forced to make tough decisions due to obvious cap restraints. That's a lack in basic foresight. If you can't find any issue at all here, you're just willfully blind to it.

just because you picked someone in the first round doesn’t mean they have to start day one and play 80% of the snaps otherwise it was a luxury pick. thomas davis didn’t and look how he turned out. they might be talented and have all the measureables, but they're still rookies. it still takes time for them to develop. in the hurney years, they did that a lot bc in many of those years, the first round pick was easily our most talented acquisition in the offseason bc hurney was dogshit at finding a good free agent. The year we brought in shaq showed that the team had so much depth that we weren’t relying on 23 year olds to carry the defense. 

[top dawg]

1 hour ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Or Aaron Rodgers, or Richard Sherman, or James Harrison, etc....

Drafting is a crapshoot, always has been, always will be.  There are always some steals, some players you wish you had picked, and some that don't belong in the NFL

You're just throwing names out there without really looking at the specifics of each draft and the situations that were at hand.  I'm fairly certain that with each of the names that you mentioned, we didn't really have the need for said players,  or just had obviously greater needs.  I mean,  I'm not even sure Harrison was drafted, Sherman wasn't projected anywhere near the first round, and Rodgers was a QB that we didn't need at the time. Moreover,  the draft is largely a crap shoot,  but the first round shouldn't be, and normally isn't for any decent GM. As well,  you'd think that most GMs would take the opportunity to fill positions of need with highly touted players (such as Collins,  Lattimore,  or at least Hunter Henry) as opposed to picking players at positions of strength year after year.  Sounds reasonable to me,  especially when the GM has a long background in scouting. 

[frash.exe]

lol ffs

hunter henry plays less than 60% of the snaps on a team splitting time with a barely functional antonio gates, but we should’ve drafted him and it wouldn’t have been a luxury pick even though olsen plays 93% of the snaps on our offense in 2016

[Toomers]

3 hours ago, top dawg said:

You're just throwing names out there without really looking at the specifics of each draft and the situations that were at hand.  I'm fairly certain that with each of the names that you mentioned, we didn't really have the need for said players,  or just had obviously greater needs.  I mean,  I'm not even sure Harrison was drafted, Sherman wasn't projected anywhere near the first round, and Rodgers was a QB that we didn't need at the time. Moreover,  the draft is largely a crap shoot,  but the first round shouldn't be, and normally isn't for any decent GM. As well,  you'd think that most GMs would take the opportunity to fill positions of need with highly touted players (such as Collins,  Lattimore,  or at least Hunter Henry) as opposed to picking players at positions of strength year after year.  Sounds reasonable to me,  especially when the GM has a long background in scouting. 

Collins is about the only relevant one there. Henry would be playing even less than he is now. So he would be by your definition, a luxury pick. And we had two rookie CBs who played well enough to plan on them starting in 2017. So again, Lattimore is by your definition, a luxury pick. Hooker, on the other hand......

    Who was our starting strong-side LB going into the 2015? And was RB not a “need” last year? We just chose the wrong one, value wise

[top dawg]

5 hours ago, Toomers said:

Collins is about the only relevant one there. Henry would be playing even less than he is now. So he would be by your definition, a luxury pick. And we had two rookie CBs who played well enough to plan on them starting in 2017. So again, Lattimore is by your definition, a luxury pick. Hooker, on the other hand......

    Who was our starting strong-side LB going into the 2015? And was RB not a “need” last year? We just chose the wrong one, value wise

I just wholeheartedly disagree. Henry was arguably the most complete prospect at TE talent-wise in the last decade, and many of us have been screaming for two-TE sets for years now,  and have also said that not only the heir-apparent for Greg needs to be a focus,  but also a backup in case of injury.  Even if you didn't  believe that,  there was more than enough justification to take the other Henry as a power back of his calibre stature and talent was rare. 

As for our starting corners,  don't make me laugh.  There were plenty of people skeptical of Worley's play (and not completely sold on Bradberry) when you get right down to it,  and why shouldn't they have been?  Our defensive backfield got torched in '16. Lattimore basically fell into our laps.  As much as I liked Corey Davis,  to me, Lattimore was easily the most sensible pick due to our shaky defensive backfield, which was arguably the foremost reason why we essentially fell from grace after such a wonderful season. 

As for RBs,  you damned right we picked the wrong one from a value based perspective,  but to me that's what the first couple of rounds should be about. For me,  the draft is largely about value. Lattimore was an excellent value that fit a need,  and there were several RBs to justify waiting until the second round to nab one,  especially if you didn't necessarily believe they were three-down backs and decided that a talented and dynamic change-of-pace back would be fruitful to the offense.  I always believed that Kamara was either the fourth or fifth best back coming out and thought that he was worth a second round pick.  Once Fournette was gone,  I expected a back to be taken later.  For me,  Mixon (only because of character),  CMC,  Cook and Kamara were all great and appropriate second round values,  and that's why I thought that we would absolutely take Lattimore in the first once LF was off the board. Ironically if you take Mixon and Cook out of the picture,  then Kamara was the one in the cross hairs,  assuming CMC would have been taken later in the first or earlier in the second.  To me,  it was an error, and a bad one---one that shouldn't be made by a self-professed  god of a scout. 

As for LBs,  I don't know where you're really going with that one,  but suffice it to say that there are a few LBs every year who will come out if the draft or free agency that will more than suffice,  especially when you have the likes of  Kuechly,  Davis,  Mayo and Klein. 

Sorry,  but I'm not buying that Gettleman didn't execute head-scratching drafts, specifically at and near the top,  when juxtaposed against our needs at the time.  He may not believe in windows, but I do, and he wasted a great opportunity for us to try and finish the deal (not all due to drafting, but a good part of it).

 

 

 

 

[Toomers]

11 minutes ago, top dawg said:

I just wholeheartedly disagree. Henry was arguably the most complete prospect at TE talent-wise in the last decade, and many of us have been screaming for two-TE sets for years now,  and have also said that not only the heir-apparent for Greg needs to be a focus,  but also a backup in case of injury.  Even if you didn't  believe that,  there was more than enough justification to take the other Henry as a power back of his calibre stature and talent was rare. 

As for our starting corners,  don't make me laugh.  There were plenty of people skeptical of Worley's play (and not completely sold on Bradberry) when you get right down to it,  and why shouldn't they have been?  Our defensive backfield got torched in '16. Lattimore basically fell into our laps.  As much as I liked Corey Davis,  to me, Lattimore was easily the most sensible pick due to our shaky defensive backfield, which was arguably the foremost reason why we essentially fell from grace after such a wonderful season. 

As for RBs,  you damned right we picked the wrong one from a value based perspective,  but to me that's what the first couple of rounds should be about. For me,  the draft is largely about value. Lattimore was an excellent value that fit a need,  and there were several RBs to justify waiting until the second round to nab one,  especially if you didn't necessarily believe they were three-down backs and decided that a talented and dynamic change-of-pace back would be fruitful to the offense.  I always believed that Kamara was either the fourth or fifth best back coming out and thought that he was worth a second round pick.  Once Fournette was gone,  I expected a back to be taken later.  For me,  Mixon (only because of character),  CMC,  Cook and Kamara were all great and appropriate second round values,  and that's why I thought that we would absolutely take Lattimore in the first once LF was off the board. Ironically if you take Mixon and Cook out of the picture,  then Kamara was the one in the cross hairs,  assuming CMC would have been taken later in the first or earlier in the second.  To me,  it was an error, and a bad one---one that shouldn't be made by a self-professed  god of a scout. 

As for LBs,  I don't know where you're really going with that one,  but suffice it to say that there are a few LBs every year who will come out if the draft or free agency that will more than suffice,  especially when you have the likes of  Kuechly,  Davis,  Mayo and Klein. 

Sorry,  but I'm not buying that Gettleman didn't execute head-scratching drafts, specifically at and near the top,  when juxtaposed against our needs at the time.  He may not believe in windows, but I do, and he wasted a great opportunity for us to try and finish the deal (not all due to drafting, but a good part of it).

 

 

 

 

  How many different formations do you want to run as our base offense? You have posted constantly about every WR ever available, and the need to upgrade depth at WR. Henry would have played less than 50% of the snaps with us without Olsen’s injury. That’s a part timer and not good value to you. Shaq played 57% his 2nd year. D. Henry would have been a backup to JSTEW. He wasn’t going anywhere. So again, not good value.

  I would have took Lattimore as well. But with two rookies and signing Captain to a ridiculous contract, they had a lot invested in the position already. Should have took him and moved Worley to safety. Or Hooker. 

 I brought up LBs because as you listed, we had no SLB. Sure wasn’t Klein. So there was a need. They just wound up playing much more nickel than anticipated. 

 I sure didn’t agree with all his picks, but I understood where they were coming from. At least until 2017. Didn’t like any of the picks. Still don’t. 

[top dawg]

6 minutes ago, Toomers said:

  How many different formations do you want to run as our base offense? You have posted constantly about every WR ever available, and the need to upgrade depth at WR. Henry would have played less than 50% of the snaps with us without Olsen’s injury. That’s a part timer and not good value to you. Shaq played 57% his 2nd year. D. Henry would have been a backup to JSTEW. He wasn’t going anywhere. So again, not good value.

First off,  I don't spam the board with every wide receiver available, and I never have. That's not my style. I may focus on one (or maybe even two) as food for thought,  and it's really not a constant thing.  

Secondly,  you just don't pass over generational type of talent at a position,  especially when your guy is getting long in the tooth.  Hunter Henry has the potential to not only be a dynamic pass-catching tight end,  but he is also an excellent blocker, and has a high football IQ.  He was as pro-ready as they come.  If he is only playing 50% of the snaps,  you can live with that because you know EXACTLY what you're getting and what to look forward to. Furthermore,  he"s the type of player that just demands more snaps. Truth be told,  he should have gotten more snaps than he did with the Chargers this last season, but they were trying to get Gates his record. And,  we could have surely used him last season when Greg went down, and with the overall state that our receiving corps ended up in,  he could have easily been a game-changer. The concept of two-TE sets is not a foreign one, even for us. Down in the red zone,  he would have been deadly as opposed to stone-hands Clay or useless Shepard. We're just going to have to disagree. 

As for D. Henry,  he was another that would have likely played himself into more time,  if not the outright starting role. Stew's declining speed has almost been palpable for the last three seasons (certainly two).  I just don't believe that you can say with any surety that Henry would have been the effective back-up by last season.  Even if he didn't start,  he likely would have outplayed Stew.  He's not Artis-Payne.  He's not JAG.  Everyone has known it since his first outings as a pro (if not before). He would have been an excellent value to invest in,  and we would have had that most important fifth year option. Again,  we're just going to have to disagree.