Determining Needs priorties through reverse argumentation

[MHS831]

What is this strange approach?

 

A common tactic attorneys use to determine the strength of an argument is to develop the counterargument.  It somehow filters bias and emotion.  So I embarked  (legal and nautical term) on a project--determine Panther needs by defending the reason we do not need to address certain positions.  At the conclusion, I list the hardest to defend (meaning we need to draft that position) to least difficult to defend (meaning, the answer could be on the roster).  The result is my prioritized list of the top 5 needs--it is important to note that this is science--highly  technical, yet not data driven. 

The position-by-position defense of the roster personnel for each of our commonly-accepted  needs:

Cornerback:  Cockrell is a nice fit for our system and we have had 2 years with Bradberry as the #1.  Gunter has experience, as does Seymour.  These players are all young and need experienced.  At nickel, we have experienced Munnerlyn and Corn Elder.   Our CBs will play better if we get better pressure on the CB, so signing Peppers and Poe-along with what we expect to see from Hall—should make us better at CB.  No need to overreact.  Sure, in a perfect world we would have 2 shutdown CBs, but we have other needs.

Safety:  There is literally no argument against drafting a S, but here goes a feeble attempt:  Adams is a veteran SS with experience and Searcy is in his prime.  Let’s not forget the young Demetrious Cox as depth.  Throw in the veteran Colin Jones, and S is not as bad as it appears. 

Wide Receiver:  We added 2 WRs (Wright and Smith) and Samuel is going to be effective when healthy. Funchess is developing and will be in a contract year.  Byrd showed signs of competence.  In addition, there are players in the pipeline who were raw (like Byrd) such as Fred Ross and Austin Duke.  Besides, Cam is better when he is not forcing a ball to a #1 WR (see W-L record with and without KB).

Offensive Left Guard: Taylor Moton was a better G in college than T, although he might be the LT of the future.  He is ready for the job.  In the event he does not, we have other players with  NFL starting experience behind him (Larsen, Sirles).

Tight End:  Sometimes the answer is on your roster.  Manhertz is a better backup TE than Dickson because he is more versatile, arguably.  In addition, 6-2, 255 Armah is a FB that can play TE-he did in college. 

Defensive End:  With 22 sacks from last year on the roster in Addison and Peppers, Hall can rotate in and develop during the year.  In addition Horton is in his prime and has improved every year.  Cox was an undrafted rookie last season, and should improve dramatically. 

Running Back:  Stewart kept CAP off the field in 2017 even though he averaged nearly 2 yards per carry more than Stewart.  CAP knows the system and has been a team player.  Give him a chance to play, he should not disappoint.

Center:  Ryan Kalil has played 14 games in 2 years, and Marty Hurney apparently thinks he is worth keeping on another year at his lofty salary.  Tyler Larsen showed he can handle the C duties last year, and Van Roten is a smart, versatile C behind him.  Since Centers peak at a later age than skill players, Larsen is only entering his prime at his age.

Commentary:  I had the toughest time defending NOT DRAFTING the following positions in order:

1.    .  Safety (I think we could use 2; there is no argument for defending Searcy  and a 37-year old S who does not understand the game enough to know when  to intercept  a pass and when to knock it down).
2.             Tight End (Defending a Manhertz in a 2 TE offensive scheme is a tough act.)
3.           Cornerback (my argument is solid if you seek mediocrity.  I would, however, understand if they decided to go another direction early  in the draft and take a CB late--the draft is loaded)
4.          Running Back (CAP had 19 carries and averaged 5.3 yards; too small a sample size to make a strong case for him.  I think we are taking a RB in the second or third round)
5.        Wide Receiver (Hard to believe this  was fifth, but we added 2 WRs and have last year's second rounder waiting to show what he can do.  It may not be our #1 need, but could be our round #1 pick)

.  You have to be honest, as if you are the GM after the draft and did not draft a particular position. Try it.

 

[bythenbrs]

I have never been a fan of augmentation.  I imagine it is expensive and it never looks natural.

[bythenbrs]

Just now, bythenbrs said:

I have never been a fan of augmentation.  I would imagine it is expensive and it never looks natural.

 

[rayzor]

interesting exercise.

i pretty much came to the same conclusion, though I'm having  a hard time not paying attention to C and even LG and RB wound up a bit lower on my list.

1) Safety - it's been weak for years, but this is the worst it's been. really there is no defending staying with the status quo.

2) TE - no real complement to Olsen....who is done after this year, which steps up the need. on the upside, we've got Olsen for another year and we've done fairly well with just him and i think we've got some pretty good targets for cam on the roster with the addition of wright and smith, a healthier samuel and byrd, year two of CMC, and of course funchess. still, we need more targets cam can count on.

3) CB - i think bradberry will be better this year and cockrell will fit better plus a decent amount of potential in corn and we've got cap't around still who knows stuff, but this corps depends on the front 4 putting pressure on the QB to look, well, not sucky.

4) OL -I'll just lump it all together here. we've got decent back-ups for kalil...i mean decent like our corners are decent so kind of not so much. we've got moton who i think is good to plug in at LG and OT if needed, but we've only got one of him. I think we need an inside OL version of moton who will be the future replacement for kalil who could fill in if needed, but who can also handle LG when called upon.

5) I'm going to lump in RB and WR together here as well....mainly just another reliable playmaker, because you can't have too many and i love watching big plays, but i'm really liking the way both positions are shaping up. i think we've got enough at RB to pull off what norv does and i think we've done a good job rounding out the WR corps with wright and smith. i think RB is the bigger need of the two, though, but it's got nothing to do with CMC who i think was held back last year because of inexperience, having to share the load with stewart getting the bulk of carries in front of him (hard to get in the groove), and spending all season to figure out how to use him. i'm a big CMC fan, but i think the biggest problem isn't a lack of power, i think we can work around that with a lot of dynamic play....it's just depth. i don't trust any options beyond CMC. that said i wouldn't hate WR being the first or second pick.

[MHS831]

33 minutes ago, bythenbrs said:

I have never been a fan of augmentation.  I imagine it is expensive and it never looks natural.

How do you feel about comprehension?

[TheSpecialJuan]

1 hour ago, MHS831 said:

What is this strange approach?

 

A common tactic attorneys use to determine the strength of an argument is to develop the counterargument.  It somehow filters bias and emotion.  So I embarked  (legal and nautical term) on a project--determine Panther needs by defending the reason we do not need to address certain positions.  At the conclusion, I list the hardest to defend (meaning we need to draft that position) to least difficult to defend (meaning, the answer could be on the roster).  The result is my prioritized list of the top 5 needs--it is important to note that this is science--highly  technical, yet not data driven. 

The position-by-position defense of the roster personnel for each of our commonly-accepted  needs:

Cornerback:  Cockrell is a nice fit for our system and we have had 2 years with Bradberry as the #1.  Gunter has experience, as does Seymour.  These players are all young and need experienced.  At nickel, we have experienced Munnerlyn and Corn Elder.   Our CBs will play better if we get better pressure on the CB, so signing Peppers and Poe-along with what we expect to see from Hall—should make us better at CB.  No need to overreact.  Sure, in a perfect world we would have 2 shutdown CBs, but we have other needs.

Safety:  There is literally no argument against drafting a S, but here goes a feeble attempt:  Adams is a veteran SS with experience and Searcy is in his prime.  Let’s not forget the young Demetrious Cox as depth.  Throw in the veteran Colin Jones, and S is not as bad as it appears. 

Wide Receiver:  We added 2 WRs (Wright and Smith) and Samuel is going to be effective when healthy. Funchess is developing and will be in a contract year.  Byrd showed signs of competence.  In addition, there are players in the pipeline who were raw (like Byrd) such as Fred Ross and Austin Duke.  Besides, Cam is better when he is not forcing a ball to a #1 WR (see W-L record with and without KB).

Offensive Left Guard: Taylor Moton was a better G in college than T, although he might be the LT of the future.  He is ready for the job.  In the event he does not, we have other players with  NFL starting experience behind him (Larsen, Sirles).

Tight End:  Sometimes the answer is on your roster.  Manhertz is a better backup TE than Dickson because he is more versatile, arguably.  In addition, 6-2, 255 Armah is a FB that can play TE-he did in college. 

Defensive End:  With 22 sacks from last year on the roster in Addison and Peppers, Hall can rotate in and develop during the year.  In addition Horton is in his prime and has improved every year.  Cox was an undrafted rookie last season, and should improve dramatically. 

Running Back:  Stewart kept CAP off the field in 2017 even though he averaged nearly 2 yards per carry more than Stewart.  CAP knows the system and has been a team player.  Give him a chance to play, he should not disappoint.

Center:  Ryan Kalil has played 14 games in 2 years, and Marty Hurney apparently thinks he is worth keeping on another year at his lofty salary.  Tyler Larsen showed he can handle the C duties last year, and Van Roten is a smart, versatile C behind him.  Since Centers peak at a later age than skill players, Larsen is only entering his prime at his age.

Commentary:  I had the toughest time defending NOT DRAFTING the following positions in order:

1.    .  Safety (I think we could use 2; there is no argument for defending Searcy  and a 37-year old S who does not understand the game enough to know when  to intercept  a pass and when to knock it down).
2.             Tight End (Defending a Manhertz in a 2 TE offensive scheme is a tough act.)
3.           Cornerback (my argument is solid if you seek mediocrity.  I would, however, understand if they decided to go another direction early  in the draft and take a CB late--the draft is loaded)
4.          Running Back (CAP had 19 carries and averaged 5.3 yards; too small a sample size to make a strong case for him.  I think we are taking a RB in the second or third round)
5.        Wide Receiver (Hard to believe this  was fifth, but we added 2 WRs and have last year's second rounder waiting to show what he can do.  It may not be our #1 need, but could be our round #1 pick)

.  You have to be honest, as if you are the GM after the draft and did not draft a particular position. Try it.

 

Nice work

[heel31ok]

54 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

How do you feel about comprehension?

Its more expensive than just liability..

[Panthers8969]

Appreciate the thread and agree with a lot of it but the argument for not drafting a rb should center on cmc not cap

[t96]

Adams didn’t intercept that pass. Unfathomable how that wasn’t reviewed as it clearly wasn’t a catch. All turnovers are supposed to be reviewed.

[Thama]

I agree that safety is easily our biggest need, and the one position where we HAVE to (not would LIKE to) land a day 1 starter. That's also the reason I think Justin Reid should be our pick. But the counterargument against drafting a safety early is that the free agent market is absolutely glutted with experienced safeties with a lot of football left in them, and that glut means that after the draft they are likely to be cheap. So why reach on a position where there's a very good chance you can get a proven NFL starter in post-draft FA for a very modest investment?

[MtnProwler]

Great post. As an attorney, the argument becomes stronger the more objective the facts.....

CB: In 2017, Worley had 64 combined tackles, 2 sacks, 1 interception. Cockrell had 50-0-3 for those same stats and brings 2 more years of experience. You have to think we've given ourselves at least a shot for improvement with this move. With the depth and competition of Gunter, Seymour, Corn, and Captain. This space is all of a sudden becoming a little crowded. Even though more may be desired, on paper we're even to slightly positive with our expectations. CB is on our radar but not something we reach for as we don't directly need them to start right away.

S: Searcy brings an average of 47 tackles, .5 sacks, and 1 interception with 7 years of experience. Coleman brought 64-.25-2.5 for those same stats with 8 years of experience. This replacement is slighlty negative. Adams is also on his way out with his age. The only arguement that can be made is Cox and Jones are decent backups. If they planned to move Searcy to FS, which isn't that much different in our defense from SS, then that's not a bad plan. However we are still negative when comparing past performances, even when including Coleman's down year last year. I agree, this becomes a priority and would be nice to find stater quality out of the draft. 

RB: You mentioned the stats of CAP, it's hard to argue not to give him a shot. This becomes a radar not priority.

WR: I agree with everything you said. Funchess does nothing but improve every year, last year he had 63-840-8. KB's best year was 74-1000-9. If you're looking for a number 1, it's probably already on the roster, on a rookie contract no less. With the additions this has become on our radar but not a top priority.

LG: It's hard to replace someone playing like Norwell, but if you needed to why not a 2nd rounder with one plenty of upside and a proven vet in competition. This becomes an on radar situation and not a priority.

TE: It's hard to defend Manhertz is an improvement at #2 when he was our #3 last year. Olsen is retiring after this year. We would be left with only a #3 on our roster. With no additions in FA this becomes a priority.

Center/DE: I throw into the same bucket we seem to appear to have nice depth here. But are the #2s starter quality. That is the concern going forward as we have guys retiring. They become on the radar but not priority.

Draft Scenario:

1a S: has the weakest counter arguement.

1b TE: has almost as weak of a counter as S.

3 LG or OL: the counter arguement breaks down with the past performance and objective stats vs what we have at CB or WR. The answer may be on the roster but the arguement has no objective backup like that at WR and CB. It would be nice if we can take care of interior line at G and C. I move this one to #1 if there is a guy who can solidify both concerns.

4 RB CAP may be the answer but again unproven by objective stats.

5 WR

 

[Krovvy]

Safeties are such a devalued position, especially this year. It wouldn't surprise me if they Panthers didn't draft one until the third round.

[MHS831]

1 hour ago, thomas96 said:

Adams didn’t intercept that pass. Unfathomable how that wasn’t reviewed as it clearly wasn’t a catch. All turnovers are supposed to be reviewed.

He didn't knock it down either.  Good point though.  I forgot.

[TheSpecialJuan]

42 minutes ago, MtnProwler said:

Great post. As an attorney, the argument becomes stronger the more objective the facts.....

CB: In 2017, Worley had 64 combined tackles, 2 sacks, 1 interception. Cockrell had 50-0-3 for those same stats and brings 2 more years of experience. You have to think we've given ourselves at least a shot for improvement with this move. With the depth and competition of Gunter, Seymour, Corn, and Captain. This space is all of a sudden becoming a little crowded. Even though more may be desired, on paper we're even to slightly positive with our expectations. CB is on our radar but not something we reach for as we don't directly need them to start right away.

S: Searcy brings an average of 47 tackles, .5 sacks, and 1 interception with 7 years of experience. Coleman brought 64-.25-2.5 for those same stats with 8 years of experience. This replacement is slighlty negative. Adams is also on his way out with his age. The only arguement that can be made is Cox and Jones are decent backups. If they planned to move Searcy to FS, which isn't that much different in our defense from SS, then that's not a bad plan. However we are still negative when comparing past performances, even when including Coleman's down year last year. I agree, this becomes a priority and would be nice to find stater quality out of the draft. 

RB: You mentioned the stats of CAP, it's hard to argue not to give him a shot. This becomes a radar not priority.

WR: I agree with everything you said. Funchess does nothing but improve every year, last year he had 63-840-8. KB's best year was 74-1000-9. If you're looking for a number 1, it's probably already on the roster, on a rookie contract no less. With the additions this has become on our radar but not a top priority.

LG: It's hard to replace someone playing like Norwell, but if you needed to why not a 2nd rounder with one plenty of upside and a proven vet in competition. This becomes an on radar situation and not a priority.

TE: It's hard to defend Manhertz is an improvement at #2 when he was our #3 last year. Olsen is retiring after this year. We would be left with only a #3 on our roster. With no additions in FA this becomes a priority.

Center/DE: I throw into the same bucket we seem to appear to have nice depth here. But are the #2s starter quality. That is the concern going forward as we have guys retiring. They become on the radar but not priority.

Draft Scenario:

1a S: has the weakest counter arguement.

1b TE: has almost as weak of a counter as S.

3 LG or OL: the counter arguement breaks down with the past performance and objective stats vs what we have at CB or WR. The answer may be on the roster but the arguement has no objective backup like that at WR and CB. It would be nice if we can take care of interior line at G and C. I move this one to #1 if there is a guy who can solidify both concerns.

4 RB CAP may be the answer but again unproven by objective stats.

5 WR

 

great work