Who are your top targets at 24

[stirs]

Where are all the drafters of Landry planning on playing him?

Just wondering where his 6'3" 250lb is gonna fit?

[CPF4LIFE]

10 hours ago, bobsfoodbasics said:

Da'Ron Payne only because he will probably be the highest rated player on their board available at 24

We better not.

[DeSim]

What do y’all think about Gesicki? He’s definitely a player id love for the Panthers to draft, but i’m not sure if it’d be reaching with our 1st or if he’ll be available with our 2nd.  Love the way he plays, just wanna know where you guys think he’s valued at. 

[stirs]

8 minutes ago, DeSim said:

What do y’all think about Gesicki? He’s definitely a player id love for the Panthers to draft, but i’m not sure if it’d be reaching with our 1st or if he’ll be available with our 2nd.  Love the way he plays, just wanna know where you guys think he’s valued at. 

from 40-55th pick

[AU-panther]

50 minutes ago, DeSim said:

What do y’all think about Gesicki? He’s definitely a player id love for the Panthers to draft, but i’m not sure if it’d be reaching with our 1st or if he’ll be available with our 2nd.  Love the way he plays, just wanna know where you guys think he’s valued at. 

Tested amazingly at the combine, Goedert and Hurst seem to ranked higher based on game film.

1 hour ago, stirs said:

Where are all the drafters of Landry planning on playing him?

Just wondering where his 6'3" 250lb is gonna fit?

I've been wondering the same.  Seems like a better fit for a 3-4.  

Just because a guy is a top prospect doesn't necessarily mean he is really on our board.

[AU-panther]

18 minutes ago, stbugs said:

It’s not just about Moton. It’s about needing depth, a solid LG and next year a new C. Even if Moton works out at LG we need another C. I like Larsen as a backup but I don’t think he’s a stud. If we got someone like Daniels then you lock up Williams and the OL could be Kalil (I didn’t want him but I’m optimistic on year 2), Moton, Daniels, Turner and Williams for a minimum of 3 years. I know, I know LT, but if Kalil just gets to average that’s a mean, gnarly run blocking unit and a decent pass blocking one.

ETA: Ryan is the starter but even if Moton wins the LG spot, I’d be shocked if Daniels didn’t play a decent amount. I just don’t see Ryan lasting a whole season. 

I don't want to spend a first round pick on depth, especially on the OL because they really don't rotate during a game.  Now if you are talking about someone that can play center also that is a different story because at best it will be a need next year. 

I don't mind drafting a lineman (offensive or defensive) a year early, they take time to develop, even if it is a first round pick.  Especially towards the back of the first round.

If we feel like Moton can play guard at a decent level there is no reason to use a first on a guy who can just play guard, we have too many needs for that.  Another exception is if the coaches feel like Moton can play tackle or center then guard does make sense.  Moton seems like he has enough potential to play somewhere on the line.  None of us know for sure where yet.

 

[grimesgoat]

Panthers have to choose between 1 exceptional talent and 3 solid players or trade back and find 5 solid 2019 starters.  I would choose the latter.

Scenario 1 - If an exceptional talent like Jackson or Guice happens to fall to us - you have to make the pick, even though it is not an immediate need.  The only way I pick a WR is if Kirk, Moore, or Ridley happen to be sitting there at 55 when we pick again.

Scenario 2 - If we can trade back and pick up an extra late 2nd, we can fill our key needs with 5 potential new starters next year.  2nd=Daniels (C/G)), 2nd=Kirk/Moore or best available TE, late 2nd = Reid/Bates, 3rd=Penny (RB), 3rd=Jackson/Dawson (CB).  Use the 5th for a developmental DE, the 6th for an LB/Special Teamer, and the 7th for another S since the class is pretty deep.

 

[bababoey]

2 hours ago, DeSim said:

What do y’all think about Gesicki? He’s definitely a player id love for the Panthers to draft, but i’m not sure if it’d be reaching with our 1st or if he’ll be available with our 2nd.  Love the way he plays, just wanna know where you guys think he’s valued at. 

Have you watched a full game of his and not just highlights?  I am only asking because I have watched 2 or 3 and I hate the way he plays.  I would not draft him with any pick or even sign him as an udfa.  Soft is not even the word.  It's like he is scared to block anyone.  And he may be fast but he looks lost running routes.  I would rather just put an extra tackle on the field than put him out there. 

[AU-panther]

35 minutes ago, grimesgoat said:

Panthers have to choose between 1 exceptional talent and 3 solid players or trade back and find 5 solid 2019 starters.  I would choose the latter.

Scenario 1 - If an exceptional talent like Jackson or Guice happens to fall to us - you have to make the pick, even though it is not an immediate need.  The only way I pick a WR is if Kirk, Moore, or Ridley happen to be sitting there at 55 when we pick again.

Scenario 2 - If we can trade back and pick up an extra late 2nd, we can fill our key needs with 5 potential new starters next year.  2nd=Daniels (C/G)), 2nd=Kirk/Moore or best available TE, late 2nd = Reid/Bates, 3rd=Penny (RB), 3rd=Jackson/Dawson (CB).  Use the 5th for a developmental DE, the 6th for an LB/Special Teamer, and the 7th for another S since the class is pretty deep.

 

Hoping for 5 solid starters is nice, but its unrealistic to expect.  What the Saints did last year with their draft was rare, and pains me to see.  People tend to severely overate the talent of a draft class.

I don't mind the idea of trading back though.  Even though I'm not sure if I would move back far enough to get a late second.  To get the last pick in the second round (64) you probably would have to move from 24 to 43.  I might look to move down just 6-8 spots and pick up a third.

[trueblade]

1 hour ago, grimesgoat said:

Panthers have to choose between 1 exceptional talent and 3 solid players or trade back and find 5 solid 2019 starters.  I would choose the latter.

Scenario 1 - If an exceptional talent like Jackson or Guice happens to fall to us - you have to make the pick, even though it is not an immediate need.  The only way I pick a WR is if Kirk, Moore, or Ridley happen to be sitting there at 55 when we pick again.

Scenario 2 - If we can trade back and pick up an extra late 2nd, we can fill our key needs with 5 potential new starters next year.  2nd=Daniels (C/G)), 2nd=Kirk/Moore or best available TE, late 2nd = Reid/Bates, 3rd=Penny (RB), 3rd=Jackson/Dawson (CB).  Use the 5th for a developmental DE, the 6th for an LB/Special Teamer, and the 7th for another S since the class is pretty deep.

 

I'm not sure Daniels makes it to 24, much less the second round.

[grimesgoat]

2 hours ago, AU-panther said:

Hoping for 5 solid starters is nice, but its unrealistic to expect.  What the Saints did last year with their draft was rare, and pains me to see.  People tend to severely overate the talent of a draft class.

I don't mind the idea of trading back though.  Even though I'm not sure if I would move back far enough to get a late second.  To get the last pick in the second round (64) you probably would have to move from 24 to 43.  I might look to move down just 6-8 spots and pick up a third.

It shouldn't make a huge difference whether we get a late 2nd or early 3rd.  And I'm not suggesting we have to have the successful draft the Saints had.  We do not have as many holes to fill in 2018 as they apparently had in 2017.

But in 2019 we will have a lot of holes and filling these with solid 2nd/3rd round prospects with a year in our system seems wise.  In 2019, we will definitely have openings for C, S, RB2, TE, and possibly WR and CB.  I would rather have guys with a year under their belts ready to step in than deal with the free agency market. 

There is no guarantee the guys I mentioned will not continue to improve or and stay healthy, but all can reasonably be expected to be available and all would likely be solid contributors in this year and beyond.

 

[grimesgoat]

1 hour ago, stbugs said:

Getting two starters (not Ereck Flowers has to start, but quality) is good, 3 is really solid. 5 starters is ridiculous and if we did that, we’d be in the playoffs every year for the next 5 years.

We need to get a quality starter at 24 and 55, which is why I’d hesitate to move back. We are going to have 4 picks in the 3rd round the next two years, we don’t really need more picks. We have 8 picks this year. With Corn and Hall healthy only net losing Norwell, we don’t have room for 8 rookies let alone 9 from trading down. 

The modern NFL has roughly 26 "starters" if you throw in a nickel, TE2, RB2, and Slot Receiver (note - I did not include kicker, punter, punt returner, gunner, long snapper, etc.).  With the average life of an NFL player around 5-7 years, we need to manage considerably better than 2 starters per draft. 

In terms of space on this team - we have room for a TE2, WR (or keep Shepherd), RB2 (or keep CAP and Fozzy), QB3 (assuming Gilbert is a decent QB2), S (or keep Parms or Cox), OL (or keep Siluatolu and hope Kalil stats healthy), CB (or keep Seymour and Gunter), LB (for Davis).

I can easily see 5-8 rookies making the team this year.  I do not expect the 6th and 7ths to make the 53 this year - but could make the practice squad.

 

[panther4life]

On 4/8/2018 at 10:37 AM, LinvilleGorge said:

I’d add Josh Jackson to this list and call it good.

 Good call, just got done watching a few of his games. He is a monster in coverage! 

My only beef about him was he was very passive in trying to stop the run and almost shied away from contact. Read he was a converted receiver, so that explains his incredible ball skills and his lackadaisical approach to contact.

[AU-panther]

8 hours ago, stbugs said:

Getting two starters (not Ereck Flowers has to start, but quality) is good, 3 is really solid. 5 starters is ridiculous and if we did that, we’d be in the playoffs every year for the next 5 years.

We need to get a quality starter at 24 and 55, which is why I’d hesitate to move back. We are going to have 4 picks in the 3rd round the next two years, we don’t really need more picks. We have 8 picks this year. With Corn and Hall healthy only net losing Norwell, we don’t have room for 8 rookies let alone 9 from trading down. 

People said the same in 2015 when we had a lot of picks and look at us now.  We still have needs and did last year also.

Just because you have 9 picks doesn't mean 9 guys are going to make the team.  It might increase your chances of getting 3 starters out of those 9 picks then out of 7 picks.

Also trading back doesn't have to mean more picks, it can be capital you can use to move up with a different pick.  Would you prefer picks 24 and 55? or 30 and 43?

Depending on how the board falls 30 and 43 might be better.