Garrett Bradbury should be our 1st round pick

[Sub Zero]

11 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

You are really going to use name recognition as a justification for player value? LMAO

 

I'm sorry if that bothers you .. But that's reality of positional value.. You want to spend 1st round money on a position that has value but isn't as Valuable as others we're in need of..  You wouldn't draft a kicker in the the 1st 3 rounds right?? Even thoe they are Valuable to a team as well.. That is my point.. Also I wanted to point out that neither of the centers in the Superbowl were 1st or 2nd round picks but are solid players.. Why put 1st round money in a position that you wouldn't want to pay top money for in FA??

[Sub Zero]

11 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

RB as a position has been devalued in the NFL because the predominately passing offenses don't require a feature back the way they did 15+ years ago. That also shifted when the majority of the teams used a rotation of RB's rather than running one back to death. That doesn't mean they don't have value but unless you are an elite talent, you aren't going to go top 15 in the draft. 

The previous best RB in the NFL held out last year. What happened to that team? The backup RB selected in the 3rd round had almost 1,500 combined yards and 13 TD's in only 13 games.

Finally, there is no clear cut elite back in this draft class. There will likely not be a top 15 back. There is a chance that only one RB goes in the first round at all. So, I have no idea why you persist in making some idiotic argument equating taking a center in the first round to picking a RB in the top 5. Maybe calm down for a minute and realize that what I and a LOT of people are talking about is the possibility of trading down to later in the first of we wanted to go in that direction. And, in my case, that is solely provided that all of our major targets on the team draft board are gone at 16. 

We have a very clear need along the offensive line. We need a LT, OG and C. Those positions are critical to being shored up because we saw our number one and number two QB's get battered until they were too injured to play last season.

I agree unless you're talking about a top ten talent RB .. Really I would only take QB, LT, CB and Pass rushers if I had a top 20 1st round pick.. Because they hold the best positional value and they cost the most to keep.  So if u can keep those positions cheap for 5 years that's gravy.. It would take a Once in a lifetime talent at position like RB, MLB, OG, or safety for me to draft high.  Because you can pay the position and resigned them easier for fair money.. That's how you play positional value..

[Matt62881]

20 minutes ago, Toomers said:

And who’s he going to cover? He’s shown to struggle with TEs and RBs. For 4 years. And now we are giving him 9M to hope he gets it. He played it the first month last year. No noticeable improvement in his play. But we couldn’t get TD out there fast enough. He’s average. You don’t pay that much for an average OLB who doesn’t provide much pressure or cover well. 

He played for not enough ganes to get in a groove and on the worst D weve fielded in years. Who do you think we are foing to find better for 9 mil ? Hes got the athleticism to succeed with Rob calling the D and a upgraded dline! Zones will be smaller if people are in position!

[Matt62881]

23 minutes ago, Toomers said:

And who’s he going to cover? He’s shown to struggle with TEs and RBs. For 4 years. And now we are giving him 9M to hope he gets it. He played it the first month last year. No noticeable improvement in his play. But we couldn’t get TD out there fast enough. He’s average. You don’t pay that much for an average OLB who doesn’t provide much pressure or cover well. 

They wouldnt have let go of TD unless they thought Shaq was ready(wich i think hes played better then some think) or had a replacement.

[Jay Roosevelt]

I'd love this pick if there's no viable tackle on the board. I know everyone wants a pass rusher, but I'm on the OL bandwagon. We've got to get serious about protecting Cam and giving CMC a good line to run behind.

[Toomers]

17 minutes ago, Matt62881 said:

He played for not enough ganes to get in a groove and on the worst D weve fielded in years. Who do you think we are foing to find better for 9 mil ? Hes got the athleticism to succeed with Rob calling the D and a upgraded dline! Zones will be smaller if people are in position!

  A LB(Pratt in 3rd for example) and use the 8M saved to address another position. 

  Shaq has shown nothing in 4 years to warrant that salary. A long list of excuses and hope. People complain about never having any cap room but don’t want to make the tough calls that successful teams do. 

  The “We can’t do better than _________ for _________ amount” is not a good reason to be moving forward with a player. We have two LBs who could play at a similar level. It’s not that high a bar to clear. 4-3 OLBs don’t make much if they can’t/don’t rush the passer. His value, has probably been around 5M/year. Around average starting 4-3 OLB. And that was fine and provided value while he learned because he was on a cheap rookie.deal. Now he is about to make as much as he has his entire career. It’s now a gamble with you betting on performance that hasn’t been seen and betting a lotta money on him. And if he breaks out, he’s gone anyhow. 

  Getting him at 4/26M with about 10-15 guaranteed would change things dramatically. Then you can afford another year or two to find out what he is in whatever defense we decide to run...lol

[Matt62881]

6 minutes ago, Toomers said:

  A LB(Pratt in 3rd for example) and use the 8M saved to address another position. 

  Shaq has shown nothing in 4 years to warrant that salary. A long list of excuses and hope. People complain about never having any cap room but don’t want to make the tough calls that successful teams do. 

  The “We can’t do better than _________ for _________ amount” is not a good reason to be moving forward with a player. We have two LBs who could play at a similar level. It’s not that high a bar to clear. 4-3 OLBs don’t make much if they can’t/don’t rush the passer. His value, has probably been around 5M/year. Around average starting 4-3 OLB. And that was fine and provided value while he learned because he was on a cheap rookie.deal. Now he is about to make as much as he has his entire career. It’s now a gamble with you betting on performance that hasn’t been seen and betting a lotta money on him. And if he breaks out, he’s gone anyhow. 

  Getting him at 4/26M with about 10-15 guaranteed would change things dramatically. Then you can afford another year or two to find out what he is in whatever defense we decide to run...lol

Imo hes performed better then any rookie outside the first could and rolb make more then lolb , I really want to see a full year of him before discarding him. Just my opinion! If he doesn't play well this year we can draft a lb in the 1st or 2nd next year. On a ron Rivera Ron defense I think he looks way better then the begining of last year I mean damn people were talking poo about luke because of eric Washington's scheme and I just shook my head.

[Toomers]

1 hour ago, Matt62881 said:

Imo hes performed better then any rookie outside the first could and rolb make more then lolb , I really want to see a full year of him before discarding him. Just my opinion! If he doesn't play well this year we can draft a lb in the 1st or 2nd next year. On a ron Rivera Ron defense I think he looks way better then the begining of last year I mean damn people were talking poo about luke because of eric Washington's scheme and I just shook my head.

Darius Leonard was Defensive Rookie of the year with a 2nd round. What special quality is it that we can’t find in anyone else. And which ROLBs make more? And how do we even have one with just two LBs while playing mainly nickel?

 If he doesn’t play well you threw away 9M to find out what you should have already known. He’s not worth it. And that money could have helped with acquiring a player at a position of greater need. We already have 17M+ going towards Luke. 

  Let’s not even get into the what if about a 3-4 switch. Where does he play then? The ILB that comes off the field in Nickel? Or will the blame fall on the scheme, or coach, or whoever turn it is. 

[Sub Zero]

4 minutes ago, Toomers said:

Darius Leonard was Defensive Rookie of the year with a 2nd round. What special quality is it that we can’t find in anyone else. And which ROLBs make more? And how do we even have one with just two LBs while playing mainly nickel?

 If he doesn’t play well you threw away 9M to find out what you should have already known. He’s not worth it. And that money could have helped with acquiring a player at a position of greater need. We already have 17M+ going towards Luke. 

  Let’s not even get into the what if about a 3-4 switch. Where does he play then? The ILB that comes off the field in Nickel? Or will the blame fall on the scheme, or coach, or whoever turn it is. 

This is why I put 4/3 Lb in the middle end of positional value chart.. Unless their game changing talents .. You're paying high prices for position not meant to be a high price position.. And usually you're not getting your money's worth.. 

[Khyber53]

11 hours ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Don't forget about the great Tarheel Jeff Saturday from the Colts

I actually had him and Mitchell mixed up in my head when I was first writing that. Sorry, was in the hospital for a few days (got to come home today) and I was working with very little sleep. 

Still, we're taking a center with the first round pick, and just like with CMC it will seem like a genius move in a couple of seasons.

[MasterAwesome]

On 3/2/2019 at 4:51 PM, Sub Zero said:

I'm sorry if that bothers you .. But that's reality of positional value.. You want to spend 1st round money on a position that has value but isn't as Valuable as others we're in need of..  You wouldn't draft a kicker in the the 1st 3 rounds right?? Even thoe they are Valuable to a team as well.. That is my point.. Also I wanted to point out that neither of the centers in the Superbowl were 1st or 2nd round picks but are solid players.. Why put 1st round money in a position that you wouldn't want to pay top money for in FA??

Really? Positional value is tied to name recognition? Pretty sure one of the main contributors to name recognition leaguewide is this kind of little-known thing that a couple people participate in called Fantasy Football. I went from knowing very little about any non-Panther roughly 10 years ago, to being able to name most every team’s 3rd string running back in the same year I started playing Fantasy Football. You know the one position group notably absent from FF? O-line. You know what position is largely ignored in the marketing of team jerseys and apparel? Yep...o-line. O-line is not a sexy position, that’s why most people can’t name all of the o-line of other teams. Has nothing to do with value.

[Sub Zero]

5 hours ago, MasterAwesome said:

Really? Positional value is tied to name recognition? Pretty sure one of the main contributors to name recognition leaguewide is this kind of little-known thing that a couple people participate in called Fantasy Football. I went from knowing very little about any non-Panther roughly 10 years ago, to being able to name most every team’s 3rd string running back in the same year I started playing Fantasy Football. You know the one position group notably absent from FF? O-line. You know what position is largely ignored in the marketing of team jerseys and apparel? Yep...o-line. O-line is not a sexy position, that’s why most people can’t name all of the o-line of other teams. Has nothing to do with value.

Jesus christ it isn't my fault you can't name the 2 centers in the superbowl.. It doesn't change the positional value chart that has been around for more years than  10 years ago when you "learned about football" ..Centers aren't 1st round values that's why alot of them aren't drafted in the 1st round.. Now take some time and do a cross section of how many C were drafted in the 1st round compare to each of the other positions.. I bet Kicker and Punter is the only position that have less players drafted in the 1st... I'm sorry that history and intelligent player personnel value is on my side of this argument...

A good Oline starts with the OT not the Center ... That's why all the other oline positions are paid more money.. We can find a 10 years starter in round 2 or 3 like most good teams do...

[MasterAwesome]

1 hour ago, Sub Zero said:

Jesus christ it isn't my fault you can't name the 2 centers in the superbowl.. It doesn't change the positional value chart that has been around for more years than  10 years ago when you "learned about football" ..Centers aren't 1st round values that's why alot of them aren't drafted in the 1st round.. Now take some time and do a cross section of how many C were drafted in the 1st round compare to each of the other positions.. I bet Kicker and Punter is the only position that have less players drafted in the 1st... I'm sorry that history and intelligent player personnel value is on my side of this argument...

A good Oline starts with the OT not the Center ... That's why all the other oline positions are paid more money.. We can find a 10 years starter in round 2 or 3 like most good teams do...

I’m only arguing against your silly idea that positional value is tied to name recognition...and how the fact that I, or anyone else, not being able to name the starting centers in the Super Bowl proves that point.

But hey, don’t take my word for it...take your own. The fact that I CAN name the two starting kickers in the Super Bowl should mean that they’re more valuable than centers..right? Kickers do generally have much higher name recognition than centers, wouldn’t you say? Except wait, you just acknowledged that less kickers get drafted in the first than centers. So which position is more valuable? You have to concede one of your two points here: either that positional value is tied to name recognition, or tied to draft position (hint: I mostly agree with one of the two). Arguing both is contradictory, as you and I have teamed up so effectively to illustrate.

[Sub Zero]

16 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I’m only arguing against your silly idea that positional value is tied to name recognition...and how the fact that I, or anyone else, not being able to name the starting centers in the Super Bowl proves that point.

But hey, don’t take my word for it...take your own. The fact that I CAN name the two starting kickers in the Super Bowl should mean that they’re more valuable than centers..right? Kickers do generally have much higher name recognition than centers, wouldn’t you say? Except wait, you just acknowledged that less kickers get drafted in the first than centers. So which position is more valuable? You have to concede one of your two points here: either that positional value is tied to name recognition, or tied to draft position (hint: I mostly agree with one of the two). Arguing both is contradictory, as you and I have teamed up so effectively to illustrate.

You didn't follow the context of the conversation or you decided to cherry  pick 1 thing I said and ran with it.. For future situations read the whole conversation not just a quote.. I brought the superbowl guys in to point out they weren't 1st round picks and usually on most Oline in the league the Center isn't a high round pick and usually has a fair contract because of that.. So there you go...taa. daa