Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The way too early draft grade!(poll)

Doc Holiday

By Doc Holiday,
in Carolina Panthers

The way too early Draft Grade!  

59 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your draft grade?

    • A
      24
    • B
      27
    • C
      3
    • D
      3
    • F
      2

Recommended Posts

Doc Holiday Grand Master

Doc Holiday

Posted
Posted

Now since the Panthers have made all the picks that matter(sorry rounds 4-7 are depth best case scenario, if they even make the team) how do you feel about the draft?

my Grade:

A: We came into this draft needing OT or DE help in the first, and I feel that we nailed it, I’m happy about both picks and where we got them!

Little IMO will be our best pick, bring stability to LT which has been a revolving door since Gross left! If you’re mad about the pick you forget the importance of having a solid LT. This will payoff in major ways assuming Cam is completely healthy this season.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harbingers Grand Master

Harbingers

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

Please explain

1: Hurney tried to trade back into the first for a OT that was going to be there at 47 most likely. 

2: Hurney gave up 47+77. Not 47+100 which would have been the fair value trade. Or even 47+4th really.

3: it only seems logical he was floating next year picks to get back in the first round. 

It’s been clear the three players we drafted are who we have been targeting all along. Hurney was willing to give up too much to get them. 

Thus trading grade is an F. But I don’t mind the players at all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saX man Mentor

saX man

Posted
Posted

Don't forget what we gave up to trade up for Funchess, Armanti, etc., heck we traded up for Worley so it's really not a huge deal.  This team still has mad potential on the season.

Ideally, would've liked us sending off pick 100 instead of 77 for Little but you never know what these teams were willing to work with as trade partners.  We wanted to secure the LT that our scouts wanted and viewed as a first round LT.  Also, given our obvious infatuation, we would've probably ended up drafting Grier at 77 hehe.

I give this draft an A so far.    

-A top EDGE talent: Check

-A top LT talent behind Jonah: Check

-An NFL ready QB to backup Cam: Check (He isn't some developmental 5th rounder type; similar to the Mason Rudolph pick IMO with the Steelers the other year)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CanadianCat Veteran

CanadianCat

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

1: Hurney tried to trade back into the first for a OT that was going to be there at 47 most likely. 

2: Hurney gave up 47+77. Not 47+100 which would have been the fair value trade. Or even 47+4th really.

3: it only seems logical he was floating next year picks to get back in the first round. 

It’s been clear the three players we drafted are who we have been targeting all along. Hurney was willing to give up too much to get them. 

Thus trading grade is an F. But I don’t mind the players at all. 

 

1. To say a guy would be there at a later pick is just speculation at best. I have no issue with trading to make sure you get the guy you want. 

3. You could also assume just as easily that he was not allowed to trade next years picks. 

If you get the guys that you are targeting all along that seems like a pure win IMO... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Holiday Grand Master

Doc Holiday

Posted
  • Author
Posted
21 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

1: Hurney tried to trade back into the first for a OT that was going to be there at 47 most likely. 

2: Hurney gave up 47+77. Not 47+100 which would have been the fair value trade. Or even 47+4th really.

3: it only seems logical he was floating next year picks to get back in the first round. 

It’s been clear the three players we drafted are who we have been targeting all along. Hurney was willing to give up too much to get them. 

Thus trading grade is an F. But I don’t mind the players at all. 

 

Not sure what happened to cause him to fall but Little was the top ranked OT when he declared.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25501194/ole-miss-greg-little-top-rated-offensive-tackle-enter-nfl-draft?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

and 8th overall for a bit, so yeah getting him in the second at all was a huge steal

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thunderraiden Veteran

thunderraiden

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

1: Hurney tried to trade back into the first for a OT that was going to be there at 47 most likely. 

2: Hurney gave up 47+77. Not 47+100 which would have been the fair value trade. Or even 47+4th really.

3: it only seems logical he was floating next year picks to get back in the first round. 

It’s been clear the three players we drafted are who we have been targeting all along. Hurney was willing to give up too much to get them. 

Thus trading grade is an F. But I don’t mind the players at all. 

 

I’ve come to peace with the fact that even if we shipped our 100 pick we would have still drafted Grier regardless so it doesn’t change the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harbingers Grand Master

Harbingers

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, thunderraiden said:

I’ve come to peace with the fact that even if we shipped our 100 pick we would have still drafted Grier regardless so it doesn’t change the outcome.

See I thought about that. Grier was always going to be at 100. 

But if we didn’t trade nobody picked little we could have got another player at 77 or another player at 100. 

So we essentially over valued little too much in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pejorative Miscreant Grand Master

Pejorative Miscreant

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

1. To say a guy would be there at a later pick is just speculation at best. I have no issue with trading to make sure you get the guy you want. 

3. You could also assume just as easily that he was not allowed to trade next years picks. 

If you get the guys that you are targeting all along that seems like a pure win IMO... 

I personally don’t like giving up picks to trade up but I don’t think it was a bad deal and am ok with what we gave up in order to get   

I think we addressed two of the biggest needs and got value  we did not reach at all.   Would have rather gotten a safety in the 3rd but understand why we went with Grier. Overall a successful first two days.  

I think it’s too much to hope for a starter but I would like to get a solid rotational guy today and maybe some RB depth.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NanceUSMC Newbie

NanceUSMC

Posted
Posted

There were 4 Offensive Tackles taken between picks 35 and 41...  I believe Little would have been off the board before our pick at 47...  He was also the only pure OT worth being selected in that range...  anyone else we would've considered at 47 would likely have been a bit of a tweener, or a somewhat of a reach at that point given what was left after the run from 35 to 41...  I don't like giving up picks, but I do like that we had 'our guy' identified, and that he's more of a pure left tackle...

I'll grant that we have had a somewhat boring draft, mainly because it's been the most 'telegraphed pass' the team has ever had on draft day...  we knew all these picks were coming...  I'll agree that it makes for an anticlimactic draft, but if the scouting department is right, it'll be a highly impactful one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pantherclaw Grand Master

pantherclaw

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Harbingers said:

1: Hurney tried to trade back into the first for a OT that was going to be there at 47 most likely. 

2: Hurney gave up 47+77. Not 47+100 which would have been the fair value trade. Or even 47+4th really.

3: it only seems logical he was floating next year picks to get back in the first round. 

It’s been clear the three players we drafted are who we have been targeting all along. Hurney was willing to give up too much to get them. 

Thus trading grade is an F. But I don’t mind the players at all. 

 

You can disagree with the teams value of the player all you want to, but that is your issue.  Not the teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
top dawg Grand Master

top dawg

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Harbingers said:

1: Hurney tried to trade back into the first for a OT that was going to be there at 47 most likely. 

2: Hurney gave up 47+77. Not 47+100 which would have been the fair value trade. Or even 47+4th really.

3: it only seems logical he was floating next year picks to get back in the first round. 

It’s been clear the three players we drafted are who we have been targeting all along. Hurney was willing to give up too much to get them. 

Thus trading grade is an F. But I don’t mind the players at all. 

 

You nearly lost me at your first point. 

There is no way---none---zero chance---that Little was going to be available at 47.

Did you not see the run on OTs? Believe it or not, Little flirted with the first round from the very beginning of this entire draft season. The beginning of the second round (like the top 10 picks) was always pretty much the sweet spot to get him if you wanted him, and that's what Hurney did. Many major outfits (e.g., PFF, Sporting News, CBS Sports) had Little before 47 on their big boards. There is really little justification to say that he would have been around at 47---none really (especially after the run on OTs with first round talent).

As for the draft pick valuation board, I always said that it was only a contrived guide used by teams to try and get as many draft picks as possible.  You can put stock in it if you want, but it will never be set in stone and actually means very little in the grand scheme of things. When a team wants to go get their man, they go get him!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • SmokinwithWilly
      Dan Morgan on the Rich Eisen show

      By SmokinwithWilly · Posted

      So he became GM and decided not to address the weakness in the QB room following one of the worst rookie QB performances in NFL history?  There were options last season other than signing Dalton to a 2 year deal. Brissett and Jones by a wide margin, both of whom outplayed Bryce, Wilson, Winston, hell even Rivers off the couch was more exciting at the QB position. The time to address the failure in the QB room was last year but instead people on the Huddle cheered when we brought Dalton back then cheered when we were able to get anything for him after they finally realized he was washed up like a few of had been saying all along and got poo'd for even mentioning.  This year, the options were more limited obviously, especially since we lost Icky. It changed the dynamic of our draft. I think we were stuck this year keeping Bryce, but i still think giving him a 5th year option for what has amounted to replacement worthy performance was the wrong move. Why guarantee 25m if you're planning to replace him? You think he's going to want to be a bridge QB? Hell no. He's going to want out and we'll end up cutting him if he has another lackluster season because no one is trading for him with that price tag.  Were there better options as far as production available. A couple. Were there guys available with more physical tools than Bryce, Pickett or Grier, you damn well better believe there were. I've been saying all along, you always keep looking for your 1b. Bryce has yet to prove he can be a starter. Keep looking for someone who may. Put competition in camp. Let the best QB lead the team. Stop settling for less than mediocre. 
    • Jackson113.2
      Unc Basketball thread

      By Jackson113.2 · Posted

    • strato
      Dan Morgan on the Rich Eisen show

      By strato · Posted

      Reasonable. I mean I didn’t see a clear path to relief this season myself. As I have typed already, I think the QB FA class is more interesting next season and that draft is supposed to be stacked as well. There just weren’t many options this year.  When you have Tepper to contend with you have to tread lightly around this unless you are 100% certain and willIng to stake your job on it.   There were a couple of outings that helped Bryce a lot in terms of  thinking maybe he can do this, and if you are a supporter you are giving them a lot of weight. You are likely to think just get him some more help and he can do that every week. Which I think Tepper falls into that category.  And the playoffs, division champs, regardless of the way I see that, the supporters will also give that a lot of weight.    And the big one, the atmosphere In BOA for that WC game, Tepper had to be soiling himself over that. If you pulled Bryce out right now you had better be right and your new guy had better make the playoffs and look good doing it or you will be gone and your chance to build your old team back into respectability will be gone too.  So here we have Pickett on a one year deal, and Grier and King. I understand it.  
×
×
  • Create New...