The way too early draft grade!(poll)

[Doc Holiday]

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.   

 

[Harbingers]

F for bad trading practice. Picks are a B-

[CanadianCat]

2 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

F for bad trading practice. 

Please explain

[Harbingers]

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. 

 

[saX man]

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)

 

 

 

[CanadianCat]

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... 

[Doc Holiday]

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

[thunderraiden]

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.

[Ornias]

Seeing how the 3rd  round shook out with the run on DB's, it is looking better than it did. I expect we will still pick up a safety in the 4th and fill in at RB later. 

[Harbingers]

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.

[Pejorative Miscreant]

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.  

 

 

[NanceUSMC]

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...

[pantherclaw]

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. 

[top dawg]

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!