If Sewell is drafted before #8...

[MHS831]

The million dollar question to me is (and I am wondering what front office is thinking):  Do we feel that LT has been addressed enough that it is no longer considered our biggest need?  One could argue that DT, CB, or S is bigger--and that would not be a winnable argument.  I just hope that they do not think Scott and Erving and maybe Daley or even Little have the LT spot locked down.

I want to see that Jordan Gross over there.  That decade long, "don't worry about it."

[45catfan]

3 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

The million dollar question to me is (and I am wondering what front office is thinking):  Do we feel that LT has been addressed enough that it is no longer considered our biggest need?  One could argue that DT, CB, or S is bigger--and that would not be a winnable argument.  I just hope that they do not think Scott and Erving and maybe Daley or even Little have the LT spot locked down.

I want to see that Jordan Gross over there.  That decade long, "don't worry about it."

Nobody would argue that in all seriousness.  If they did it would be trolling or out of pure ignorance about the Panthers.  If you reached hard enough, maaaaaaybe corner could be argued, but that's still a stretch.

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

The million dollar question to me is (and I am wondering what front office is thinking):  Do we feel that LT has been addressed enough that it is no longer considered our biggest need?  One could argue that DT, CB, or S is bigger--and that would not be a winnable argument.  I just hope that they do not think Scott and Erving and maybe Daley or even Little have the LT spot locked down.

I want to see that Jordan Gross over there.  That decade long, "don't worry about it."

I'm concerned if we think LT has been addressed long-term. To me it's about positional value, the players available, and our roster. Looking at those factors, it seems to me LT is likely going to be the best fit at #8 unless one of the QBs we like is very unexpectedly available. Assuming it's not QB or a trade down (which would be my options 1A and 1B, BTW), I'd be shocked if we don't draft either a LT or a CB. I'd out it 70% LT, 30% CB. I just think there's better value at the top of the draft at LT. I honestly expect the best CBs in this class to go in that late 1st/early 2nd range. I think we can get a good CB prospect with our 2nd rounder. If we're actually going to make a run at building around Darnold, my preference would be LT in the 1st, CB in the 2nd, IOL in the 3rd. I think that married us pretty well with both our needs and the way this draft is likely to play out IMO.

[MHS831]

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I'm concerned if we think LT has been addressed long-term. To me it's about positional value, the players available, and our roster. Looking at those factors, it seems to me LT is likely going to be the best fit at #8 unless one of the QBs we like is very unexpectedly available. Assuming it's not QB or a trade down (which would be my options 1A and 1B, BTW), I'd be shocked if we don't draft either a LT or a CB. I'd out it 70% LT, 30% CB. I just think there's better value at the top of the draft at LT. I honestly expect the best CBs in this class to go in that late 1st/early 2nd range. I think we can get a good CB prospect with our 2nd rounder. If we're actually going to make a run at building around Darnold, my preference would be LT in the 1st, CB in the 2nd, IOL in the 3rd. I think that married us pretty well with both our needs and the way this draft is likely to play out IMO.

Same page.  Man I hope Fitterer and Rhule are on that page too.

I think there are 3 LTs we'd take in round 1; the question? Can we/should we try to move back a few spots?

I think Fitterer made an interesting comment about the Darnold trade---"we had to have the first three picks this year."  That could mean one of two things--there is someone in or around the third round they like--maybe a DT---or they are going to use the third to move back up into the late first, early second to assure that we are in the mix for a potential #1 CB.

Hypothetically, if we left day 2 with Slater and Farley, I would say we have had a good draft.

[MHS831]

10 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Nobody would argue that in all seriousness.  If they did it would be trolling or out of pure ignorance about the Panthers.  If you reached hard enough, maaaaaaybe corner could be argued, but that's still a stretch.

The money and the length of the Erving deal is a bit scary to me.  I am just reading tea leaves and trying to cover all possible perceptions.  Why go after Erving Monday morning of the tampering period?  Elfein as well?  Curious moves to me.  It is encouraging to me that both are listed as "OL" on the Panther roster--as if they have any idea. Erving could be valuable as a player they can plug in anywhere, and I think Elfein could be the C by the time the dust settles.

Edited April 11, 2021 by MHS831

[45catfan]

4 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

The money and the length of the Erving deal is a bit scary to me.  I am just reading tea leaves and trying to cover all possible perceptions.  Why go after Erving Monday morning of the tampering period?  Elfein as well?  Curious moves to me.  It is encouraging to me that both are listed as "OL" on the Panther roster--as if they have any idea. Erving could be valuable as a player they can plug in anywhere, and I think Elfein could be the C by the time the dust settles.

Yeah, I was nervous they had found some old Hurney notes in the office.   Since then the FA moves have made more sense or have at least been practical/economical.  Man were those first two signings some serious head-scratchers.

[Smittymoose]

17 hours ago, Aquemini said:

When Carolina traded down in 2007 - NYJ took Revis at our Pick 14 and then we selected Beason Pick 25

Moral of the story .. trading down you can end up with far less quality

Sure, if you ignore that Carolina also got a decade-long fixture at center out of the trade as well. 

[MHS831]

2 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Yeah, I was nervous they had found some old Hurney notes in the office.   Since then the FA moves have made more sense or have at least been practical/economical.  Man were those first two signings some serious head-scratchers.

All I can figure is that Rhule and his staff feel these guys possess a skill set they can convert to an effective player.  Versatility is a key word for Rhule, and as a coach coming from a roster of 100 to a roster of 53, I see that being valued.

[Martin]

In my opinion we have to come away from round 1 with one of the three elite LTs. I wouldn’t risk trading back. 

I hear people saying names in round 2 such as Eichenberg (btw his arms are 32 3/8...) and Leatherwood (who was abused by speed rushers), but that’s not good enough. We might as well just keep Trent Scott there if that is the case.
 

We have a chance to come away with a very good LT for the next 10 years, it is a no brainer! 

[MHS831]

12 minutes ago, Smittymoose said:

Sure, if you ignore that Carolina also got a decade-long fixture at center out of the trade as well. 

Yes-how shallow and stupid to compare the two players singularly when Beason and Kalil vs. Revis is the trade....and both sides benefited.  The problem with the Beason pick, however, was that we had Morgan at the time, but it worked out.

[LinvilleGorge]

6 minutes ago, Martin said:

In my opinion we have to come away from round 1 with one of the three elite LTs. I wouldn’t risk trading back. 

I hear people saying names in round 2 such as Eichenberg (btw his arms are 32 3/8...) and Leatherwood (who was abused by speed rushers), but that’s not good enough. We might as well just keep Trent Scott there if that is the case.
 

We have a chance to come away with a very good LT for the next 10 years, it is a no brainer! 

Honestly, I think Leatherwood is gonna be a bust at OT. I just don't think he has the required foot quickness. I think he'll be one of those guys who is drafted and given a chance at OT but likely ultimately ends up at OG. That's not a terrible thing, but I think that's how you have to value him and kinda already have that approach in mind.

[MHS831]

2 minutes ago, Martin said:

In my opinion we have to come away from round 1 with one of the three elite LTs. I wouldn’t risk trading back. 

I hear people saying names in round 2 such as Eichenberg (btw his arms are 32 3/8...) and Leatherwood (who was abused by speed rushers), but that’s not good enough. We might as well just keep Trent Scott there if that is the case.
 

We have a chance to come away with a very good LT for the next 10 years, it is a no brainer! 

The RTs in this draft are pretty impressive.  Jenkins, Mayfield, etc.  Eichenberg not only has short arms, he is near his ceiling athletically, from what I read.

It is a no brainer, by the way, and I hope Fitterer is not feeling good about Erving and Scott.  I always wonder about ego and we have not seen this guy with the reins on draft day yet--is he going to try to make it work so he looks brilliant? 

If it were Marty, we'd all be talking RB, Parsons, etc.  (joke?)

[top dawg]

11 hours ago, micnificent28 said:

This is the correct answer in either order.

As much as I like Pitts, if Chase is there (which is more likely if Sewell is gone), I'm taking Chase all day long, and not looking back!

[mickeye76]

I think it's more like WHEN Sewell is drafted before 8.   The chance he slips to us is low.  If he does we run to the podium and consider it a draft day miracle.