Panther Needs Assessment

[Harbingers]

Why is rush lb green? id drop them to maybe blue but probably orange. inside is easily orange.

[TheSpecialJuan]

5 hours ago, MHS831 said:

About the 3T--you are right--I expect a reluctant cut after the draft, etc.  We cannot meet all of these needs in one draft---I think we are hoping to address 3 of them, which was exposed a bit (in theory) during the Darnold trade. 

I think there is something to analyzing the layout of the draft, looking at what we have done in free agency, and using some common sense to figure out the strategy. I think the first round weapons are making Fitterer salivate--Pitts, Waddle, Smith, and Chase.  I think we get one of them.  I want a T, but they probably see what a third weapon does for the passing game--matchups, etc.  My guess is that they see OT being very deep, so they will go weapon/OL in rounds one and two.

So we have signed Melvin and Bouye--experienced, one-year plugs at CB and we have Jackson.  It sure looks as though we are preparing for life without a drafted QB.  Meanwhile, we can expect YGM to step up, Reddick, Burns, and maybe Fox to pressure the QB.  That is what we hope to do on defense.

It is my opinion that we intend to find an impact weapon in round 1, an OT in round 2, and maybe an IOL or QB in round 3.  CB?  maybe, but a 3rd round CB is a project. QB?  If Mond or Mills or Trask is sitting there, I think we have to take him.

 

Good point. The issue here is that if we take Pitts or a WR at #8 we would then HAVE to take a OT at #39 

But what if Richie Grant or Asante Samuel or Trevon Moehrig are there in the 2nd round?

If any of those player are graded higher than an OT we would then pass up a better player to fill a need. BPA goes out the window and we would reach for an OT which is exactly what we want to avoid doing 

[MHS831]

12 hours ago, Harbingers said:

Why is rush lb green? id drop them to maybe blue but probably orange. inside is easily orange.

I struggled with it, but I really don't know that we run a true 3-4, and if Burns and Reddick and Haynes are going to be the rush LB...I see Fox and YGM at the ends and I see Shaq and maybe Chinn at the other LB while Perryman and Carter play inside?  I really got a bit confused in that area, so I figured with the 7 or 8 needs, I would give it the benefit of the doubt.  Still, I could take Burns out of it and drop them. 

Bottom line?  LBs and DL are hard to figure.

[Harbingers]

8 hours ago, MHS831 said:

I struggled with it, but I really don't know that we run a true 3-4, and if Burns and Reddick and Haynes are going to be the rush LB...I see Fox and YGM at the ends and I see Shaq and maybe Chinn at the other LB while Perryman and Carter play inside?  I really got a bit confused in that area, so I figured with the 7 or 8 needs, I would give it the benefit of the doubt.  Still, I could take Burns out of it and drop them. 

Bottom line?  LBs and DL are hard to figure.

Nice breakdown though. Thanks dude. 

[45catfan]

Great work man as usual!  I agree with the chart overall.  The only thing I would suggest is to color code the names as well.  While the overall position group may be average/below average/above average etc...  not every player in position group  'x' has the same skill level.  The WR group is a perfect example; vast differences in those guy's talent.   By doing so it would justify the overall color code for the position group. 

 

[45catfan]

Or a weighted numbering system for each player that also gives merit to the overall positional grade: (10) Pro Bowler (5) solid starter (3) rotational player/backup (1) STs/fringe PS player.  That way someone can look at the RB group (for say someone that doesn't follow football) and see that CMC is carrying that group of otherwise no-names.

I thought you were a bit generous to the center and RG group, I would have put them in orange.  Again, solid work, man!

[MHS831]

2 hours ago, 45catfan said:

Or a weighted numbering system for each player that also gives merit to the overall positional grade: (10) Pro Bowler (5) solid starter (3) rotational player/backup (1) STs/fringe PS player.  That way someone can look at the RB group (for say someone that doesn't follow football) and see that CMC is carrying that group of otherwise no-names.

I thought you were a bit generous to the center and RG group, I would have put them in orange.  Again, solid work, man!

Your suggestions would indeed improve this.  Thanks bro

[Catsfan69]

Why are you automatically putting us in a 3-4?

Has that been officially released and I missed it?

Honestly wish we would build a 4-3.

I absolutely hate that 3-3-5 abomination. 

[Catsfan69]

On 4/16/2021 at 4:19 PM, MHS831 said:

That is the way I see it....You?

Get Chinn out of LB. He's a safety. 

 

It's where he belongs. 

[MHS831]

10 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

Get Chinn out of LB. He's a safety. 

 

It's where he belongs. 

Although I agree, he is listed as a LB because they do not know what to call him. 

[ForJimmy]

My only critique is I would use more perrywinkle. Seriously though great work!

[bythenbrs]

7 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

My only critique is I would use more perrywinkle. 

It is fairly invasive if not kept in a pot or planter.

[CPF4LIFE]

I pretty much agree, its crazy how nobody is acknowledging how terrible we are at guard because its not a important position. 

I would load up in this draft. 

 

[shaqattaq]

26 minutes ago, CPF4LIFE said:

I pretty much agree, its crazy how nobody is acknowledging how terrible we are at guard because its not a important position. 

I would load up in this draft. 

 

I definitely want 1, if not 2, in the mid-to-late rounds, especially if one of them has a shot at center. IMO, we get CB and LT in rds 1 & 2, then start looking to IOL, LB, FS, TE, WR. We should be able to find a starter/significant upgrade for 1 of those positions at 73, and a solid contributor at 113. Man, I hope we draft as well this year as it appears we did last. I'm all giddy with anticipation!