Shi and the senior bowl.

[OldhamA]

4 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

In fairness, that bar isn't high.

1st overall pick and Heisman Trophy winner? The bar doesn't get any higher coming out of College. 

[ForJimmy]

3 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

1st overall pick and Heisman Trophy winner? The bar doesn't get any higher coming out of College. 

I think he was implying the bar isn’t high for Darnold to have a career year. His best year’s numbers should be passed easily.

[kungfoodude]

11 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

1st overall pick and Heisman Trophy winner? The bar doesn't get any higher coming out of College. 

Go back and read that again.

[OldhamA]

1 hour ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Every team goes into the draft needing something, the difference is only a matter of degrees. Yes I'm well aware that drafting out of desperation because you HAVE to fill need X is a bad formula, so don't strawman me like you did last post and imply that's what I was advocating. As for your having no idea how they could have appeased me, I think I made it pretty clear that trading down to more appropriate spots for appropriate prospects would have been fine, or is it your contention that between Sewell and Christiansen there is no OL prospect worth pursuing? Really?

Seems like you're putting a lot more faith into Cam Erving than most would. A former first rounder on his fourth team in six years doesn't scream problem solved to me, or even solid move. It seems more like the thing you do if your heart's not into prioritizing the Oline, but you know you have to sign somebody or you really will be forced to actually draft a starter in the first two rounds.

Look, I think we got hosed when the Lions took Sewell at 7. I was stuck in some godforsaken Buffalo Wild Wings in Roanoke of all places and for a good 10 minutes I thought we were golden after the Dolphins didn't take him.  Detroit has done so much wrong for so long, why couldn't they have just drafted Barry Sanders or Megatron all over again instead of making everyone listen to me scream epithets at the Ford family and throw my wing bones at some chucklehead wearing a Brady Patriots jersey (Why? Because @#$% that guy, that's why).

But...

There were 9, count them NINE tackles taken between Sewell and Christiansen, and you're telling me that you have so much faith in New Locker of the Month Club member Cam Erving, so little regard for all nine of those prospects, and think that our WR corps would have been in shambles had we not drafted Marshall in the 2nd, that you can't conceive of the most trade happy GM of the draft making one or two more moves earlier to acquire one of those prospects, or that such a move would be ill advised and we're better off crossing our fingers and hoping yet again that what we got is good enough?

They had the opportunity to take an OT at #39 and traded out instead. After the ridiculous run on OTs they had the chance to take an OT at #52 and traded out instead.

That tells me that they didn't think much of the second tier of tackles in this Draft. The fact that they had discussions about trading back into the 2nd round to pick up Christensen and then ultimately traded up in the 3rd round to secure him suggests they do value the position - and perhaps don't see a huge difference between him and many of the guys that went in the 2nd round.

For the record I don't have amazingly high hopes for Erving, but I'm all about the OLine unit as a whole. It was weak at multiple spots last year - I'm hoping with the acquisitions this year we've secured some of those holes. It doesn't have to be a dominant OLine for us to be successful - although obviously we all want one. 

As for the OT prospects this year - honestly it was a hugely underwhelming class. Darishaw is lazy (but talented), Leatherwood is an amazing physical prospect but can't handle speed, Walker hasn't played for two years etc etc. I think even the 'generational' OT is raw as hell and will probably should at OG this year. 

[1of10Charnatives]

1 hour ago, SBBlue said:

We traded up and drafted Greg Little high in the 2nd and it appears we whiffed.  Draft position does not equal performance.  We brought in pro bowler Okung in FA and he played 7 games.  Past performance doesn't guarantee future results.

Christiansen is an excellent O-linemen.  He has the tape and athletic ability.

The Panthers Select Brady Christensen in the Third Round of the NFL Draft - BYU Cougars on Sports Illustrated: News, Analysis, and More

By trading down instead of taking someone like Jenkins, we were able to get Marshal, Tremble, Hubbard, Nixon and Taylor.

 

Hurney traded up and drafted Little in the second. Hurney's deficiencies in drafting anything but first round picks are well documented. You can talk up Christiansen all you want, and I sincerely hope he turns out great, but that does not change the fact that 10 tackle prospects were drafted ahead of him.  How often does the 11th drafted player at his position really turn out great?

Draft position does not equal performance, but it's a better overall indicator than some fan on a message board saying so and so is a great prospect and then backing that up with the team that drafted him's scouting grade.

I think you're missing the point. I'm not arguing that Christiansen is a bad prospect. I'm arguing that our organizational offseason moves with regards to the offensive line did not prioritize upgrading the position group to the degree that it probably should have.

[1of10Charnatives]

2 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

They had the opportunity to take an OT at #39 and traded out instead. After the ridiculous run on OTs they had the chance to take an OT at #52 and traded out instead.

That tells me that they didn't think much of the second tier of tackles in this Draft. The fact that they had discussions about trading back into the 2nd round to pick up Christensen and then ultimately traded up in the 3rd round to secure him suggests they do value the position - and perhaps don't see a huge difference between him and many of the guys that went in the 2nd round.

For the record I don't have amazingly high hopes for Erving, but I'm all about the OLine unit as a whole. It was weak at multiple spots last year - I'm hoping with the acquisitions this year we've secured some of those holes. It doesn't have to be a dominant OLine for us to be successful - although obviously we all want one. 

As for the OT prospects this year - honestly it was a hugely underwhelming class. Darishaw is lazy (but talented), Leatherwood is an amazing physical prospect but can't handle speed, Walker hasn't played for two years etc etc. I think even the 'generational' OT is raw as hell and will probably should at OG this year. 

I got a similar read on their moves but 9 guys is an awful lot of guys to pass on while taking a freaking WR in the 2nd. Decent WR's at the NFL level are a dime a dozen, and they simply are not as key to success as LT. You can sign good ones in FA practically every year, while getting your hands on a quality LT without some kind of issue takes an act of Congress or a raft of draft picks.

Believe me if Christiansen pans out I'll be ecstatic and singing Fitt's praises, but after nearly a decade of not replacing Gross and yelling obscenities as some of the truly turnstile guys bungled around while Cam ate another facefull of dirt or took another helmet to helmet hit (thanks again Super Bowl 50 officiating crew for letting the whole league know it's okay to headhunt him), forgive me if I'm not exactly patient with moves that don't give the impression the position is a priority.

[Mr. Scot]

18 hours ago, rayzor said:

just shut up.

I've already asked whether he's deliberately trying to post the dumbest sh-t possible or if he genuinely is this clueless.

Granted, the result is the same either way.

[trueblade]

23 hours ago, Trainwreck said:

We have Darnold, not Justin Fields. 

I was screaming at my TV for them to take Fields, but it's time to 

Edited May 31, 2021 by trueblade

[pantherclaw]

Position isn't a priority.  

Can't fix stupid.  

[SBBlue]

10 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Hurney traded up and drafted Little in the second. 

Yes..and if they hadn't traded back, they would be thinking like Hurney...use your one pick on a player and pray it works.

10 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

How often does the 11th drafted player at his position really turn out great?

About as often as the 6th or 12th depending on how deep the class is and where the shelves are.  That's the point, after you get out of the elite set, its a crap shoot.  They are trying to throw more darts by drafting more players.

10 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Draft position does not equal performance, but it's a better overall indicator than some fan on a message board saying so and so is a great prospect and then backing that up with the team that drafted him's scouting grade.

After the elite players...draft position is a horrible indicator.... and its not me saying BC is good, many mock boards had BC in the 2nd round, where you feel there are excellent tackles apparently unlike the 3rd.   

Quote

 I'm arguing that our organizational offseason moves with regards to the offensive line did not prioritize upgrading the position group to the degree that it probably should have.

Its not because we didn't spend money.  We put the tag on Moton, and brought in Erving (a 1st round draft pick, you should be happy).  Then we drafted BC and Deonte Brown.

I appreciate everyone's frustration with GM's on the Oline.  I was screaming at the TV when they were head hunting Cam.  Riveria should have stormed the field, as a coach I would have gotten myself ejected to draw attention to it... it wasn't until years later in Atlanta that he threw a fit and they ejected a player.  He should have done that years earlier.

Its not that the GMs aren't trying or spending money...the GMs keep whiffing.  Matt Kalil, pro-bowler, was drafted 4th OVERALL and we spent a fortune on him...whiff.  We traded up to get Little in the 2nd...whiff.    Okung  6th OVERALL, 2x pro-bowler, whiff...he's still available if you want him.

 

[1of10Charnatives]

3 minutes ago, SBBlue said:

Yes..and if they hadn't traded back, they would be thinking like Hurney...use your one pick on a player and pray it works.

About as often as the 6th or 12th depending on how deep the class is and where the shelves are.  That's the point, after you get out of the elite set, its a crap shoot.  They are trying to throw more darts by drafting more players.

After the elite players...draft position is a horrible indicator.... and its not me saying BC is good, many mock boards had BC in the 2nd round, where you feel there are excellent tackles apparently unlike the 3rd.   

Its not because we didn't spend money.  We put the tag on Moton, and brought in Erving (a 1st round draft pick, you should be happy).  Then we drafted BC and Deonte Brown.

I appreciate everyone's frustration with GM's on the Oline.  I was screaming at the TV when they were head hunting Cam.  Riveria should have stormed the field, as a coach I would have gotten myself ejected to draw attention to it... it wasn't until years later in Atlanta that he threw a fit and they ejected a player.  He should have done that years earlier.

Its not that the GMs aren't trying or spending money...the GMs keep whiffing.  Matt Kalil, pro-bowler, was drafted 4th OVERALL and we spent a fortune on him...whiff.  We traded up to get Little in the 2nd...whiff.    Okung  6th OVERALL, 2x pro-bowler, whiff...he's still available if you want him.

 

Not trading back does not make you "thinking like Hurney" drafting is not that binary. "Do this thing and you're not like a shitty GM, do this thing and you are." Hurney traded UP to take a tackle prospect that almost no one else had rated that highly and then whiffed on him. That is materially different from letting nine other prospects get drafted while you take a player at a position in the 2nd that is much easier to fill and much less of a need on our current roster. Hell I would have been more than happy to take one of those nine prospects and still take Christiansen. That would have been the move that improved your odds from the crapshoot, given that a lot of scouts project BC's short arms and lack of bend to land him at guard eventually. 

The statement that draft position after elite players is a horrible indicator is not one I find to be very supportable. Look up the statistics for how long players drafted in each round last on average in their careers. If draft position really mattered so little, you wouldn't see the clear mathematical progression of shorter careers and teams wouldn't waste money year after year paying for large scouting staffs and sending them all over the country to scout players. They would confine their efforts mostly to scouting the clearly elite players to discern key differences. Is draft position an absolute indicator? No, but the notion it has no value past say the first is absurd. NFL teams would not behave the way they do in many respects if this were true. No one would bother to trade up in later rounds because it wouldn't matter.

It is what it is, an inexact science, but let's not pretend it's meaningless. Overall I think the strategy of trading back was a great one this year. The pandemic meant that this draft more than most was a crapshoot, so I'm not taking issue with the overall strategy so much as how we didn't use it to target more OL and earlier in the draft, while instead choosing to spend a high pick on a much easier to fill position we didn't have a need for, and which tends to have less of an overall impact on winning (Quick, name me a Super Bowl winner that when you think of them, your first thought is, they won primarily because they have great receivers. I'll wait).  Have you ever looked at the NFL in the current pass wacky era and thought "You know, it seems like a better the team's receiving corps is, the deeper they go in the playoffs." You know why you haven't had that thought? Because plenty of teams with good WR's and crap Olines are sitting at home in January. And nobody goes deep in the playoffs without outstanding QB play, which is hard to come by when a guy is running for his life.

I got no beef with the Horn pick. We couldn't get Sewell so we picked an elite prospect at another key position where elite prospects make a huge diference and don't grow on trees. Outstanding.  But don't strawman me and put words in my mouth by implying I should like a player simply because they're a former first rounder. The Kalil and Okung signings were under Hurney, a GM whose FA track record was vomit inducing and I was not a fan of either move at the time, so let's dispense with this distortion that implies I'm some simplistic goof who likes guys just because they were taken in the first. You're trying to oversimplify where I'm coming from in order to discredit it, but your implications are off base.

In point of fact you're only strengthening my argument by indirectly pointing out how difficult it is to acquire a quality LT via FA, thus why we should put an especially strong emphasis on acquisition through the draft. Where is it written one may only draft a single tackle prospect per year? Get two, get them early and often with all your trade moves, and improve your odds. Oh both of them worked out?  What a horrible position to be in, having an excess of talent at a hard position to fill in this league.

But WR? "Honey pick up a guy who's six two and can run a 4.4 in the 40 while you're at Wal Mart would ya?" He's not really gonna move the needle for us as a rookie, and we weren't thin at his position group, but the Oline can wait, this guy puts up flashy highlights and numbers.

[SBBlue]

48 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Where is it written one may only draft a single tackle prospect per year? Get two, get them early and often with all your trade moves, and improve your odds. Oh both of them worked out?  What a horrible position to be in, having an excess of talent at a hard position to fill in this league.

 

Two 2nd round OT's?   

Look I agree it is hard to find excellent OT which is why it is one of the higher paying positions.  

It sounds like you have real problem with the Marshal pick since he was the pick before BC and is a WR.    I can see that. 

Marshal was pick 59.  BC was pick 70.  Between 59 and 70, one OT was taken.  Jalen Mayfield had only 15 starts at MI and missed most of 2020 season due to injury.

Is Mayfield a better OT than BC?  We'll see, he went to Atlanta.  I think he was one of our potential OL targets and I think we panicked when Atlanta took him, that's why we traded up.  We'll see if either of them get PT at LOT and how each one performs.    You may be right, we should have taken Mayfield at 59.  

 

[HardcoreHokie]

1 hour ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Not trading back does not make you "thinking like Hurney" drafting is not that binary. "Do this thing and you're not like a shitty GM, do this thing and you are." Hurney traded UP to take a tackle prospect that almost no one else had rated that highly and then whiffed on him. That is materially different from letting nine other prospects get drafted while you take a player at a position in the 2nd that is much easier to fill and much less of a need on our current roster. Hell I would have been more than happy to take one of those nine prospects and still take Christiansen. That would have been the move that improved your odds from the crapshoot, given that a lot of scouts project BC's short arms and lack of bend to land him at guard eventually. 

The statement that draft position after elite players is a horrible indicator is not one I find to be very supportable. Look up the statistics for how long players drafted in each round last on average in their careers. If draft position really mattered so little, you wouldn't see the clear mathematical progression of shorter careers and teams wouldn't waste money year after year paying for large scouting staffs and sending them all over the country to scout players. They would confine their efforts mostly to scouting the clearly elite players to discern key differences. Is draft position an absolute indicator? No, but the notion it has no value past say the first is absurd. NFL teams would not behave the way they do in many respects if this were true. No one would bother to trade up in later rounds because it wouldn't matter.

It is what it is, an inexact science, but let's not pretend it's meaningless. Overall I think the strategy of trading back was a great one this year. The pandemic meant that this draft more than most was a crapshoot, so I'm not taking issue with the overall strategy so much as how we didn't use it to target more OL and earlier in the draft, while instead choosing to spend a high pick on a much easier to fill position we didn't have a need for, and which tends to have less of an overall impact on winning (Quick, name me a Super Bowl winner that when you think of them, your first thought is, they won primarily because they have great receivers. I'll wait).  Have you ever looked at the NFL in the current pass wacky era and thought "You know, it seems like a better the team's receiving corps is, the deeper they go in the playoffs." You know why you haven't had that thought? Because plenty of teams with good WR's and crap Olines are sitting at home in January. And nobody goes deep in the playoffs without outstanding QB play, which is hard to come by when a guy is running for his life.

I got no beef with the Horn pick. We couldn't get Sewell so we picked an elite prospect at another key position where elite prospects make a huge diference and don't grow on trees. Outstanding.  But don't strawman me and put words in my mouth by implying I should like a player simply because they're a former first rounder. The Kalil and Okung signings were under Hurney, a GM whose FA track record was vomit inducing and I was not a fan of either move at the time, so let's dispense with this distortion that implies I'm some simplistic goof who likes guys just because they were taken in the first. You're trying to oversimplify where I'm coming from in order to discredit it, but your implications are off base.

In point of fact you're only strengthening my argument by indirectly pointing out how difficult it is to acquire a quality LT via FA, thus why we should put an especially strong emphasis on acquisition through the draft. Where is it written one may only draft a single tackle prospect per year? Get two, get them early and often with all your trade moves, and improve your odds. Oh both of them worked out?  What a horrible position to be in, having an excess of talent at a hard position to fill in this league.

But WR? "Honey pick up a guy who's six two and can run a 4.4 in the 40 while you're at Wal Mart would ya?" He's not really gonna move the needle for us as a rookie, and we weren't thin at his position group, but the Oline can wait, this guy puts up flashy highlights and numbers.

“Quick, name me a Super Bowl winner that when you think of them, your first thought is, they won primarily because they have great receivers. I'll wait). “

Mike Evans, Chris Godwin, Antonio Brown, Rob Gronkowski.  2021.

[mrcompletely11]

3 hours ago, HardcoreHokie said:

“Quick, name me a Super Bowl winner that when you think of them, your first thought is, they won primarily because they have great receivers. I'll wait). “

Mike Evans, Chris Godwin, Antonio Brown, Rob Gronkowski.  2021.

Tom brady threw for 200 yards in the SB.  The defense and run game won that game.