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!

     

PFF says the Panthers have the 31st ranked OL corp in the NFL this year


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, SBBlue said:

PFF doesn't know who will start, that's the point.  

Trent Scott started more games for us at LT than Erving, put him there. 

 Why choose Erving?  Because he was a first rounder?  Erving is depth, he started only 5 games at Dallas due to injury.  I doubt he will be our starting LT if people are healthy.  

 

 

They have a good idea based on contracts. Scott wasn’t the true starter. He filled in for injury. Erving signed a 2 year $10M deal almost all guaranteed. Scott sighed a 1 year $1.65M deal.

Erving was signed to be the starter, his draft status is meaningless. His contract is not. You are being obtuse. Also, for PFF rankings, who cares? Scott had a 60, Erving had a 58. Changes nothing.

  • Beer 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Happy Panther said:

Same as our WR rankings. To many question marks. We have two positions where we know the starter?

It’s amazing to me that some of these meaningless preseason rankings get peoples panties in a wad. Our OL is Moton and 4 JAG/worse ranked guys. Rookies taken 3rd to undrafted aren’t assumed to be starters.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Wait, what are you saying? Erving’s ranking should be better because he was a first rounder 

No exact oposite. YOU assume our additions suck because they aren't 1st rounders.

Quote

First, Erving is being paid to start. He isn’t depth and you’re right he hasn’t ever been ranked high hence their lower grade for our team.

5 mill a year is somewhere between guard and tackle, starter and backup pay.  Its high for a backup, low for starting LT.   We brought him in as depth.

I even said Okung is not on our team BTW.

Quote

 Their calculation is correct.

No its not.  They don't know who the starters are. 

Quote

Third, the rookies are who they are. Right now they aren’t starters. Is their some sort of hopefulness ratio we should add to our score in case we hit on the draft picks?

Is there some dread/disappointment score we should add to any non 1-2nd round olineman?  There are people who think if an olineman is not 1st or 2nd day, they suck.  This assumption is wrong.  My post said lets see where the rookies fall.  Geese, give them a chance.

Quote

 Maybe they play better than past ratings and maybe rookies step up but those are hopes not crunchable

They crunched the numbers for the rookies on the jets and other teams.  Guess their hopes are just more  crunchable.

They don't know who the starter are, they excluded our rookies but included them on other teams.  The calc at best is lousy guesswork.

Edited by SBBlue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SBBlue said:

No exact oposite. YOU assume our additions suck because they aren't 1st rounders.

5 mill a year is somewhere between guard and tackle, starter and backup pay.  Its high for a backup, low for starting LT.   He brought him in as depth.

I even said Okung is not on our team BTW.

No its not.  They don't know who the starters are. 

Is there some dread/disappointment score we should add to any non 1-2nd round olineman?  There are people who think if an olineman is not 1st or 2nd day, they suck.  This assumption is wrong.  My post said lets see where the rookies fall.  Geese, give them a chance.

They crunched the numbers for the rookies on the jets and other teams.  Guess their hopes are just more  crunchable.

They don't know who the starter are, they excluded our rookies but included them on other teams.  The calc at best is lousy guesswork.

Again, you said first rounder for Erving which I never said. He’s the starter right now at LT based on his contract, deal with it. I also said you cannot assume that 3rd to undrafted rookies are starters so again they don’t count. What round was the Jets player taken? Oh, that’s right, he was a 1st rounder and they said he’s the likely starter. SMH, this isn’t hard.

5 million a year is #21 on LT salaries. Just because we went cheap doesn’t mean it isn’t low end starter money. You are incorrect on backup pay. Erving is not depth. This has been discussed many times in here. He could be best out by the rookie but he was signed as and currently is slated to start. PFF is correct to use him.

The rest of your post is all over the place. The ranking is accurate and your complaint make incorrect assumptions.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Again, you said first rounder for Erving which I never said.

I said you didn't mention his round, even though Erving is a first rounder.  Forget it.  

Quote

5 million a year is #21 on LT salaries. Just because we went cheap doesn’t mean it isn’t low end starter money.

Yes, right in there with the players on their rookie contracts (Wills &  Becton) .   Even OvertheCap lists him as a guard because it is closer to guard money.  He's depth.

Quote

 He could be best out by the rookie but he was signed as and currently is slated to start.

Nice hedge.

Quote

PFF is correct to use him.

They can use whoever they want, its just a wild, most likely wrong, guess.

Quote

 The ranking is accurate and your complaint make incorrect assumptions.

No its not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Madwolf said:

That feels low. I don't expect our offensive line to improve by any large measure this year, lots of new faces, but I also don't believe we're that bad either.

I'd put the Panthers around the better worst 1/3rd of offensive lines at the moment.

I think we are a safe bet to rate very lowly before the season. We made some ho-hum signings in free agency and then we added predominately lower rated and lower drafted prospects.

We just have to see if we can get something out of this hodgepodge of underachieving and underrated guys.

I definitely don't have any butthurt about us being ranked very low. The majority of the line is in the "prove it" category. Completely understandable.

We just don't want that to be the case after Game 17.

  • Pie 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

underachieving and underrated guys.

Yes and yes.

Quote

 The majority of the line is in the "prove it" category. Completely understandable.

We just don't want that to be the case after Game 17.

Yup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SBBlue said:

Yes and yes.

Yup.

I will say that although the quality of our starters may not be very good as a unit, I do think we won't have the same level of drop off as in 2020 when the injuries start piling up.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

I will say that although the quality of our starters may not be very good as a unit, I do think we won't have the same level of drop off as in 2020 when the injuries start piling up.

I wonder if that was a priority in this draft class, some type of durability measure based on number of starts/injuries etc.

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SBBlue said:

I said you didn't mention his round, even though Erving is a first rounder.  Forget it.  

Yes, right in there with the players on their rookie contracts (Wills &  Becton) .   Even OvertheCap lists him as a guard because it is closer to guard money.  He's depth.

Nice hedge.

They can use whoever they want, its just a wild, most likely wrong, guess.

No its not.

JFC dude, PFF did a ranking based on who they thought were the current starters. That’s it. You are seriously acting like they beat your dog.

All of those players are ranked 63 or below, down to 48. Only Moton is considered an above average starter. The rest are all average or below average. It’s not a wild guess, it’s very straightforward based on who they think are our starters and if they plug in Miller or Daley or Erving or Scott it really doesn’t change much. They aren’t considering rookies if they’re not likely starters hence the Jets guy is used and Christensen is not.

Moton and Paradis are locked in starters. Erving and Elflein are the only other OL making more than $1.6M a year and the only non-rookie deal OL with more than a year on their contract. They are averaging $4.5-5M a year or 3-5 times the salary of the non-locks. They are pencilled in as starters on the left and Daley or Miller is pencilled in at RG. Tucker for the Jets was taken in the 1st, he’s an assumed starter. None of our rookies are yet. Again, really simple.

Also, LOL at hedging. Hedging what? Is there a bet on this. Would I somehow be wrong about something? This is a preseason ranking based on current starters. Their numbers are correct based on our current assumed starters. Answer this riddle? Is Christensen the starter? Could he be a starter later on in the season? Amazing how easy that is and amazing how worked up you are getting trying to act like this means something and is anything more than PFF taking last years rankings for the starting 5 and saying here’s what we think.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...