With your number 6 pick Daniel Jermiah mocks you...another corner

[Growl]

5 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

You are really digging deep for something that isn't there.

and you’re desperately trying to prop up a silly insult 

the team isn’t just disregarding value in their selections, no team is. But it’s not the silly black/white line you’re trying to portray it as.

[kungfoodude]

14 minutes ago, Growl said:

and you’re desperately trying to prop up a silly insult 

the team isn’t just disregarding value in their selections, no team is. But it’s not the silly black/white line you’re trying to portray it as.

Strong level of butthurt in this post. 

[t96]

On 1/22/2022 at 2:45 PM, micnificent28 said:

Still couldn't see it... you still have former top 10 pick henderson... maybe bouye and pride(and that's if you lose Gilmore and jackson) a lot would have to go wrong for us to pick a corner as bad as the offense looked.

Keith Taylor has also looked really solid. I think we'll keep one of Gilmore or Jackson ultimately (even if I'd prefer to let both walk) and if that's the case, zero chance we take a corner, but even if we don't like you said we're looking pretty good at the position. Gotta go OL or QB.

[AU-panther]

6 hours ago, AU-panther said:

A CB sounds crazy but here is how it could happen.

Fans tend to think in terms of need and rank.  Basically, OT is our biggest need (non-QB) so we should take whatever OT is next on the list and available, in this case it would be OT3 on Daniel's list.

Teams tend to think in terms of grade.  Maybe we have a really high grade on OT1 and OT2 but a decent gap to OT3.  If OT1 and OT 2 go before us they might decide CB1 is a way better value.

In a perfect world you would trade down and line up value with need, but trading down isn't always easy.

I'm not saying its the right move, but i could see it happening. Same thing with the safety.  Any given year there is just really small group of players that teams consider elite prospects, its hard to pass on them.

Do you pass on a guy that you think can become the next Sean Taylor for an OT that think has a decent chance to be above average?  Here again, I'm not saying this is the correct way to draft, but its what happens.

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Under Rhule, we have not drafted based on BPA, we drafted based on need, as determined by Rhule.

He has basically said as much. We don't do BPA.

 

49 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

You are really digging deep for something that isn't there.

You are the one that made an absolute statement in regard to a general statement I made about NFL teams and drafting.  An absolute statement that isn't true based on even your subsequent logic concerning the fact you said we would have drafted Sewell if available seeing how we didn't go to the next OT on our draft board.  Instead we went with a player that was probably rated higher.  So it wasn't absolute need, value factored in.

 

 

 

 

[kungfoodude]

10 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

 

 

You are the one that made an absolute statement in regard to a general statement I made about NFL teams and drafting.  An absolute statement that isn't true based on even your subsequent logic concerning the fact you said we would have drafted Sewell if available seeing how we didn't go to the next OT on our draft board.  Instead we went with a player that was probably rated higher.  So it wasn't absolute need, value factored in.

I should probably have said "Rhule's version of need."

That is essentially what we have done. Definitely nothing close to BPA.

[AU-panther]

6 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I should probably have said "Rhule's version of need."

That is essentially what we have done. Definitely nothing close to BPA.

Rhules version of need still doesn't change it.  If his version of need was a OT with Sewell and he drafted by his need he would have drafted the next OT on his list.

What you should have said is he draft one of the highest rated players on his board which also fills a need.  Which is pretty much what all teams do.  Nobody is absolute BPA and nobody is absolute need.

 

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Rhules version of need still doesn't change it.  If his version of need was a OT with Sewell and he drafted by his need he would have drafted the next OT on his list.

What you should have said is he draft one of the highest rated players on his board which also fills a need.  Which is pretty much what all teams do.  Nobody is absolute BPA and nobody is absolute need.

 

I don't even think he drafts the highest players on his board. You are telling me he had a fuging long snapper on his board?

No. He's just an impulsive idiot.

[AU-panther]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

I don't even think he drafts the highest players on his board. You are telling me he had a fuging long snapper on his board?

No. He's just an impulsive idiot.

Actually, there is a very good chance the long snapper did have a relatively high-grade relative to his own position.  That doesn't take into positional value or anything but that is a different discussion.

Here is the deal.  No team is absolute BPA or absolute need on every pick.

My only point originally is there is small chance they could go into the draft with OT as their #1 need.  There is also a chance that they might have a really high grade on OT1 and OT2 but maybe not so much on OT3.

If OT1 and OT2 are off the board when we pick they might go a different direction, especially if one of the non-OTs that are available are extremely highly rated on their board, such as the safety or CB or one of the top 2 DEs.

 

 

 

 

[kungfoodude]

2 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Actually, there is a very good chance the long snapper did have a relatively high-grade relative to his own position.  That doesn't take into positional value or anything but that is a different discussion.

Here is the deal.  No team is absolute BPA or absolute need on every pick.

My only point originally is there is small chance they could go into the draft with OT as their #1 need.  There is also a chance that they might have a really high grade on OT1 and OT2 but maybe not so much on OT3.

If OT1 and OT2 are off the board when we pick they might go a different direction, especially if one of the non-OTs that are available are extremely highly rated on their board, such as the safety or CB or one of the top 2 DEs.

Yeah, there is for sure a chance they are wildly incompetent. It's been pretty evident. 

[ForJimmy]

I would hope after drafting Horn in the top 10, trading for Henderson, Taylor showing some promise, Bouye playing well, and Pride getting healthy CB wouldn’t be a “need” for us at all. Maybe a cheap vet for depth/locker room… 

[CPcavedweller]

On 1/22/2022 at 1:53 PM, rayzor said:

I expect that or an MLB.

I'd take MLB or a tackle. There is no excuse for picking any other position.

I wanted Micah Parsons and was flamed for it here. See how that worked out?

[SmokinwithWilly]

5 hours ago, AU-panther said:

Rhules version of need still doesn't change it.  If his version of need was a OT with Sewell and he drafted by his need he would have drafted the next OT on his list.

What you should have said is he draft one of the highest rated players on his board which also fills a need.  Which is pretty much what all teams do.  Nobody is absolute BPA and nobody is absolute need.

 

He probably thought all the remaining tackles were really guards that had been playing out of position their entire college careers. 

[Basbear]

On 1/23/2022 at 3:51 AM, kungfoodude said:

I think thats the best hope for the panthers.....take that as you will, Im in another universe with this hope...

[Varking]

On 1/23/2022 at 11:47 AM, kungfoodude said:

We could use a guy like Davis but passing up on elite OT/IOL for him would be upsetting.

Lots of problems to fix but little draft capital to do so. 

I was only suggesting it if the situation was as the other poster put forward, that we were going defense. I want offensive line in every round.