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!

     

Ryan Poles trying to drive up the cost of the #1 pick


NAS
 Share

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, NAS said:

I think this happens if they sign Derek Carr or another vet QB and draft a 'prospect' at #9 like Anthony Richardson.  

Signing a vet regardless.  Not going to go into the season with two QBs with zero regular seasons starts.  The level of the vet depends on where the QB is drafted.  Top 3, a cheaper vet, #9 or later, an expensive vet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, weyco2000 said:

I doubt they would do it for 3 first’s. 

I think 49ers set the price two years ago but theirs was a late first.  I think Panthers should stay put at two first, a second, and a third.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, weyco2000 said:

I doubt they would do it for 3 first’s. 

Hopefully, Tepper stays out of this, but I doubt it.  Maybe he learned his lesson form Rhule and lets the football people do their jobs he's paying them to do.  Obviously he's going to be in the loop, I mean influencing decisions.

  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bigdog_10_2002 said:

The panthers drafted Jason Peter, no pick due to the Gilbert trade in 99 (98), and Rashard Anderson in 2000 (basically forfeiting three consecutive years of first round picks).  They were in the superbowl in 2003.

Weird, I don't recall seeing either Dom Capers or George Seifert at the 2003 Super Bowl.

Edited by NanuqoftheNorth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

The thing about those generational prospects is there's no trading for them. The team that lands #1 takes the guy.

I believe an argument could be made, that if the Bears were smart, they'd draft a QB with this year's #1 pick.  

Edited by NanuqoftheNorth
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

I believe an argument could be made, that if the Bears were smart, they'd draft a QB with this year's #1 pick.  

If we're talking about risk, THAT would be the biggest risk a team could take in this draft. You have a young guy who has shown promise despite being surrounded by nothing. If you move him to take another QB you damn well better be right because if you draft a bust and Fields goes on to flourish elsewhere you're now officially the biggest jackass in sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

If we're talking about risk, THAT would be the biggest risk a team could take in this draft. You have a young guy who has shown promise despite being surrounded by nothing. If you move him to take another QB you damn well better be right because if you draft a bust and Fields goes on to flourish elsewhere you're now officially the biggest jackass in sports.

Or, Chicago trades Fields to a team in desperate need for a QB and utilizes this year's #1 to upgrade the position.  Ultimately, both teams involved (even Fields) could be better off for the trade.  Of course, most of these draft scenarios will never take place, much less, be sure bets.  If they were, we'd have little to converse about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 45catfan said:

Lol, and us being the furthest back of the QB needy teams to move up would have to give up a TON to go to #1, but I'm getting flack for suggesting we stay put at #9.

Some of you guys would give up your first born child to move to #1. 

Copied post: ("I rather trade up to #3 and keep that extra 1st round pick we would lose if we traded with the Bears. We are guaranteed at least one of the top 3 QB's. They all same to be on the same tier as talents. I want Stroud but I would be happy with AR or Bryce at #3 or vice versa")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KatsAzz said:

Copied post: ("I rather trade up to #3 and keep that extra 1st round pick we would lose if we traded with the Bears. We are guaranteed at least one of the top 3 QB's. They all same to be on the same tier as talents. I want Stroud but I would be happy with AR or Bryce at #3 or vice versa")

True, IF we do move up, #3 is better than #1 for me.  I don't want to move up at all, but keeping our 2025 first round pick while getting a top QB is the smarter solution.

  • Pie 1
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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • You may be interested to know that the average depth of separation is dependent upon the type of route run. Though go-routes are the most type of route run, they also produce the least amount of separation (and, of course, completions).   "The average pass catcher runs a go route on nearly a quarter of all routes (22.3%), the highest percentage of any route type in our data. However, those routes are targeted roughly 1 out of 10 times (10.8 percent), the lowest target rate of any route. The WR screen is the least-run route (3.4%), and it's the only route where the average target is behind the line of scrimmage. But it's also targeted at the highest rate (40.7%) and early in the play (1.6 seconds average time to throw). The most targeted routes outside of the WR Screen? The out (27.8%) and slant (25.2%) routes are the next most popular across the league."     "The most valuable routes by expected points added per target were the post (+0.48) and corner (+0.43) routes. The go route (+0.19) ranked seventh on the list of 10 route types. The go route (+0.19) ranked seventh on the list of 10 route types. One possible reason for this: It's harder to separate on go routes, which put the player on a straight path, than on posts or corners, which ask the player to make a cut. Targeted pass catchers on posts and corners average 2.4 yards and 2.3 yards of separation from the nearest defender, respectively, while pass catchers targeted on go routes average just 1.8 yards of separation."   https://www.nfl.com/news/next-gen-stats-intro-to-new-route-recognition-model#:~:text=Targeted pass catchers on posts,) and slant (+0.26).   I would expect that Thielen would have an easier time catching the ball based that he runs the routes where it's easier to get open. Tet? Yet to be seen, but we may be better served getting him on some slants and crossers also.  In general, receivers are going to average a lower completion percentage and yards of separation on certain types of routes than others, that's why we shouldn't necessarily be taking stats, even advanced ones, at face value, as there are dynamics that most aren't even thinking about.  In terms of Tet, he's bigger and somewhat slower than a smaller dude, so you'd expect him not to have as much separation on go-routes, but his catch radius is massive and his hands are awesome. Hitting him in stride will probably be killer, but of course QBs are less accurate on go-routes according to the stats. Depending upon Tet's route versatility and how he is used, we could have a unicorn though. He's relatively fast, has great hands and gets YAC (and on an off note, if X can hold on to the ball, he's dangerous as well because he already has shown some separation ability).    
    • Most elite WRs aren't necessarily burners. Not a lot of elite WRs in the modern era were 4.3 guys. If anything, sometimes it seems like the super fast guys use their speed as a crutch and it hampers their development in the intricacies of route running.
×
×
  • Create New...