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!

     

BH's Time Waster: Panthers Analysis & Full 2-Round Mock


Bear Hands
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, WOW!! said:

Good draft ..

 My issues is 2 secondary guys and Latu is going higher then the 5th round..

What happened to pick 93??

Yeah can't fill every hole but wanted to throw the Latu idea out there.  Think 2 DBs could be important, especially for Evero's defense.  It's hard to fill every hole.  

I just don't trust Taylor & Henderson coming in with Jackson & Horn's injury history.  I know we picked up Rowe who can play NB, but he hasn't been that special.  Feel like we need speed and an added punch.  I also just love Ward and wanted to give him a shout.   

Oh & the trade I mocked was 39 & 93 for 48, 81, & 151.  I think it maintains prospect value w/that 2nd rounder but moves us up 12 in the 3rd and nets an additional pick.  No problem staying put, I'd probably lean Brents even at 39.  Just think he's got it. 

Edited by Bear Hands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bear Hands said:

Yeah can't fill every hole but wanted to throw the Latu idea out there.  Think 2 DBs could be important, especially for Evero's defense.  It's hard to fill every hole.  

I just don't trust Taylor & Henderson coming in with Jackson & Horn's injury history.  I know we picked up Rowe who can play NB, but he hasn't been that special.  Feel like we need speed and an added punch.  I also just love Ward and wanted to give him a shout.   

Oh & the trade I mocked was 39 & 93 for 48, 81, & 151.  I think it maintains prospect value w/that 2nd rounder but moves us up 8 in the 3rd and nets an additional pick.  No problem staying put, I'd probably lean Brents even at 39.  Just think he's got it. 

The simulators might be wrong but I’ve been able consistently to trade down 10 or 9 spots in the 2nd not do a pick switch in the 3rd and still get a extra 5th.. So I usually end up with 

a 2nd round pick in the late 40’ early 50’ 

2 3rd rounders and 2 5ths..

Again the simulators could be off..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WOW!! said:

The simulators might be wrong but I’ve been able consistently to trade down 10 or 9 spots in the 2nd not do a pick switch in the 3rd and still get a extra 5th.. So I usually end up with 

a 2nd round pick in the late 40’ early 50’ 

2 3rd rounders and 2 5ths..

Again the simulators could be off..

It's kind of why I added perceived reaches with my late rounders, to account for me being a bit conservative in the trade eval.  Now, if we can pull off lets say a 39 & 114 for 48 & 81 swap, I'd be ALL over that.  Then, we're looking at...

1-Bryce Young

2-48-Julius Brents

3-81-Rashee Rice 

3-93 - This could be where there's a more significant upgrade than KJ Henry.  Byron Young EDGE, Schoonmaker at TE, McBride RB, some nice possibilities.   

4-132 - TE/OL/RBs galore IMO

5-145 - TE/OL/RB

I just like this slight trade down idea.  But even if it's a stay put at 39, I'd honestly take Brents in this scenario.  Hyatt or Campbell could get the edge, but it's close for me.  

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In respect to the pressers today, they were trying to imply the front-7 is an area to be addressed without much word on the secondary, which I find could be a misdirect.  They did however reaffirm multiple times that the length & speed combo with high football IQ is what they look for.  

For me, that's Brents to a tee at DB, who we've met with.  

At EDGE, that would be Will McDonald IV, BJ Ojulari, Derrick Hall as well.

Daiyan Henley & Dorian Williams are two LBs who has the length.  A bit leaner but could definitely be targets.  

  

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Captain Morgan said:

good stuff BH, so you're not going with the recent talk about an early IOL?

Avila could definitely be in play here, but I just like Brents for us. 

I'm also low-key a Cody Mauch fan, but I think there's a secondary need with how Evero uses NBs that if a guy on our value charts is there, that takes slight priority over filler RG (or) swing tackle depth.  

  • 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

    • This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...