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!

     

Top 5 draft targets for positions of need


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TD alt said:

BPA. BPA. BPA. I don't care what position it is. I know some don't agree, but that's life.

I understand and agree with the sentiment. That said I think the definition of “BPA” differs from one person/team to the next.  

I know people say they draft BPA but have a feeling there is some rationalization to getting to that point.

Personally I would have a formula based on raw assessment then look at other criteria such as team fit and roster impact (forecast number of expected game play, starts snaps etc…). 
 

Otherwise u could end up with 4RBs  backs and 3 CBs. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pejorative Miscreant said:

I understand and agree with the sentiment. That said I think the definition of “BPA” differs from one person/team to the next.  

I know people say they draft BPA but have a feeling there is some rationalization to getting to that point.

Personally I would have a formula based on raw assessment then look at other criteria such as team fit and roster impact (forecast number of expected game play, starts snaps etc…). 
 

Otherwise u could end up with 4RBs  backs and 3 CBs. 

I think you look at needs. The you get to the spot… if some guy fell and is there, and is so much better than your need options you can do two things. Take him, or trade back if possible to better match your need guy to his value. 
Last year we didn’t see the right value in our needs at our spot, and went BPA because we had room for a WR. Worked out great. If it were a LOT there who was BPA? May not have worked so great 

Edited by strato
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2026 at 2:31 PM, Johnstonny said:

Tired of wasting picks on TE's...damn no in first round.

No kidding. 3 drafts and the only OL drafted was Zavala. We’ve drafted 8 WR/TE/RBs in the same 3 drafts and only 1 of the 8 has been an impact starter.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pejorative Miscreant said:

I understand and agree with the sentiment. That said I think the definition of “BPA” differs from one person/team to the next.  

I know people say they draft BPA but have a feeling there is some rationalization to getting to that point.

Personally I would have a formula based on raw assessment then look at other criteria such as team fit and roster impact (forecast number of expected game play, starts snaps etc…). 
 

Otherwise u could end up with 4RBs  backs and 3 CBs. 

I agree. The "problem" is that we'll never know exactly what the formula is. There is undoubtedly a "need" component in the calculus, but I seriously doubt that elite teams are in the business of drafting needs at the expense of drafting generational guys, or even guys they suspect will be good or solid players for years to come. And, as you suggested, "fit" plays a big part of that calculus as well. 

At this point, there are several positions that we could justify using day one and two picks on. I'm looking forward to see what they come up with. Moreover, the plan is always to use FA to set up the draft, so that one doesn't feel compelled to do something stupid based upon needs.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2026 at 10:28 AM, strato said:

Well I look at the option of a bust. Seen people burned too many times on these small school guys. The competition they face matters.  
 

I am better taking them later when the stakes are lower. 

Maybe...but that should be according to scouting them not the school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TD alt said:

I agree. The "problem" is that we'll never know exactly what the formula is. There is undoubtedly a "need" component in the calculus, but I seriously doubt that elite teams are in the business of drafting needs at the expense of drafting generational guys, or even guys they suspect will be good or solid players for years to come. And, as you suggested, "fit" plays a big part of that calculus as well. 

At this point, there are several positions that we could justify using day one and two picks on. I'm looking forward to see what they come up with. Moreover, the plan is always to use FA to set up the draft, so that one doesn't feel compelled to do something stupid based upon needs.

Yeah well thats after they drafted for need to build up to elite.Its quite a luxury to aspire to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TD alt said:

I agree. The "problem" is that we'll never know exactly what the formula is. There is undoubtedly a "need" component in the calculus, but I seriously doubt that elite teams are in the business of drafting needs at the expense of drafting generational guys, or even guys they suspect will be good or solid players for years to come. And, as you suggested, "fit" plays a big part of that calculus as well. 

At this point, there are several positions that we could justify using day one and two picks on. I'm looking forward to see what they come up with. Moreover, the plan is always to use FA to set up the draft, so that one doesn't feel compelled to do something stupid based upon needs.

I think there actually is a strategy to dealing with the "problem." At least IMO. Figure out the success rate of position by round, where the average of each is drafted, and which colleges produce contributing position players regardless of draft position. Then build your draft board like you always would based off talent. See how players fit into the draft predictor, and then track how it unfolds. All those little pieces can help you figure out who to take and where they might fall and get you on the front end of runs instead of chasing scraps. Fitterer could never figure this out and was the worst at reading a draft I have ever seen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, heel31ok said:

You draft bpa according to need 

I hope not. Needs change year to year. 

If we get to the 3rd round and there is a wide receiver we had graded in the 2nd, but our "need positions" are graded as 4th round or lower, I would really hope we draft the receiver. The fan base may flip out, but the goal is to bring in the best players and look out for the long term success of the team. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2026 at 9:30 AM, NAS said:

JT Sanders has been such a disappointment.  I really thought he'd be good after his promising start to the rookie season. 

Guys being as good as they're ever gonna be on day one of their rookie seasons is quite a trend for a lot of Panthers draft picks.

Our drafting has sucked, but so has our talent development. 

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

    • If we pay Bryce like a franchise QB we're completely and utterly buttfuged.
    • In my view, the realistic expectation for this team to compete will start 2027.  At that time, I think we could be looking at the following (this is HIGHLY speculative):   QB:  You know, Bryce.  I am not a fan, but they don't ask me.  But there is reason for hope--and here it is.  Bryce will be entering his prime.  Since we are likely to pay him, there will be changes that I include throughout this exercise--I realistically speculate on what they are going to do with Bryce and then I realistically speculate on what means in terms of the cap and other positions. Bryce HAS IMPROVED.  The idea is that if you give him more weapons and protection, that will continue.  His career:   At this rate, if his growth continues, by 2027 we should expect nearly 30 TDs and about 12 Interceptions and a Rating of about 98.  His completion percentage should settle at 65-66% or so.  If that happens, you can win with it. The following stats demonstrate how the Panthers will be able to afford it (and re-sign Ickey) My guess is they will require about $60m per year. This is why rookies who can play are important.  It also helps us see the blueprint.  You may disagree, but this is the cruel realities of the salary cap. Robert Hunt:  Cut post June 1 and save $19m.  Who do you replace him with?  Ickey. Tershawn Wharton:  Cutting him saves nearly $15m.  We should all hope to see Aaron Hall (UDFA) make the roster and play well.  Regardless, this is a position we would likely have to address in the next draft. Trevin Moehrig:  Cutting Moehrig as the starting SS saves this team $16.5m.   Ransom will be on year 3 of a cheap rookie deal and should be more than ready to take the reins.  their styles are similar.  Furthermore, FS Wheatley (R, 4th round) will be starting. Taylor Moton:  So much depends on his knee, but I have an idea that he can play another 3 years.  extending him could save the team about $5m per year.  Cutting him outright would save the team about $21m. In the most drastic situation, we have to cut Moton and the other three players mentioned.   We would need (in all likelihood) a starting DT and RT.  It is possible that the DE would be addressed, but Wharton's production (so far) could be equaled by a rookie.  Look for a cut free agent and a 2027 draft pick here.  If you cut Moton, you save $21m, and that would be the only big hole to fill.  Having Ickey at RG gives you some depth at T, and Ickey could be the guy.  T could be pick in the 2027 draft (first round), fwiw.  It saves you $21m while costing you $5m, for example. We get younger, creating a core of Freeling, Hecht, and the RT first rounder in 2027) along with Ekownu (second contract in the $15m range, and Lewis, whose contract would be in the $16m range if not extended.)  The OL cuts (Hunt, Moton) would save $40m.  The OL would get younger and still solid with veterans at G.   By cutting Wharton (no brainer if his play stays the same) and Moehrig (good player--but we have Ransom on a rookie contract who would not be that much of a drop off--if any) in addition to Hunt and Moton, we would save over $70m in cap room. We would be able to give Bryce bag  and we would have enough to re-sign Ickey (if the knee is not too risky) to a Guard contract (probably at a discount, coming off that injury).  Furthermore, we could add a RT in the draft (or a RG if Ickey moves to RT) and that would be the only large hole to fill. Correct my logic if you see issues-- On defense, in addition to the aforementioned, Scott ($2m contract) is out, replaced by a 4th round rookie contract. CB Jackson's contract ($7.8m) expires and he is (possibly) replaced by a rookie contract.  At Edge, patrick Jones II's $10m contract expires and he is likely a reserve, and his role is absorbed by Phillips, Scourton, Princely, and possible an UDFA like Isaiah Smith or a 2027 draft pick.   These productive developmental players over the past 2 drafts will pay huge dividends.  On paper, I see the team getting much younger and possibly better while cutting nearly $100m and reallocating that money to get more production.          
    • If everything played out and that last thing happened, I probably just quit. 
×
×
  • Create New...