Some homers' opinions of the OTs that we may realistically be able to get at 19

[frankw]

Only Panthers fans think you have to draft a WR in the first or it's a bust guaranteed. Zero expectations for our talent evaluators to actually find gems later in the draft. What do these people actually do here? What do we pay them for?

Edited April 4 by frankw

[MHS831]

21 minutes ago, csx said:

There are a number of tackles graded and mocked in our area. We've had contact with several.

You seem to be looking for a perfect prospect at 19 and using draft media negatives bullet points to rule everyone out.  

You could say that-- but if we don't need a starting OT this year, why would you draft a flawed one that is not going to play? (We are coming from different underlying assumptions and perspectives--I see your argument and don't disagree with the premise) Your thinking is based on the assumption that an OT for the future is more important than immediate needs at other positions, or that we can meet other needs in later rounds even if we take the OT in round 1.  I do not think there is but 1 OT worthy of a first-round grade---they are mocked based on need and demand--if we do not have a need for a starter right now, a team at 18 may grab a T that is the 33rd best player--worth it if you have no starting T, but not if you have a starter.  So just because they are mocked around the middle of the first it does not mean that the players are good values--teams get desperate.  QBs are a great example.  Simpson may be worth it in round 1 for the Cardinals, but not the Jets, because they have Geno Smith.  Sure, they will need a QB by next year, but taking Simpson is a reach.

I do not see our need, with 2 starters (Walker and Moton) and another possibly returning by the end of the season enough to justify ranking OT over positions like Safety, Will LB--I do not think we replaced A Shawn Robinson (We gonna put a NT out there?  Wharton (280lbs)?  So do we reach in round 1 for a player who may not play much or do we get a Will LB that can cover?  A deep free safety?  A quality center? A playmaking TE?  A DT to replace Robinson?  A wide receiver to balance the secondary?  Long term, if the right player was there, you would be right.  Short term, OT is a luxury at this point, in my view.  

[heel31ok]

There's a great guard in our vicinity Vega Ioane.

[jfra78]

3 minutes ago, heel31ok said:

There's a great guard in our vicinity Vega Ioane.

At 330 he is in everyone's vicinity

[csx]

1 hour ago, MHS831 said:

You could say that-- but if we don't need a starting OT this year, why would you draft a flawed one that is not going to play? (We are coming from different underlying assumptions and perspectives--I see your argument and don't disagree with the premise) Your thinking is based on the assumption that an OT for the future is more important than immediate needs at other positions, or that we can meet other needs in later rounds even if we take the OT in round 1.  I do not think there is but 1 OT worthy of a first-round grade---they are mocked based on need and demand--if we do not have a need for a starter right now, a team at 18 may grab a T that is the 33rd best player--worth it if you have no starting T, but not if you have a starter.  So just because they are mocked around the middle of the first it does not mean that the players are good values--teams get desperate.  QBs are a great example.  Simpson may be worth it in round 1 for the Cardinals, but not the Jets, because they have Geno Smith.  Sure, they will need a QB by next year, but taking Simpson is a reach.

I do not see our need, with 2 starters (Walker and Moton) and another possibly returning by the end of the season enough to justify ranking OT over positions like Safety, Will LB--I do not think we replaced A Shawn Robinson (We gonna put a NT out there?  Wharton (280lbs)?  So do we reach in round 1 for a player who may not play much or do we get a Will LB that can cover?  A deep free safety?  A quality center? A playmaking TE?  A DT to replace Robinson?  A wide receiver to balance the secondary?  Long term, if the right player was there, you would be right.  Short term, OT is a luxury at this point, in my view.  

Not going to play is a huge dose of wishful thinking. He could start every game due to injury. We are one injury away from Stone Cold Forsythe being a starter and one season away from needing a true starter if not two.

Why draft Aaron Rodgers? Why draft Mahhomes? Because  you have to think and see beyond the end of your nose 

Edited April 4 by csx

[BeenPounding]

I'm warming up the the idea of a WR in the first round.  It's a toss up there between WR and DT.  I'm trade back all day if possible.

I like Shelton or Crownover even if we need to go a round early.  2nd round is a prime spot for a LB if it is Hill, Rodriguez, or Golday.

CB is a sneaky need.  There are a bunch of nickel guys, but I'd rather hit on a tall boundary corner.  My perfect draft hit on sticktothemodel:

[MHS831]

17 minutes ago, csx said:

Not going to play is a huge dose of wishful thinking. He could start every game due to injury. We are one injury away from Stone Cold Forsythe being a starter and one season away from needing a true starter if not two.

Why draft Aaron Rodgers? Why draft Mahhomes? Because  you have to think and see beyond the end of your nose 

I am aware.  We are 1 injury away from Kenny Pickett too--does that mean we should draft Simpson?  

So you are saying that the Panthers should draft an OT and that is the only course of action a responsible GM would take?

You are not wrong, CSX, but to me, timing, other needs, the Ickey situation, etc. make it more complicated than you are making it.  

[MHS831]

1 minute ago, BeenPounding said:

I'm warming up the the idea of a WR in the first round.  It's a toss up there between WR and DT.  I'm trade back all day if possible.

I like Shelton or Crownover even if we need to go a round early.  2nd round is a prime spot for a LB if it is Hill, Rodriguez, or Golday.

CB is a sneaky need.  There are a bunch of nickel guys, but I'd rather hit on a tall boundary corner.  My perfect draft hit on sticktothemodel:

I am too.  You have to consider how a player would make others around him better.  A S, for example, could make the back 4-5 secondary players better.  An Inside LB makes the front 7 better. 

A WR would make Bryce and TMac better.

(I like Caden Curry too, as well as Crownover)

I have mocked your first two picks more than once.  I like OTs converted to C like Parker from Duke because they could play OT in a pinch.  However, the C wealth in this draft is sick.

 

[BeenPounding]

I like Coogan, Zhun, Parker, Gulbin, and Barton as Center prospects because of their versatility.  Aside from center, we need to improve our guard depth.  Zavala is not it.  I'd love to see Gennings Dunker give center a shot.

[MHS831]

11 hours ago, csx said:

Not going to play is a huge dose of wishful thinking. He could start every game due to injury. We are one injury away from Stone Cold Forsythe being a starter and one season away from needing a true starter if not two.

Why draft Aaron Rodgers? Why draft Mahhomes? Because  you have to think and see beyond the end of your nose 

If he is not starting, how is saying "not going to play" wishful thinking when you support your premise with a hypothetical situation about your future vision of a probable injury?  Isn't that "wishful thinking?"  Now, you could say the same about Derrick Brown, bryce Young, TMac, or either CB--all critically important positions. WHy not draft depth at those positions with the 19th pick? A CB, WR, or DT is more likely to contribute that a reserve OT.  I enjoy discussions, but I can't argue with hypothetical hypocrisy-we will just wait and see.

Edited April 4 by MHS831

[Jon Snow]

13 hours ago, MHS831 said:

You could say that-- but if we don't need a starting OT this year, why would you draft a flawed one that is not going to play? (We are coming from different underlying assumptions and perspectives--I see your argument and don't disagree with the premise) Your thinking is based on the assumption that an OT for the future is more important than immediate needs at other positions, or that we can meet other needs in later rounds even if we take the OT in round 1.  I do not think there is but 1 OT worthy of a first-round grade---they are mocked based on need and demand--if we do not have a need for a starter right now, a team at 18 may grab a T that is the 33rd best player--worth it if you have no starting T, but not if you have a starter.  So just because they are mocked around the middle of the first it does not mean that the players are good values--teams get desperate.  QBs are a great example.  Simpson may be worth it in round 1 for the Cardinals, but not the Jets, because they have Geno Smith.  Sure, they will need a QB by next year, but taking Simpson is a reach.

I do not see our need, with 2 starters (Walker and Moton) and another possibly returning by the end of the season enough to justify ranking OT over positions like Safety, Will LB--I do not think we replaced A Shawn Robinson (We gonna put a NT out there?  Wharton (280lbs)?  So do we reach in round 1 for a player who may not play much or do we get a Will LB that can cover?  A deep free safety?  A quality center? A playmaking TE?  A DT to replace Robinson?  A wide receiver to balance the secondary?  Long term, if the right player was there, you would be right.  Short term, OT is a luxury at this point, in my view.  

I guess it's good thing Marty didn't think that way when he drafted Luke while he had Beason already as the starter. 

[jfra78]

3 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

I guess it's good thing Marty didn't think that way when he drafted Luke while he had Beason already as the starter. 

I mean yea but Luke did start his rookie season, just at olb

[Jon Snow]

1 minute ago, jfra78 said:

I mean yea but Luke did start his rookie season, just at olb

Who says whomever they draft doesn't have a chance to start? You guys are looking at this completely wrong. 

[jfra78]

Just now, Jon Snow said:

Who says whomever they draft doesn't have a chance to start? You guys are looking at this completely wrong. 

I personally wouldn't mind OT as long as he's a true starter and not a reach