Daniel Jeremiah mocks KC Concepcion to the #Panthers 👏👏👏

[strato]

11 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

BPA is a myth strategy.  You simply have to account for positional value and current roster status.  BPA is like taking a generic ESPN fantasy football ranking and simply crossing off the list as you go down

Well certain guys are clearly a notch better than other guys. But only very occasionally will they present themselves to you all wrapped up with a bow when your clock starts. 
I am a win at the LOS fan over skill positions and if a LT or an A’Shawn replacement stood at least even with other players I would be a buyer. 

I think there was a good argument for T Mac in that regard last year, and had no issue and would accept it again this year but it needs to be really clear. I don’t expect it to be. 
But if it is, there should be trade interest and that’s what I am about this year re our situation. 
 

I would love to trade back and fit the value to an OT while getting ammo to move up and get one of these LBs in the 2nd. Need based? Yep.  Trying to build a team not a room. 
 

 

Edited Wednesday at 05:18 PM by strato

[TD alt]

14 minutes ago, strato said:

So if a tackle that likely won’t start in 2026 is BPA, you are good? 

I just don't see that as being in the realm of reality, but in theory if the tackle is the BPA, then sure. Like I just said in another thread, sometimes it's not a matter of being right or wrong, but just putting the puzzle pieces together to make it work. All this sh¡t is guess work, it's just that the professionals have more educated guess work.

[TD alt]

1 minute ago, strato said:

Well certain guys are clearly a notch better than other guys. But only very occasionally will they present themselves to you all wrapped up with a bow when your clock starts. 
I am a win at the LOS fan over skill positions and if a LT or an A’Shawn replacement stood at least even with other players I would be a buyer. 

I think there was a good argument for T Mac in that regard last year, and had no issue and would accept it again this year but it needs to be really clear. I don’t expect it to be. 
But if it is, there should be trade nterest and that’s what I am about this year re our situation. 
 

I would love to trade back and fit the value to an OT while getting ammo to move up and get one of these LBs in the 2nd. Need based? Yep.  Trying to build a team not a room. 
 

 

Yeah, but being "even" is a different argument. Of course you're going to take the player that you need more if all things are equal. That's a no-brainer.

[strato]

1 minute ago, TD alt said:

I just don't see that as being in the realm of reality, but in theory if the tackle is the BPA, then sure. Like I just said in another thread, sometimes it's not a matter of being right or wrong, but just putting the puzzle pieces together to make it work. All this sh¡t is guess work, it's just that the professionals have more educated guess work.

Well all we are doing here is pissing to mark territory because non of us have a bit of power over what they will do. At the same time a lot people out think the professionals. 
 

I have a way I want it to go. Probably won’t, usually doesn’t. But will say again, we have a crisis brewing on OL. 

[strato]

5 minutes ago, TD alt said:

Yeah, but being "even" is a different argument. Of course you're going to take the player that you need more if all things are equal. That's a no-brainer.

You might let someone else pay you to take him and level your value out with the proceeds. Which is what I would want to do if a WR that is clearly the best player at 19, is there. 

[TD alt]

29 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

BPA is a myth strategy.  You simply have to account for positional value and current roster status.  BPA is like taking a generic ESPN fantasy football ranking and simply crossing off the list as you go down

BPA is not a myth. You think that these teams don't have their boards up and ready to go on draft night? BPA is in reference to a team's board.  The positional value, character, off-field concerns and all that other stuff is built-in. Hell, some players don't even make a team's board more than likely due to being questionable human beings. 

42 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

some of ya'll are really heavily invested in making sure that Bryce looks like a top 20 qb

You see, I don't get the "Bryce argument." I think that's weak within this context. You do what's best for the team. Always! If you perceive that an OT is best for the team, you draft him. If you perceive a WR is best for the team, you draft him. If you perceive that a safety is best, you draft him, etc. Bryce, just by virtue of being on the team is going to be more successful. 

Edited Wednesday at 05:35 PM by TD alt

[mrcompletely11]

15 minutes ago, TD alt said:

BPA is not a myth. You think that these teams don't have their boards up and ready to go on draft night? BPA is in reference to a team's board.  The positional value, character, off-field concerns and all that other stuff is built-in. Hell, some players don't even make a team's board more than likely due to being questionable human beings. 

You see, I don't get the "Bryce argument." I think that's weak within this context. You do what's best for the team. Always! If you perceive that an OT is best for the team, you draft him. If you perceive a WR is best for the team, you draft him. If you perceive that a safety is best, you draft him, etc. Bryce, just by virtue of being on the team is going to be more successful. 

If BPA wasnt a myth then why arent more teams with qb drafting qbs if they are high on their boards?   You are nuts if you dont think teams take in positional value, roster make up and draft depth in selection of players 

[mrcompletely11]

23 minutes ago, strato said:

Well all we are doing here is pissing to mark territory because non of us have a bit of power over what they will do. At the same time a lot people out think the professionals. 
 

I have a way I want it to go. Probably won’t, usually doesn’t. But will say again, we have a crisis brewing on OL. 

2 banged up starters on the oline, 1 starter completely out for the foreseeable future, a LT that nobody really wanted for who knows why, a "meh" center that is not guaranteed the job.  Oh yeah and absolutely no depth as we sit here on April 8th.  With all that said, and not to beat a dead horse, this all goes along with a qb who goes ass up when ever pressure is applied

 

So yeah your point stands and I am not going to cry if we spend a ton of picks on the oline.  guards and tackles

[TD alt]

Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

If BPA wasnt a myth then why arent more teams with qb drafting qbs if they are high on their boards?   You are nuts if you dont think teams take in positional value, roster make up and draft depth in selection of players 

Really, isn't that what I just said? Why would a QB be high on your board if you already have one? 

QBs may may be valued more overall, as they are central to a team's success, but they also have a high bust rate along with other premium positions, but the difference is is that you have to generally pay way more for them one way or another. So, you stay away, unless you just can't for whatever reasons. 

[OldhamA]

59 minutes ago, strato said:

So if a tackle that likely won’t start in 2026 is BPA, you are good? 

Yes.

You have to be brave as a GM to do it, but if your scouting tells you that he's going to bookend your OLine for the next decade, you pull the trigger.

There's absolutely no way Walker (1 year deal) and Moton (now injury prone and in his 30s) are going to start every game. You can work him into the rotation. 

[TD alt]

2 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

2 banged up starters on the oline, 1 starter completely out for the foreseeable future, a LT that nobody really wanted for who knows why, a "meh" center that is not guaranteed the job.  Oh yeah and absolutely no depth as we sit here on April 8th.  With all that said, and not to beat a dead horse, this all goes along with a qb who goes ass up when ever pressure is applied

 

So yeah your point stands and I am not going to cry if we spend a ton of picks on the oline.  guards and tackles

You're just being negative. Fortner is a solid center and plus pass protector. Walker is a plus pass protector and a meh run blocker. Give me pass protection over run blocking any day of the week, especially for BY9. 

We already have one bust at WR, one above average guy--when he's in--and a merry band of dudes who've done comparatively little in the pros. Talk about a crisis if T-mac were to go down for any appreciable amount of time...

[mrcompletely11]

3 minutes ago, TD alt said:

You're just being negative. Fortner is a solid center and plus pass protector. Walker is a plus pass protector and a meh run blocker. Give me pass protection over run blocking any day of the week, especially for BY9. 

We already have one bust at WR, one above average guy--when he's in--and a merry band of dudes who've done comparatively little in the pros. Talk about a crisis if T-mac were to go down for any appreciable amount of time...

Negative?    It Canales own words

[TD alt]

Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

Negative?    It Canales own words

And what words are you referring to? 

How about the fact that in his own words, he basically said that in the money rounds, we ain't drafting for depth, but players that can make an impact from day one? 

[mrcompletely11]

11 minutes ago, TD alt said:

You're just being negative. Fortner is a solid center and plus pass protector. Walker is a plus pass protector and a meh run blocker. Give me pass protection over run blocking any day of the week, especially for BY9. 

We already have one bust at WR, one above average guy--when he's in--and a merry band of dudes who've done comparatively little in the pros. Talk about a crisis if T-mac were to go down for any appreciable amount of time...

Double

Edited Wednesday at 06:13 PM by mrcompletely11