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!

     

If johnathan hankins is available after we pick in the 2nd, would you trade?


thunderraiden

Recommended Posts

Soo, I'm looking at some mocks and noticing that after we pick a lot of mocks have Hankins sitting til the end of the second. Any other year Hankins is a first round draft pick, but with any DT they take a year or two to develop. Let's channel some Hurney Magic on a prospect actually worth doing it with. Why not get a true NT with a non-stop motor this year and have him developed opposed to developing an LT or DT next year?

I am of the opinion we won't be drafting a DT in the first however. Our d-line is fine aside from NT. So my happy draft would be: J. Cyprien in first, best available WR not from USC in 2nd, and J. Hankins for our 2014 1st round pick. Only holes left are at CB and O-line after that and that is easily fixed with a little cap room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if we're going to trade picks for anything other than moving backwards, I'd rather it be on someone with experience. i don't like mortgaging the future on unproven commodities. thats how we wind up with guys like armanti and everette brown.

sure, you might take guys like julio as a reason to trade up, but that was a dumb trade because they could have gotten something important with the picks they gave up....you know, like good defensive players that are younger than 30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if we're going to trade picks for anything other than moving backwards, I'd rather it be on someone with experience. i don't like mortgaging the future on unproven commodities.

By that logic, why use draft picks at all?

I do agree however, it isn't as cut as dry as I make it in OP. If one were to look at next year's DT prospects and decide that the second half of the draft there wouldn't be that many players that are better than Hankins now available then, then you feel better about the trade. This draft is just packed with DT talent, so much so one can fall to the second such as an NT like Hankins and be had for relatively cheap considering the team we would fill this year with are two biggest defensive needs filled, and a new WR. I wouldn't mind an OT in the second either instead of WR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that logic, why use draft picks at all?

I've said several times before that aside from the first couple rounds or maybe the third, I'd rather use draft picks on proven experienced players with cheap/manageable contracts.

i have no problem with drafting players, esp. if all they cost is one pick. when you get into giving up multiple picks and limiting future options, i think that's when you get into trouble.

the draft is a gamble enough. why make it more of one? i like swing for the fences type picks, but i don't like the idea of bundling picks for one player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said several times before that aside from the first couple rounds or maybe the third, I'd rather use draft picks on proven experienced players with cheap/manageable contracts.

i have no problem with drafting players, esp. if all they cost is one pick. when you get into giving up multiple picks and limiting future options, i think that's when you get into trouble.

the draft is a gamble enough. why make it more of one? i like swing for the fences type picks, but i don't like the idea of bundling picks for one player.

Oh, no doubt, multiple picks become tricky, but it's turned Washington around, it has also pushed the Falcons into the leagues elite. I'm saying, Hankins is about the only player I would consider this with if he can be had for one pick, albeit a first, but he was a first round prospect the entire year until the depth of the DT class pushed him out. Not to mention, he has a non-stop motor, yes its gambling, but I wouldn't gamble with any player that doesn't have a non-stop motor and a desire to be great, something common with Julio Jones and RGIII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it just results in failure more than success from where i stand. just not a fan.

that said, if we don't trade backwards to pick up a third, i pretty much expect us to trade back up into the third somehow. as good of a draft as this is thru the first few rounds, it's hard to imagine us being without a third. i just hope its not a 2nd or earlier from next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I'd have zero problem with that. It would actually be ideal if the BPA on our board just so happened to coincide with a big need on our roster. A DT would fit the bill perfectly.

My God youre right. Lmao im so tunnel vision on us getting a wr in the 2nd i didnt even think of the obvious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Exactly what I was going to say. Brady seems to be taking a page out of Olsen's playbook, which is probably a good thing. They'll probably get around to giving Brady an Emmy one day, and he should thank Olsen for giving him the blueprint for success.
    • In before: "XL sucks, there is no hope." "As long as we have Bryce, none of this matters." My response: "It's X, not XL...we're not discussing apparel sizes, or we'd have to consider XS."  
    • Alain Pierre provides some food for thought on Last Word On Sports regarding Xavier Legette, and his article, though specifically on X, kind of puts me in the mind of QBs being overdrafted and put into situations that they're not prepared for, some ultimately failing due to drafting missteps by front offices who don't necessarily view prospective players within the contextual importance that situations demand.  At this point, Legette looks like a failure in reference to expectations, of not only what a consistently productive NFL receiver looks like, but a first round pick (which he obviously should never have been). But the story on X isn't necessarily completely over. Damn. I seem to be experiencing deja vu...It wasn't X's fault that he was overdrafted, that was a choice by an FO that obviously downplayed actual realized skill vs outstanding measurables and upside. Sure, the FO was impressed by X's one-year feats during his senior season at South Carolina, but it was the NFL god, RAS (a.k.a. Raw Athletic Score), that had Dave Canales's and Dan Morgan's jaws dropping in amazement at the sight of X running around in underwear at the Combine...   "At 6-foot-3 and over 220 pounds, Legette brought rare athletic upside to the position. His breakout season at South Carolina showed flashes of dominance that NFL teams dream of. Projecting forward, many scouts compared his physical profile to D.K. Metcalf, and the Panthers clearly believed they could develop him into a true wide receiver 1 over time. The issue was never his talent. The issue was the timeline. Just a few picks later, the Chargers selected Ladd McConkey, a receiver who may have lacked Xavier Legette’s physical ceiling but entered the league far more technically refined. McConkey immediately showed advanced route discipline, leverage awareness, good pacing, and separation ability.  Bryce Young’s game has always depended on timing and anticipation. His best football at Alabama came with receivers capable of winning through precision rather than pure athleticism. Jameson Williams and John Metchie III were excellent route runners and were able to get drafted in 2022. McConkey naturally fit that style of play. Legette, meanwhile, needed significant development in the exact areas where Bryce Young needed help. The Panthers drafted traits when Bryce Young needed reliability."   Yes, the FO was guilty. The good thing is that the execs appear to be improving. Some of that may be attributed to the hiring of Eric Eager (who was hired right after the Xavier Legette draft). Eager seems to have helped the Panthers FO fine-tune their analytical progress, and, at least on paper, they acquired players with a lot of value during the last draft in regards to actually (what I'll refer to as) "underdrafting" talent relative to their position with value already built in.  Look at Chris Brazzell: He may be more of the quintessential project receiver who was arguably more or less just as raw as Legette was when he was drafted, and with a relatively high RAS as well. The notable difference is value, as Brazzell was a round three pick and Legette was a first rounder.    "Unlike the Xavier Legette situation, Carolina’s environment for Brazzell is completely different. "The Panthers are not asking a raw receiver prospect to stabilize this offense for Bryce Young. "Brazzell enters a much healthier developmental situation with far less pressure. With Tetairoa McMillan established as the primary target and Jalen Coker continuing to settle as the number 2 option...Xavier Legette, Metchie III, and Jimmy Horn Jr. are also still in this rotation, fighting for reps. "It gives Carolina something they failed to give Legette when they drafted him: A developmental runway. "Xavier Legette entered the league with expectations attached to a first-round pick and an offense desperate for answers. Brazzell enters a room where he can spend a year working on his route running, learning the playbook, and earning snaps gradually rather than being asked to become part of Bryce Young’s solution immediately. "And truthfully, Brazzell needs that time coming out of college. Despite his elite physical tools, many evaluators have several concerns about his overall polish as a receiver. "His route tree at Tennessee was viewed as fairly limited due to the type of offense that they run. The receivers are expected to run a lot of choice routes, which are dictated by the placement of the defenders. It doesn’t require technical route-running and an understanding of the playbook needed at the NFL level...   "Context changes significantly when expectations change. "The Panthers are not depending on Brazzell to save the offense. They can allow him to develop slowly, expand his route tree, improve his technical refinement, and learn behind a much more stable receiver room... "Traits become much easier to bet on when patience is built into the plan."   It's all about understanding your situation. I don't agree that it's an inherently difficult choice like the author is suggesting in the following excerpt. At the very least, I think that it should be easier as long as all parties involved stay levelheaded and true to their process.    "That is what makes these draft decisions so difficult. "Every front office believes it can find the next Metcalf, Owens, or Marshall. Sometimes they do. More often, they are betting on a development path that may take years to complete. "The challenge is understanding what your offense needs right now. "If a team has patience, stability, and a quarterback capable of carrying the offense while a receiver develops, betting on traits can make sense. But if a young quarterback needs immediate help, there is a strong argument for prioritizing the receiver who already knows how to separate, create throwing , and earn trust from day one. "That’s why the Xavier Legette-Ladd McConkey debate remains so fascinating. "It was never really a discussion about talent. It was a discussion about timing."   For me, Ladd McConkey was talented enough in his own right, that the gap--the upside--was never as big as people are suggesting between not only McConkey and Legette, but McConkey and other receivers drafted in the first round during that draft. The technique divide between Ladd and X was pretty stark though, as was the roughly 35 pounds, but the speed was identical, the maybe 1½ height difference isn't huge (6' and 6'1"), and it may surprise some that Ladd's RAS (9.34) was also enough to put him in the top 10 percent of receivers since 1987. There is an argument that he would've been a better pick for Bryce and the Panthers, regardless of timeline and talent. But, I still appreciate the thesis (if you will) of the article, as it still provides some hope--perhaps a glimmer at this point, that X's RAS may finally translate to the NFL given more time, but, perhaps more importantly, it explains how Dan Morgan and company are showing improvement, even if it appears somewhat understated. My hope is that continued improvement is palpable by this time next year. https://lastwordonsports.com/nfl/2026/05/30/xavier-legette-draft-lessons/#google_vignette        
×
×
  • Create New...