Montsta

Igo would like to thank you in advance for what will surely turn into a 400 post thread.

Add Floppin to my list too. Can't believe I forgot to add you. My bad.

Mr. Scot is like the Huddle elder statesman. Jangler always has a perfect picture to go with any given subject, and PhillyB is very knowledgeable for damn near everything. I also like teeray and p55 and RumGone and Growl and Proudiddy even if I don't agree with some things they may say. But frash.exe is the best and this place would suck without him. He just needs to change his picture back to smug American Psycho Christian Bale because that's who I see when I read his posts.

We had the same discussion last year and I'm sure we'll have the same discussion next year. If each player a team scouts is given a numerical value 1-100 and is put on a board, then all other things being equal, yes, need will win out. So if our pick comes up and there are five guys that are rated relatively close to each other, let's say a left tackle rated an 75, two wide receivers rated at 83 and 84, a cornerback at 85, and a defensive tackle at 97. Under this scenario, there is no doubt in my mind that Gettleman picks the defensive tackle because he is overwhelmingly superior to the other players. Now of course it doesn't fill an immediate need, but as I stated before, rosters are a fluid entity that change constantly so what isn't a need right now might be a need soon. Now let's take this same scenario and say the defensive tackle is an 84-85 value. In this scenario, I believe the team can go with the wideout over the defensive tackle, because even though the DT is technically the best player available, it is by such a minuscule margin that you can get the value there that you are looking for while also fulfilling an immediate need. I would argue that in neither of these scenarios is it ok to take the left tackle, regardless of how badly we need one. Reason being, you simply can't pass up on either of the remaining players mentioned that are far superior to that player. Maybe, and it's a small maybe, if that tackle was as high as say an 83 could you entertain it, but even then it's a tough call I'd rather not make. But then that's why the front office is in the war room and I'm writing this from the bathroom (shoutout to SCP). Because those are the calls they need to make during a draft that changes with each passing pick.

Mock drafts mean fug all. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

Again, show me something that says they drafted him to play OLB and I'll happily concede that you are right and I am wrong. Saying well they had Beason in the middle doesn't count.

I genuinely believe that our recent picks filled a need by coincidence, not need. Gettleman was glowing when talking about Benjamin. Can't coach 6'5" 240 blah blah. He wanted that guy and didn't delay when he was still on the board at our pick, regardless of a need at WR.

Wait so we didn't get this guy?

If you can show me a presser or interview where someone with the Panthers said they feel like Luke's skillset translated well to OLB, I'll concede the argument. They drafted Luke as BPA and figured out the fit afterward to get him on the field. In fact, one could argue that Luke Kuechly is the gotdamn poster child for BPA. We had an all-pro MLB and drafted Luke anyway, and now Luke is the best MLB in football by a wide margin. Had we reached for need we'd still have Beason (no disrespect, but he's not Luke) and someone like Mark Barron because we would have reached for need. Draft good football players first. Your needs will change every single year.

But the entire crux of the BPA argument is that your strengths and weaknesses don't stay constant from year to year. We went from Terrell McClain and Sione Fua to KK and Star in one year. Go look at this board at this exact date last year and the general consensus was that CB was a HUGE need, maybe the biggest on the team along with offensive line. Fast forward to today and it seems absurd to think of CB as a weakness. This is why you draft the best players that are there and figure out how they fit into your scheme afterward. Because while it might seem like a glut at one position all it takes is a retirement, decline in play, injury, free agency departure, etc. to all of a sudden be thin at a position. If we draft a stud DB and then Norman has a great year and leaves, all of a sudden it doesn't look like a bad idea. You can't draft based on your strengths and weaknesses every year because it is a constantly changing, fluid process.

Lol no he didn't they tried to make it work but Luke was always gonna be a MLB.

Or Cyrus Kounihodojo

Which is the exact reason why the team drafts the B.est P.layer A.vailable They can come in and contribute immediately.

He was the Best Player Available to the Panthers that's why it took Gettleman 3 seconds to turn in a draft card for him. Just because Mel Kiper's Board doesn't show him as best available doesn't mean the team doesn't have him as BPA.

If they truly believe Gurley will be a beast then it's not that outrageous of a pick. Stewart might be entering his last season here, and if Norman balls out this year he might command a contract we can't afford to pay him. It's not as outrageous as it sounds.

That hardest part about the Huddle being so awesome and popular is that every year we have the same arguments about the same poo because people come on that weren't here for the same exact argument last year. I think it was me and Proudiddy or Growl that had a pretty heated discussion about this for about 25+ pages last year.

That time he fuged our team out of $13MM while rapping at home and in Miami was pretty cool. Thanks Greg.

Not a done deal until new thread is started. It's a rule.

Makes sense. Stew may not be here after this season, and is injury prone. Maybe they pick up a talented RB to share snaps with 28 and then see how he looks and see if he can be the feature back moving forward. Hopefully just not in the first.

God bless you for putting this in here and not thinking it deserves its own thread.

I dislike 49er fans from long before our playoff loss. So we can't make fun of a sinking ship wanting to sell the farm for one of our franchise studs? What's the good of being a fan if you can't enjoy the misery of fans from a team you don't like?

Ok this thread was fun when it was laughing at SF fans but now that people are actually entertaining the thought of trading Luke Kuechly it's just gotten sad.

He's only 23. Probably 6 years/$60-$70MM with probably $30MM guaranteed. That's $5MM/year for signing bonus with an escalating annual salary of $4MM-$5MM-$6MM-$7MM-$8MM-$9MM with a max salary of $14MM in 2021. Mind you I have no clue what I'm talking about.

Luke Kuechly will be given a long term, bar-setting deal for a MLB LONG before there is even a chance of another team offering him anything. I can say with absolute certainty that he isn't going anywhere.

Interesting that you say that. I know some people here bring it up all the time, but do you really think the organization needs to prove to Cam they're willing to get him some weapons? I always kind of assumed he understood the whole "it's a process" thing. But then I also still believe it's possible to have a happy thanksgiving dinner with my family every year without fighting, and then like clockwork...