AU-panther

When PFF says they are good or bad they are referring to relative to other teams. When you say good or bad you are referring to your personnel benchmark of what you think a good offensive line looks like. Those are two different statements. Needless to say you aren't watching every game of every team so you don't have an accurate basis for rankings but you do have enough football knowledge to feel like you team could stand to improve in an area such as pass protection. PFF saying that there are 14 teams with worse offensive lines then us based on their metric, could very well be a true statement. You saying that the Panthers have a bad offensive line based on what you think a good offensive line should should look like could also be a true statement. People have a hard time understanding what PFF is actually doing and saying. I totally agree with you that over the last decade our pass protection has been poorer than I would like, but this mindset around here that every other team is better than us is ridiculous. Fans have a bad habit of always thinking in extremes.

How did the Browns do with Joe Thomas? Creating absolute statements off of small sample sizes is pretty weak. How about this? What if you think Waddle has a 80% chance of being like Hill, but Slater only has a 60% chance of being like Bolles? Not only do you have to look at draft picks at their ceiling, and their floor, you also have to factor in the chances of them actually reaching those levels. People compare draft picks under best chance scenarios where they all reach their ceilings, which in reality really happen.

Who helps you win more games? Garrett Bolles or Tyreek Hill? Doesn’t seem so insane when you think about it like that. Full disclosure, I’m hoping for the LT also, because I think finding WRs later is easier, but I understand the argument for Waddle.

Let me preface this by saying I'm all for drafting a LT early this year, if we don't go QB, both need and value seem to be lining up well this year. Interesting exchange on twitter I saw between Daniel Jeremiah and one of the PFF guys regarding what makes a productive offensive line. We are all caught up on this idea of an LT, which is understandable considering some of our history at that position, but even upgrading some of the other positions could have a tangible benefit. Here is a follow up tweet by Steve explaining what he means by "creep back toward average" Having an elite LT by itself doesn't put points on the scoreboard, they do make it easier, but what is most important is having an overall offensive line that is good enough not to be a weakness. I'm not convinced, even if we spend pick 8 on a LT, that our line is going to automatically become one of the best in the league. Wouldn't bother me in the least if we spent multiple picks on the offensive line this year. On a side note, fans always like to measure offensive lines by sacks given up. Easy metric to notice when causally watching your team, but PFF loves to point out that sacks aren't just a offensive line stat. Often. so much more goes into a sack than just how your offensive lineman does. Your play caller, QB and receivers all factor in. Play caller: Good play calling can slow up pressure, certain systems don't need as much time. Think Brady with the Pats. QB: Recognizing pressure, calling the correct protections, throwing to correct the read, getting the ball out quick. How much easier is it to play OT for Brady? Receivers: Having a first read receiver that can consistently get open for your QB is huge. How many sacks happen after the 1st and/or 2nd read of the QB? What percentage of sacks that Cam took over his career were after his 1st read was covered? People would be surprised. Speaking of receivers, this is one reason it wouldn't shock me if Cincy did pass on Sewell and took Chase. I get the theory behind it, but I would still lean towards the OT. I'm not saying OTs are more important, that is an entirely different discussion, but they do seem a lot harder to find both in the draft and free agency. Some years you can't even buy one in free agency even if you are willing to spend the money.

but you aren't watching every other OLine for every snap of their games and I doubt anyone on this forum is. This is the problem with a fan's eye test, you are grading your team, player, or positional unit against a standard that you have created yourself, and a standard that you are only applying to your team. That gives you no context. By your standard, and you allude to this in your last paragraph, the bottom 2/3s of the league might all have "bad" Olines but that isn't what PFF is trying to say. They are ranking everyone using a standardized metric, applied uniformly ( in theory, probably not always perfect, but better than anything else) to all of the teams. As fans we think our O-line is bad, we view it in a vacuum, but in reality when compared to the rest of the league we are probably somewhere in the middle third. Fans seem to have trouble confusing the difference between subjective terms such as "good" and "bad" and rankings. If anything fans would probably understand these PFF list better if they grouped them in tiers. A typical fan thinks more like: Great: Teams 1-5 Good: Teams 5-10 Terrible: 10-32 With all that being said, for the last 10 years or so, I think it is safe to say our online has rarely been a strength of our team, but at the same time we probably haven't been as bad as a lot of people think, RELATIVE, to the rest of the league.

Saw this tweet earlier. This guy really does a good job of comparing the top QBs in this class based on data. I don't know anything about Justin Fields work ethic, or ability to process, personally I think some of that has been overblown by the media, but his ability to accurately throw a football from point A to point B is unbelievable. Easily better than anyone in this class, Trevor included . This guy actually goes on to say in a later tweet that it is one of the best profiles he has ever charted. I've gone back and forth on these QBs but if San Fran really takes Jones, and Atlanta decides to go non-QB, I would be on the phone with Cincy trying to trade up for Fields in a heartbeat.

I think fans are totally overlooking the chance we could go WR at some point in the draft. Fans tend to think in current year terms, but both Moore and Anderson are in the last year of their contracts. Even if they extend Moore you have a huge hole across from him. Also people need to remember that WR1, WR2, and WR3 are all basically starters. Good teams, the type you end up facing in the playoffs, can often take away your first option. I don't mind a WR early, I think it is a high value position, but for various reason there seems to be some really good value in the 2nd and 3rd with receivers lately, and this years class is deep again.

People need to realize that teams don't think in terms of need and just drafting the next highest ranked player. Fan's board: OT1>OT2>CB1>TE1 Teams think in terms more of grade. Teams board might be something like: OT1>TE1>CB1>OT2 or even OT1>TE1>trade down>CB1>OT2 The team could easily have Pitts and Sewell in a totally different tier than everyone else. If Pitts and Sewell are both gone I could actually see us trading down.

I am all for drafting an OT in the first if we don't go QB. I think this years class lines up very well from a value and need perspective. Also I think OTs are a good choice for 1st round picks from a positional value and importance aspect. Look at some of the contracts that OTs get in free agency. but... There are some fans here that have unrealistic expectations of offensive lines, Unless the QB has six seconds to throw on every pass, and the RB doesn't get touched until he is 5 yards downfield they think we have the worst line in the league. I'm not sure if they will every really be happy. Also people need to realize more goes into a QB pressure than just the O-line in front of him. Play calling and QB play is a huge part of it. Also receivers play a part. Having a 1st read receiver that gets open consistently helps a lot. How many sacks happen before the 1st read? How many after? Here again, I'm not saying we shouldn't draft one. If anything this definitely looks like the year we should. There are a couple of guys that look to be good value at 8. There are a few more that might be good value with our second round pick, this class seems deeper than most.

Lets say Fields is still on the board at 7 and we really like Fields. Detroit calls and says "give us a third to move up one spot" or we are taking a future 1st from WFT to trade with them. We give up a third to move one spot to insure we get the QB we like. You are thinking like a fan, not a team. Most fans will be happy with any of the top-4 QBs. Chances are though, that most teams, after lengthy evaluations, will definitely like one QB more than the other. History though tells us that often those teams guess wrong, and sometimes not getting what you want ends up better.

I didn't' say that I thought Slater would be gone by pick 8. I said that between Sewell, Pitts, and Slater there is a very good chance 2 out of the 3 will be gone by pick 8. Apparently you don't agree with that, which is fine, we'll see what happens.

Lets say Atlanta or another team in front of us trades down with a team looking for a QB That means 4 picks will be used on QBs. That leaves 3 non QBs to be drafted before us. A team could easily choose Chase over Sewell. Seems to be a lot of chatter about Pitts being one of the top 3 non-QBs so a team could go Pitts. That leaves one team to not pick Sewell, maybe they have bigger needs such as WR (Waddle, Smith) or CB (Surtain). Also it only take one team to have Slater rated higher if that is the team picking.

I'm not one that thinks 15 players are going to be gone by pick 8 like a lot around here but I am pretty confident that 2/3 (Sewell, Pitts, and Slater) will be gone by 8. Do you think 2/3 will be there at 8? We can always look back after the draft at this thread.

Poor question, the chance of all 3 being there at 8 is slim. Every year the huddle argues who they want out of guys that most likely won’t be there . Better question would be Slater, Smith, Parsons, or Surtain?

If two say a 3rd then that means someone will probably have to give a second.

I think most of us agree that the Jets went out of their way to tank last year. You don’t tank for a OT or WR, you tank for a new QB. They missed out on Trevor but I think they like QB2 enough to continue with the plan. Personally I would think it would take an obscene offer for them to trade down.

Lance is still in the picture if someone doesn't trade with Atlanta. Problem is Atlanta could easily refuse to trade with us, so we are at their mercy to some degree. Also where are all of these people who said QBs wouldn't go as early and often as some of us predicted?

It’s grown on me. It has a very Euro soccer team feel to it, makes it different.

What if he was good and under 6’, would you pay him then? A good player is a good player, his height might be reason he is good or bad but by itself it doesn’t tell you anything and using it as a singular metric to decide on a player is poor evaluation.

I can understand passing on him, but just basing it on height? I guess you would have passed on Revis also?

If QB3 goes #3 then going to #5 might be pointless. I could see Atlanta trading down, makes a lot of sense for them, and I don't see them trading down with us. I would be somewhat surprised if 4 QBS went top 4, but if 3 went top 3, I would be nervous as heck with Atlanta's spot. Also you are assuming that the team likes QB 3 or 4 equally. As fans a lot of us would be happy with any of the top 4 QBs, but there is a very good chance that a lot of teams will like one a good bit more than the others. If the team decides they like QB3 that much more than QB4 they just need to go to #3. If you are unwilling to give up the assets to do that, which is a valid argument, than just be patient but you have to be willing to accept the fact there is a chance you won't get any of the top 4 QBs.

or they believe he might be not cleared and teams are backing off, so they "leak" information to create the illusion of more interest than there really is. Either way its impossible for fans to know which reports are true and which are smokescreens.

I found this tweet by Daniel Jeremiah really interesting. Thinking back there definitely seems to be some truth to it. Also it might cause some concern about guys this year. Speaking of red flags, I'm seeing another trend I was hoping wouldn't be continued with this staff. Signing a guy and expecting (and paying him as such) to be better than he has consistently shown in the recent past is a recipe for disaster. We saw it with Kalil and Teddy. Sure seems like we are seeing it again.

I could see that, I just don't think there was much substance to, but letting other teams know that Kyle Shanahan thinks highly of your QB might create an illusion that you want to portray. Both NE(before resigning Cam) and WFT seemed to make more sense. I could have seen RR wanting a risk adverse QB, but 49ers just seemd odd. Not sure he offers much more than Jimmy G. Speaking of WFT, with them signing Fitzpatrick that is probably one less possible teams that might want Teddy.

True, but they have also had success with 2 TE sets, Hernadez and Gronk, but I do agree it does seem to favor Cam and good for him. I hope they put him in a position to succeed.