MHS831

I agree with you, if all things are equal--assuming we are on the same page as to what that means. If a DT and OT are there at 19 and you have them equal, which do you take? The DT would be rotational and get 25 snaps a game or so, and the OT is probably a reserve for most of the season. What if Walker plays out of his mind and Ickey comes back strong? To me, there are just too many variables at T and Morgan met the needs for 2 starters. Nothing about that screams lets "go OT in round 1" to me. I could see an Edge or a DT at 19 before I see OT. I could see a TE or S before an OT--and I (personally) would rather have an OT over DT, Edge, TE, or S--but I do not see the logic. In fact, CB is a position that resembles OT--who do we have behind our starters and are we happy with Smith-Wade? A CB would be on the field more than a reserve OT. How is the Walker at LT situation different than the the Bryce situation? He is basically on a 1-year deal and if he is injured, Forsythe becomes Pickett. Would you take Simpson in the draft? Dont get me wrong--I usually agree with you and I get your point. I am an OL guru--but I just do not see this particular group of Tackles making us better than Walker. In addition, I think we can address OT once the Ickey situation clears up. Short arms, poor run blocking, issues with strength--I am simply not impressed with the OTs. For clarity, "developmental" refers to players who are still a year or two away from starting. We are all developmental, but there are prospects who need a season to transition to the pro game. I see 1--maybe 2 OTs who could step into a starting role right now. In college, for example, taking snaps under center requires a different approach than blocking for the shotgun. There is less to learn if you play a position that does not require much adjustment to transition to the NFL.

Yes. When I mock, I load up on OL, but that first rounder is how you make or break the draft. If we have Walker as a rental swing T because a ready-to-play rookie is on the board. That is different. Like QB and Edge, OTs are already a reach in the draft because they are rare.

Are you suggesting that the situations were the same? As I recall, Hurney traded away the chance to get Revis and he drafted Beason as an OLB (where he STARTED as a rookie) and when Morgan went down with an injury, Beason was moved inside--he was on the field, however. Are you suggesting that GMs should use first-rounders for depth? If so, I wonder how many GMs, aside from those taking QBs, will draft a player that does not start this season in round 1? The argument that we will have an option to draft a player who is ready to step in and perform at a high level as a rookie at OT is not consistent with most of the reviews. Most of them, except maybe 1 or 2, are developmental. An isolated incident does not apply to all future situations. Beason was going to start, so it is not comparable. That same draft-Kalil played Guard as a rookie when we knew he was going to be a center--but he started. You don't reach for developmental non-starters in round 1 of the draft.

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.

Here is what I heard and I should know--when you all were dating, I was studying how coaches communicate to reporters. Who's laughing now? First, what we know: He does not have any serious talks (that we know of) to extend him at this point. Second, Canales says that we do not need to be changing things just to change them. I thought that was an interesting statement. Why would a QB do that? What is the reason? In that answer, you find the source of DC's frustration. Finally, the reality of Bryce has to be setting in. Bryce's agent is likely contacting Dan Morgan about the fifth year or second contract. For Bryce to be effective, is he really going to need an elite TE, a $100m offensive line, two thousand-yard rushers, a stable full of WRs, and a defense that keeps him from playing from behind (making him one dimensional and a thrower?) If Bryce wants $50m, we simply can't afford the supporting cast.

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.

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.

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.

Nuff said.

I think, based on what I guess GMs are thinking, that he is LT #2. He sure takes a steep drop vs. speed rushers--that bothers me, but hey, you get it back in other ways. I would be happy if that is what they think we need to do. To me, it would me that they are not expecting Ickey to return to form OR Moton's knee is worse than we hoped. (reading tea leaves).

I definitely understand the "draft a T" move--it is just not what I would do right now in this situation. thanks

This is a good thread--I definitely see both sides--just explaining how I feel on April 3...Nice to have civil discourse.

I worry about the OT situation, but I do not expect to see them invest a first rounder after signing a starter until they get information about Ickey. I see drafting Moton's depth, but not if you reach in round 1 to do it. WR? I am not happy with them either--the best WR in the draft was the second best WR on his team and the second best was a slot. Edge? Deep in this draft. Want to build your future? Take advantage of the deep talent pool at edge. LB? I love the expected day 2 collection. C? The draft is deep and round 3 and after is when to shop. Yes, we need a tackle and when we know more, we can be more strategic. IMO

It is simple if you focus only on OT. But there is the cap, talent levels that differ from year to year, and team needs that fluctuate, as you know. While I would be happy with an OT and understand it, I am not sold on OT as the answer. I agree that the game is won or lost in the trenches, but I do not think over-drafting with the first round pick is the only way of addressing it--especially if it may be a year before you know what you have or reap the rewards. We both agree that you have to stay ahead of it. Just because you take a T in round 1 does not mean that you have met the need. Teams need qbs too, but drafting them too early in round one is usually disastrous A few weeks ago, I was high on Freeling. I still am (cautiously), but there are reasons to approach some of these tackles with a "Buyer Beware" approach. Again, I am not against drafting an OT in round 1, but not if that OT has a late first or second-round grade. That is not good value. On top of that, put him in the garage for a year? Take Freeling, for example. Some project him to Cleveland at 6. Really? He is a fringe first rounder, IMO. IF you want to give away draft capital to get a non-starter, that is how GMs get fired. First, we can address Freeling’s seemingly massive improvement in pass protection. He did earn an outstanding 86.1 PFF pass-blocking grade in 2025, which ranked seventh among qualified FBS tackles. That was an improvement over his 65.3 mark in 2024. Georgia’s passing game was heavily built on play action and screens, which allowed Freeling to partake in just 95 true pass sets all season. That ranked just barely among the top 200 tackles in the country. Freeling earned a solid 75.4 PFF pass-blocking grade on those true pass set reps, but that pales in comparison to top tackles in the class, such as Francis Mauigoa and Spencer Fano. Mauigoa earned his 85.8 true PFF pass-blocking grade, second best in the nation, across 212 such reps, more than twice as many as Freeling. What about Freeling's run blocking? 61.3--which is slightly above all tackles in the country. So if you draft Freeling in round 1, you are getting a guy whose numbers were padded by play action and screens--but in pure passing sets and in run blocking, he was average when compared to every tackle in the country. Elite? Buyer beware. Lomu? Athletic, Can struggle in the run game and against power rushers. Late first rounder-early second, imo. Arms less than 34", which could scare some teams. Proctor? Can play high and the weight could be a problem he fights. Personally, I see him as the best option for an immediate starter but his ceiling is lower. I realize all players have areas of concern, but I think you will see some of these OTs drop on draft day, with good reason. Fano? 32 inch arms may kick him inside to G. You will respond that all OTs have question marks, and they do--but not researching the situation is not the answer. Freeling is a stud athlete, and despite the stats, I like him, but not as depth at 19. Proctor? I get it if you needed your starter now, and speed rushers give him fits. To adjust, his angle to block a 9 tech is nearly 90 degrees when it needs to be closer to 45 degrees. That decreases the pocket, and a short QB can't have that.

They had the abbreviated airport name on the chest--ATL Which I translated to mean "Another terrible Loss" -- I suggested that they put "28-3" on their sleeves to commemorate their last Super Bowl appearance, but they rejected my proposal.