panthers55

Exactly. So why all the debate about BPA versus need when most teams have significant needs at many positions. The issue comes up when we don't draft at a position at what everyone thinks is our biggest need this year like an offensive tackle. If we draft a quarterback in the first 3 rounds then I will think Gettleman is BPA no matter what..

Exactly what position has Gettleman drafted at a position of no need last year? Benjamin? Big need. Ealy? Given he wouldn't pay Hardy big money and didn't trust him and Johnson is costing almost 20 million a year it was a position of need in a year or two. Turner? With Wharton on the fence and Silatolu so up and down it was an immediate need. Boston? Of course we needed a safety. Benwikere? No question it was a need? . Gaffney? You could argue no need but with Williams and Stewart costing so much having a lower priced option would be necessarily down the road. So if we are looking long term instead of short term where are all these players who are at positions of no or little need. Gettleman may not be selecting at positions of what people think are our biggest needs but it is hard to say they are at positions of little need.

So let's start by saying that there is a whole field of research that looks at what a person says they do or will do compared to what they actually do and the results suggest they are often not the same or certainly not as delineated as they said. Secondly if you look at what he does and not what he says which is a much better predictor or what he will do in the future he surely drafts at positions of need as often as he drafts a player at an area of low need. He simply says that he was BPA regardless of need. But most times it isn't as if one player stands out head and shoulders above the rest like Star did in 2013.

. I would argue that you are trying to polarize the argument into BPA versus need and I think that need is a factor but not the main issue. I think gettleman's comments are more related to various drafting services who tend to put people at certain positions and teams solely based on need and he is saying that isn't how he rolls. But If you look at his drafts instead of what he says you can see that many of his BPAs have been at positions of need. Pure coincidence? I don't think so.

BPA is the best way to build a team long term through the draft. You are always getting the best player you can at all positions. If you are building for a particular year and not looking at the long term you get who you need even if you reach. Plus going BPA may be at a position not considered a position of need but that quickly changes. Who thought when we drafted Kuechly that linebacker was a need yet when Beason went down kuechly was much needed. The same with Ealy when Hardy couldn't play. free agency is where you find your need and BPA is where you build long term. Lastly the whole idea that BPA would be at a position of no need and therefore useless is likely overblown. I promise you we won't be picking a quarterback in the first 2 rounds no matter who is there. And we will say he wasn't the BPA. So need does factor in but not enough to reach for someone.

The answer to 1 and 3 will be better known in a few months. Everyone has given Gettleman a pass given the cap problems we have had. I want to see if we sign Hardy, lock up a Newton or Luke and we add in free agency. With most of the work still left to do over the next 3 or 4 months. Are we better than we were at this exact time in 2013, perhaps. But the jury is still out. As for the coaching improvement, there has been a good deal,of improvement. Special teams should be better, Rivera did an outs rounding keeping everyone focused and on the same winning one after the other must win game until we lost to Seattle on the road. Shula did the best he could witht e crap he was handed. As the line improve and Cam got healthy and Stewart performed must better in the second half, the offense went from moribund to prolific. Given the problems the coaches overcame, they all,did a good job with the exception of special teams.

The NFL says the case is over but given the charges were dropped but upon new evidence could be reissued again, is the case actually over? Seems to me that the evidence would stick around and stay sealed since it was never actually adjudicated. true or False

Richardson is a former player and as such he cares about the locker room and would put a lot of stock in guys who were captains of the team voted by the other players. They are the leaders on the team elected by their peers. I don't know that Richardson would be friends with these guys but they would definitely have his ear I would think. So that would include Luke, Kalil, Newton, Davis, and Olsen right?

That is good to hear as long as Hardy is committed to turning over a new leaf and staying out of trouble of the field. He can still be crazy on the field.

Anyone who can return punts which requires you to barrel head long into 11 guys trying to take your head off ought to be able to catch a ball with only one or two defenders trying to separate you from the ball. It has to be a mental thing. He is surely tough enough to concentrate on the ball and not try to overprotect himself.

The real issue will be how the players union responds to any suspension that Hardy would receive. If they react negatively then Hardy will appeal any suspension and it will likely get reduced.. The league looks tough and Hardy doesn't get a big suspension. Win- win.

Ginn had his best year as a receiver here and would again. If he would only fix the dropsies and he could be a real stud.

Correct.

But I listen to those who do know the system and simply discuss what I have been told and have read. I don't pretend to be an expert just pay closer attention than most to those who are.

I would think that like with every other potential draft pick, the organization will do their due diligence . If they find that he made a mistake but was a generally good high character guy they would keep him in the mix. But if they have serious concerns then he won't be considered BPA when we pick and someone else will pull the trigger who doesn't care that much about character. Is his talent so overwhelming that it is worth the risk or will their be other guys with similar talent who are also available at that position or some other.

That was in reference to calling a different play such as a pass to a run. There are so many variables within a play. For example you can keep the play but designate someone as a hot read or based on single coverage throw it to a particular receiver. You can run the ball but change the back alignment or where the ball is going if you see an over stack to one side of the other. On the read option plays he is keying off the end or the outside linebacker depending on what defensive alignment you are facing so he can decide to give it to Stewart hold it or even throw it. Obviously on many passing plays he is deciding who to throw it to or whether to dump it off short. So if you add in the times he can change the play completely and the times that he can change elements of the play or direct where it can go, he really has a lot of leeway and determines what we do based on what the defense is doing most of the time.

No offense, but most of those generalizations are being made by posters who don't know how the system works. Shula's offense gives Cam almost total control to change plays and audible to other options. Even when they are in a certain set, they can run a number of plays out of that set. So to say that Shula is the problem at situational awareness or in making defensive adjustments is barking up the wrong tree. It is Cam who is still struggling with defensive adjustments and situational awareness. He calls the audibles and decides most times on what play is run from the options he is given.. As for redzone play calls, again who do you think steps up to the line and decides what to run based on defensive alignment or decides where the ball is going to go?? Don't get me wrong, this is not placing all the blame on Cam because he did a fantastic job given all the injuries and the lack of playing time until week 2 of the regular season. He played much of the season hurt. The problem with the redzone offense was that our biggest weapon, Cam couldn't run as he wanted to most of the season, the offensive line gave him little time, had little push in the run game, and Cam really had only 2 redzone weapons, Olsen and Benjamin. Other than that we had few options and consequently little success. Both Cam and by extension, Shula need more redzone options when it becomes much harder to score given the field gets compressed and obvious options are always taken away. If you compare the end of the season to the first half you can see what a healthy offense can look like. Hopefully we have that this year.

He was promoted from the practice squad to a starter in a few weeks time IIRC. He had to learn along the way. It seems to me he did a fantastic job like Norwell did given the circumstances. Lets see how he does this year with a full offseason, camp and preseason to get ready and build chemistry with his teammates. Offensive line is one of those spots where it isnt just how he works as an individual but how they mesh as unit. The whole has to be better than the sum of the parts.

This is just what I have been telling everyone that constantly criticizes Shula. Shula runs the system that both Gettleman and Rivera want. When he has the players to run his system, he can be successful. When he doesnt we struggle. For those on Shula's nuts about poor playcalling, consider being an Eagle's fan or a Saint's fan. Because as long as Gettleman is here, our current offense is the kind of offense you can expect. Sits back while the bitching and whining continues despite the fact that Gettleman said it isn't going to change and the goal is to give Shula and Cam more weapons to work,not making changes to the system or philosophy.

He has had his moments but a guy who played less than 50% of the defensive snaps is hardly dominant.

Lynch has never had any big games against us. With our front 7 we will be stout against the run again on Saturday. So I am not concerned about Lynch running as much as I am Wilson scrambling. Lynch may be named beast mode but I think he will be rather tame against us. Even when we were giving up big yards at the beginning of the season it was typically one big run and a bunch of little ones. Now that we are not giving up big chunks it is almost all little ones.

I suspect Cole will be highly motivated to show Seattle they made a mistake in cutting him. Sometimes an angry highly motivated player makes up for any skill gaps he may have. Don't be surprised if Charles Johnson takes some of those reps as well. He will wreak havoc on any guards he faces as they are slower and less athletic than the tackles he goes up against most snaps.

Injuries are expected this time of year. No one is 100%. I don't think Star has been as dominant as Short this year. I am actually pretty good with Cole, Edwards and Short. Johnson can play inside as well on passing downs. He might be more dominant inside than outside as the guards are often less athletic than the tackles.

It is ridiculous to suggest he fabricated everything given he played game 1 and then the Ray Ray thing happened. But he and his lawyer had no reason not to postpone things since he gets all 13 million to sit and if suspended next season he will be likely earning less and his 6 game suspension will cost millions less next year than it would this year.