TD alt

His results are too inconsistent to be calling him a rockstar. I'll give him a little grace, as he's not coached under the best of circumstances and has won some games he probably shouldn't have looking at personnel, but the big picture is still nebulous. The coming season should clear things up. But I'm not buying the "rockstar" or "QB guru" labels right now.

Is it really proven though? First, it's a five-year window. For as much as we want to laud Detroit and Tampa Bay, they've had their issues, and to be honest, we can't say with surety that either will even be in the dance this year. I guess what I'm saying is that, at the end of the day, team building is way more complex than saying just draft lineman on day one or day two every year, and you'll be in contention every year. It still comes down to actual team building, putting puzzle pieces together each season, and with an eye for the longer term (cap implications, talent, potential, chemistry, and all across all positions). It's highly complex. Lately, Howie Roseman has been a master of it all really. Secondly, PFF is really making a distinction between drafting tackles in rounds one through three versus four through seven (and UDFA). I'm all for keeping OTs in the pipeline, but you still can't say that you have to draft them on day one when a lot of damage can be done on day two as well. Lastly, like it or not, it's indisputable that some classes are just better than others at certain positions. We made it a priority to draft Bryce in 2023--traded a king's ransom for him, when all we had to do was wait until 2024 when the draft was better stocked at QB. It's not necessarily a good thing to have a tunnel-minded view at the expense of the big-picture view, which comes back to the fact that team building is more complex and individualistic than trying to force a general formulaic approach to a specific situation.

What are you going on about? First off, the Locked on Podcast Network is legit. It's relatively small, but still worth millions and it's revenue is growing markedly. Secondly, anyone that's been following the upcoming draft is guessing that the tackles discussed just may be available when the Panthers pick at 19. I don't see it any more or any less than that. It's insight into tackles that we may be interested in taking. Hell, lots of people, like any other year, prospects will be discussed. Don't you want an OT? Then what's the issue with discussing them? I've seen us linked to every one of them before I watched this vid.

With so many people who want OT or bust at 19, AI found it interesting to hear people who are in their respective corners so to speak. It's like I've been saying. We could take a tackle if the value is there, but it's not like OT is a given considering we are at 19. I'm all about getting an OT, but the juice has to be worth the squeeze. You know that Francis Mauigoa is going to be gone. Spencer Fano, mentioned in another thread, could very well be gone, and Monroe Freeling may be a pipedream as well. After that, as a fan, you really have to ask yourself if 19 is too rich to be drafting an OT. I'm not saying that it is or isn't (I'm just waiting for the draft), but I do know that certain receivers and maybe a couple of TEs, if still on the board could probably outrank Proctor, Miller and a few others. If we want one of the surer OTs, we just may have to move up, and I'm not necessarily a fan of doing that, but if Freeling falls, I might grin and bear it. As a bonus, here is a ranking of position groups by talent in this year's draft according to Lance Zierlein to offer even more insight and maybe perspective. https://www.nfl.com/news/ranking-11-position-groups-in-2026-nfl-draft-from-strongest-to-weakest-edge-rusher-linebacker-loaded

Coker hasn't proven to be a WR2 at this point in my eyes. He can be a good receiver, but he's going to have to stay on the field. He is solid, but not necessarily as dynamic as I'd like.

We would probably be drafting a WR2 (with maybe WR1 upside).

Fano has some things to work on. He may not be anything other than a guard. There are better OT prospects in this draft, but they all have some questions. The top two have short arms.

I agree. It just depends on the receiver. KC Concepcion would be a reach at 19 for me. Why? Too many drops over his career. I'd pick him in the second however, with bells on. If Makai Lemon is available at 19, there would have to be a discussion.

It's the suggestion. "We can't draft a receiver in the first round, because that would be three times in a row. The FO doesn't know what it's doing. We can't do that [blah blah blah]." Stick with your board! If receiver is at the top of the board. If TE is at the top of the board, so be it. Morgan used free agency to give the Panthers that flexibility. It's that simple.

You want play makers, regardless if it's in the slot or not. Any old JAG is not the goal. I'd think that they want Coker in the slot and a faster threat on the outside, but there will be some overlap regardless if they're playing chess on Sunday as opposed to checkers. Versatility is still a thing also.

Yessir, Center is not really a good value at 19. There's some question as to whether there will be a starter at OL at 19. The players are going to need development. If that's the case, we could say "We'll get a good developmental prospect later." It's all about value.

We can't afford to draft inferior players out of need at the expense of a superior player based on need. If the board says this player will have more of an impact, you take the higher graded player irrespective of position. That is the whole reason why Morgan used free agency to set up the draft. If nothing else, Morgan has shown that he will address team weaknesses. Rome can't be built in a day. One-year rentals sometimes turn into long term productive players. If we don't get what we need this year, we'll get it the next. Moreover, there are seven whole rounds.

It's not explicitly saying it, it's suggesting that we draft a certain position, regardless if the receiver has the higher grade. We would never had made the playoffs without T-mac. Morgan did the absolutely right thing, and that's what I hope he continues to do in the draft, which is follow the board and draft impact players. He used free agency to set up the draft for just that purpose. For anyone that thinks last season was anything but an improvement, I don't know what to tell 'em. The goal is to keep the momentum going, and I'd say that addressing our three biggest needs with arguably the best players at their respective positions this free agency, and legit quality players to boot, goes along way toward building the foundation of long term success. Before free agency, no one was picking us to win the division, now more than a few analysts are, and that's before the draft. Pull your bootstraps up where you are and get to work. We aren't as good as we need to be, but the needle is moving in the right direction.

I do to (at least I'd like to), I just don't know if we need to do it with our first round draft capital. If they do, I'll be good with it, as I expect them to stick to their board.

I mean, do you stop trying to improve your skill positions when it's obvious that you need to improve them? There really is more than one way to skin a cat, it's just that one way is better than the other when you look at it in a historical and statistical context.

Phillips and Lloyd are "first round" contributors (like that makes all the difference). I'm not arguing anything except that it's not a recipe for success to draft based upon need. To me, and it's just my opinion, I don't know why someone would argue against any first rounder as long as they bring the value because that's actually what we should be looking for. To me, to go into a draft saying that we're going to draft an inferior player at a certain position and skip the player that is superior simply because it would be three times in a row is just silly considering that you still need to shore up the position.

Dude, we just invested in two past first rounders on defense. Sure, we didn't draft them, but we acquired them in free agency. And it's not like Mike Jack is some bum out there.

Nah, dude. The only one that's actually long in the tooth is Not on, and he ain't even done yet. If Icky can't come back, then Walker will be extended. Walker is after all a better pass defender. We're not necessarily at the point where we need to be drafting first rounders who would likely be sitting on the bench; day two or three guys that can be developed could fill that need.

Our O-line is pretty good on paper, and our D-line should be good in theory. We should be able to control the LOS (at least good enough for someone on the team to go off). We have put plenty of resources into the defense the last couple of offseasons.

That flouts everything that free agency, a big board & BPA stands for. I could see if we were set at WR, which we aren't. I could see if Special Teams was set, which it ain't. XL was an apparent bust, and T-mac was a hit (I wonder why...). If I am skeptical about Dan Morgan and Dave Canales, I surely am not yet skeptical of Brandt Tilis. I think his addition and results alone should at least give the FA a little goodwill and some rope. Now whether Concepcion is worth a first (which I am highly skeptical about) is a totally different story.

Only if the OT has the grade. Some of you seem to be forgetting that the value HAS to be there, or what the hell are we doing?

That's why we drafted an LT, paid for starting level OGs and depth, and also got what most are calling an excellent deal on a starting caliber LT this year.

Paying for pass rushers is what it is. Pass rushers have a higher bust rate than many other positions in the first round. Moreover, drafting so-so players because they're what you need is simply nonsensical. Stick to the board!

Roster building is a yearly thing.what you're trying to do is get impactful players every year, not so-so players or busts just because you need a position. That's a recipe for failure, and in a way it just discounts what you're trying to do in FA (which is also roster building).

Not really. It all depends upon perspective. You can draft quality OTs high every year. They have one of the lowest bust rates by position. DTs, less so, but good ones still come along at a regular clip. With WRs, it's simply best to draft one in the first round if you want a legit play maker. Moreover, WR is going to set you back more than OT or DT at really all statuses, meaning JAG receivers are going to make more than JAG OTs and DTs, and elite receivers will make substantially more than elite OTs or DTs. I would also argue that it's much harder to find a franchise level OT or DT that can have an altering impact upon the game. So, if you don't believe they can, you may as well wait for day 2 or 3. That's why sticking to your board is probably the wisest thing to do. If you're not committed that the value is there, then what are you doing? Lastly, I don't think you should necessarily draft in a vacuum, but you must look at each team from year to year. People want to make them the same, but they're different. You have to start over every year and identify where the strengths and weaknesses are. You can't say, "Well we drafted [so and so] last year or two years ago, so we'll just draft this this year." That's not realistic and it can be highly counterproductive, especially in light of the reason that you should be trying to use FA to set up the draft.