Panthers meet with Ryan Shazier

[gettlemanjack]

And the Luke comparison to him is not a good one.

Comparing LK to Shazier is pretty ignorant IMHO.

Sports Illustrated:

"Like Luke Kuechly, Lavonte David and Bobby Wagner, Ryan Shazier shows the potential to be a full-field athletic linebacker who can hit the hole in the run game, cover short and intermediate routes and chase opponents from sideline to sideline."

other sites:

-"Ryan Shazier reminds me a bit of the Panthers' Luke Kuechly in that he has an instinct for making his way to the ball ... Shazier is constantly around the ball in the running game and solid in pass coverage."

-"Ryan Shazier can read offenses as well as any LB in this draft and fly to the ball in order to make plays. He plays very similar to an outside linebacker version of Luke Kuechly"

-"Ryan Shazier reminds me of Luke Kuechly every time I watch him play. Can keep up with tight ends, and has great LB instincts"

[Mr. Scot]

again, drafting OT isn't just drafting an immediate need. it's not being shirt sighted. it's recognizing an area that needs addressing for this year and for years down the road.

here's the thing with OL rookies...you don't draft them to fill an immediate need because except for a couple taken usually within the first few picks, they all play like they have rollerskates the first couple years and are typically pretty mistake-prone amd i'm not a fan of starting them put of the gate (even though the experience is needed and valuable), but we are backed right now into a situation where we really don't have any choice because we are so bad off.

if we aren't going to draft our future OTs now? then when and how are we going to aqcuire them? hope that we magically find them floating around in FA and somehow affordable? do we hope that maybe next year they are the BPAs when we pick on day one or two? do we just hold tight and hope that the guy we draft day three or pick up as a udfa miraculously turns into a legit starter? or do we decide that right now is the right time to invest in cam and our future OL by drafting the best option right now?

 

If you really believe that guy is a tackle who can anchor the line for ten years, absolutely you take him.

 

But if you don't believe he's that guy, do you still take him over the guy you believe is that ten year starter at another spot?

 

That's reaching for need.

[WOW!!]

Hurney said a lot of the right things. He sucked at delivering on them.

Contenders prepare for the future. Teams like the Raiders and Jaguars draft for right now.

You want us to follow that example?

Well Scot history shows he believed in that philosophy and that's how he drafted.

D Foster - D-Will - J stew 6 -7 years apart when drafted.

Luke Kuechly - when we had Beason, Davis, Anderson, Connor

Kali - when we had Hangman

He drafted this way all the time.

[4Corners]

If Shazier is really fast, great in coverage and blitzing, but is a little smallish for a LB, seems only fitting someone will convert him to a hard hitting safety.

 

I've seen projections of him possibly converting to a safety or one of those tweener type of rover players. That poo doesn't always work. It's just another red mark on his resume IMHO. A project who doesn't really have a true position. Especially with Godfrey restructuring I think we can take safety off our needs. 

[4Corners]

Sports Illustrated:

"Like Luke Kuechly, Lavonte David and Bobby Wagner, Ryan Shazier shows the potential to be a full-field athletic linebacker who can hit the hole in the run game, cover short and intermediate routes and chase opponents from sideline to sideline."

other sites:

-"Ryan Shazier reminds me a bit of the Panthers' Luke Kuechly in that he has an instinct for making his way to the ball ... Shazier is constantly around the ball in the running game and solid in pass coverage."

-"Ryan Shazier can read offenses as well as any LB in this draft and fly to the ball in order to make plays. He plays very similar to an outside linebacker version of Luke Kuechly"

-"Ryan Shazier reminds me of Luke Kuechly every time I watch him play. Can keep up with tight ends, and has great LB instincts"

 

Well, gee, if Sports Illustrated said that he is like Luke Kuechly then it absolutely must be true! I wonder what Mel Kiper and ESPN think? 

[WOW!!]

Shazier could turn out to be a bust just like any other player.

Sorry but I'm not looking to draft a possibly "unspectacular" linebacker when we have one legit player on our OL, and no #1 WR.

I'm not looking to allocate so many resources to 1 position.

Haven't we done this already? ?

[WOW!!]

And I thought AJ Klein was playing good enough to earn a starting position. I didn't know so many people wanted him replaced.

[rayzor]

If you say so :rolleyes:

Do you see a franchise tackle available at #28?

You know how I feel about OL but even I think it's a stretch to call either of them a franchise left tackle.

even if you don't (and i don't agree with that) when and hiw do you suggest we take care of it? how do you suggest we take care of it?

wait until we suck again and have to pick early so we can actually get that sure-fire franchise guy? because we aren't ever going to see that guy fall to the last half of the first round. unless you pick in the top 5, maybe top 10, you aren't likely to have that sure thing LT. this year is as good of a class as you are going to find and you can't count on having legit options available at #60 at OT the way you might a WR, and having said that, there's no guarantee that the available WRs in round three will be nearly as good as what you have in round two. runs on positions happen at very inopportune times, esp. if you are in the back part of the round.

this is a great year for OTs and WRs, but it does us no good unless we act.

[WOW!!]

I agree with rayzor.

When does BPa stop after round 1??

And why does it not include QB MLB and RB?

[rayzor]

If you really believe that guy is a tackle who can anchor the line for ten years, absolutely you take him.

But if you don't believe he's that guy, do you still take him over the guy you believe is that ten year starter at another spot?

That's reaching for need.

and still again, how often do you find that guy in the back end of the first round? it's not reaching, it's taking a risk. it's realizing that you might not have a chance at even a guy of this caliber unless you wind up back in the top end of the draft next year.

we don't usually find guys who are even this good this late in the first round and even if there is a chance that you can get one of similar caliber at 60, why take the chance of no one being there next time?

and still, no one is saying how we are going to address the obvious weakness that is present in the OL, esp. if we don't wind up with a early pick next. year or the year after that? are we content with table scraps and patchwork OLs that has to be rebuilt every year?

[Mr. Scot]

Well Scot history shows he believed in that philosophy and that's how he drafted.

D Foster - D-Will - J stew 6 -7 years apart when drafted.

Luke Kuechly - when we had Beason, Davis, Anderson, Connor

Kali - when we had Hangman

He drafted this way all the time.

 

Your history needs a little work.

 

Hangartner wasn't the starting center.  Justin Hartwig was, and was already showing he wasn't worth his contract. 

 

Mike Wahle and Jeremy Bridges started most of the year at guard. Hangartner was a backup.  He started only four games (after someone else got injured, as I recall).

 

Williams was a need pick, same as Foster had been because we wanted the 'two-headed monster' approach.  We got it with Foster.  We lost it when Stephen Davis became unreliable.

 

Luke Kuechly?  A good choice, and an argument for why you draft BPA.  But no, it was not Hurney's consistent approach, and he reached for guys plenty (Everette Brown, Armanti Edwards, etc).

[d-dave]

Shazier could turn out to be a bust just like any other player.

 

Sorry but I'm not looking to draft a possibly "unspectacular" linebacker when we have one legit player on our OL, and no #1 WR.

 

To be fair, any guy that gets picked in the draft could bust.  No one is bust proof.  Still, you must go with the best player to improve your team.  If it's OL, then it is.  There are a ton of super interesting mocks flying around where WRs and OLs get nabbed all before 25.  If that plays out, then it makes thing very interesting in how you make a choice.

 

I still stand by picking the best players, based on your own (team) evaluation.  Reaching for need is not a good habit to make.

[PFChangz]

even if you don't (and i don't agree with that) 

 

Give me a name. Any name. Who is this tackle that you believe can be a franchise player worth picking at 28?

[Mr. Scot]

even if you don't (and i don't agree with that) when and hiw do you suggest we take care of it? how do you suggest we take care of it?

wait until we suck again and have to pick early so we can actually get that sure-fire franchise guy? because we aren't ever going to see that guy fall to the last half of the first round. unless you pick in the top 5, maybe top 10, you aren't likely to have that sure thing LT. this year is as good of a class as you are going to find and you can't count on having legit options available at #60 at OT the way you might a WR, and having said that, there's no guarantee that the available WRs in round three will be nearly as good as what you have in round two. runs on positions happen at very inopportune times, esp. if you are in the back part of the round.

this is a great year for OTs and WRs, but it does us no good unless we act.

 

and still again, how often do you find that guy in the back end of the first round? it's not reaching, it's taking a risk. it's realizing that you might not have a chance at even a guy of this caliber unless you wind up back in the top end of the draft next year.

we don't usually find guys who are even this good this late in the first round and even if there is a chance that you can get one of similar caliber at 60, why take the chance of no one being there next time?

and still, no one is saying how we are going to address the obvious weakness that is present in the OL, esp. if we don't wind up with a early pick next. year or the year after that? are we content with table scraps and patchwork OLs that has to be rebuilt every year?

 

You remember when people thought the Giants were nuts for using high picks on defensive ends when they already had starters there?  Now, that defensive line gets a lot of credit for their Super Bowl victories.

 

It's not like taking Shazier would prevent us in any way from addressing other areas later in the draft, in free agency, via trade or final cuts.  None of those avenues close after May 8th.

 

Like I said, he's not my first choice.  I'm not arguing that Shazier could be the pick.  I am arguing that the highest value BPA should be the pick.  And if the team judges that to be Shazier, then that's the call.

 

I just can't get on board with reaching for need.