Is it Imperative that we get a day-1 starter this draft?

[Khyber53]

6 minutes ago, TheNewStandard said:

Thanks for the Finnegan status and I agree with everything you said except the Boykin part. Buckles definitely aren't as valuable as outside corners, but he could play himself into replacing Norman and though he get a good hike in his pricey tag, I can't see it being much over 5-million max, in which case, I think we have plenty of room to sign him to a multi-year contract...if he pans out...which is a big "if."

I like the earn your stripes contracts but the backfield turnover is really starting to get under my skin...especially when DG says he doesn't like to develop players for other teams.

With Josh, you can't make a guy stay for too long in this league. Josh wants to be here, but he wants a really, really big pile of money to do it. Here's the deal, though -- Josh as he had been playing before was a part of our long-term plans, back when he was a decent corner and relatively a good match for a $4 million a year contract of thereabouts. Then, he kind of blew up, got some high profile interceptions and got a lot, a lot, of camera time. All of a sudden, he's getting a huge boost in money and attention, really putting himself out of our long-term price range.

Sadly, there are a couple of factors that work against Josh here: every year some CB grabs a few INTs and the spotlight. About one in four of those turn out to be a Revis, a Sherman or a Sanders. The other three include one guy who goes average after that and the other two become one hit wonders. Who really knows which one Josh will end up being? Not sure Gettleman is into long-term gambling. 

Second, we all love how Josh can be goofy and in your face. He's a kid having the time of his life and he's about to get a huge paycheck. His funny antics and penchant for attention getting? Remind you of "Cereal for breakfast, no spoon, killed it" at all? I'm not saying he's going to be one of those guys ruined by money, but maturity hasn't been Josh's biggest asset.

Lastly, corners, with a few rare exceptions, go bad fast when they start to slip. We just got out of cap hell and I'd hate to be tied to a long-term, big money contract for a guy who is hitting the age when most CBs start to wear out.

 

[CoastalCat]

On 3/30/2016 at 0:59 PM, TheNewStandard said:

Looking over the roster, I am having a hard time finding a position without a starting player.

So do we have positions we can upgrade in the draft? Or are we looking at finding players to groom for a couple years to take over a position?

Sure, we need depth all across the board, especially in the trenches and in the defensive backfield, so are there any players available, through the draft, that can be 1st day starters? 'Cause I really don't know if any rookies jump out to me as day-1 starters.

I'd like them to focus on finding guys to groom to replace the studs that are getting older. I'd like a center, another OT, safety, and can't go wrong with linebackers.

[TheNewStandard]

4 hours ago, rodeo said:

If there was no position that we needed a new start at, we would have won the Super Bowl.

I think a good part of that can be thrown-out because of the lack of experience in games of that magnitude and some unfortunate injuries didn't help either.

But yeah, our inexperience showed and Murphy's law set in. If we make it back within the next couple of years, I expect a different outcome.

[TheNewStandard]

45 minutes ago, CoastalCat said:

I'd like them to focus on finding guys to groom to replace the studs that are getting older. I'd like a center, another OT, safety, and can't go wrong with linebackers.

I'm liking the possibility of a LB pick more and more. TD can't play forever and Luke was getting drilled the entire season...we could definitely find some more depth there, for sure.

[iamhubby1]

8 hours ago, shaqattaq said:

Let me clarify, I'm not a proponent for trading back. I've just seen a lot more talk about than in prior years. One example: http://www.derp/2016/3/29/11326992/latest-dan-kadar-mock-draft-is-another-nice-panther-scenario

I think that the fact that we don't have glaring holes on either side of the ball actually gives us that option. Our line up is as strong going into the draft as it's been in years.

 

I just don't see Gman as the type to trade down. Back when he started, and we needed an infusion of talent, he didn't trade back for more picks. Why would he do so now? Especially when the chances of even our top 3 picks of making the team are at an all time low. Stockpiling picks is what teams that need talent do to add players cheaply. We are past that.

 

I see just the opposite. Trading up for better players. We keep our 1st, cuz that 5th year option is worth its weight in gold. Package our picks to move up in the 2nd. Then keep our 3rd where it is as well. We should get 2 really good players. And 1 that may wind up being really good. With how Gman can evaluate talent. I trust that 3rd rounder can pan out.

 

We need our rooks to be able to play rotationally, not worry about starting. Get the best talent you can, coach them up, and then head off to war. We just don't have the space for all those draft picks anymore.

 

If that makes sense?

 

 

[TheNewStandard]

This is to the above post, 

No way do we trade out of that pick unless it's a really sweet deal, like for an already established player, and we definitely don't trade down past our conference rival's picks. 

Like you said, that extra year is major leverage and it buys us another year with what could be a replacement for one of our core players when it's time to cut one loose.

gact is, the only truly value pick that we have is our first-round pick...even though it's basically a second-round fringe pick.

i just can't see us doing anything unless it involves a player(s) and a pick. And the only guys we have to trade are CJ and maybe Webb, but there's no way we let CJ go for anything less than a high second round pick and an upgrade type of player at a position of need with a reasonable salary.

I say CJ because I think Addison is gonna have a solid season and I think he's gonna surprise a lot of people. I think if we get a high second, we can still get a quality DE that can get into the rotation bringing similar production to what we've been getting from CJ...which really doesn't say a lot.

Teams with their heads near the cap might love taking CJs contract on and trade away a higher salary guy to get their cap figure down. I think that's a possible scenario, but it won't be for that first-round pick of ours, which I think is off-limits deemed by our FO. 

Who knows, we could use a RB or a safety and a mid-round second pick to get one of the DE's that might still be there around pick-40 or so.

[TheNewStandard]

3 hours ago, Bartin said:

I'd happily pay Boykin $5M on a multi year deal if he has a very good year for us at nickel like I expect and you're right that we do have the cap room to do so, but I just don't think DG would. He will most likely be too concerned about looming huge deals for Star, Short, Trai, Norwell and KB in addition to having both of our OTs, Kalil and Kurt being scheduled to be free agents.

I just hope the cap continues to grow these next few seasons, that could be critical in being able to keep one or more players as opposed to letting someone walk. 

Imo, Kalil has already gotten his career salary and the laws of diminishing results are gonna start taking place for him sooner than later and I wouldn't be surprised if we get a hometown discount as he rides off into the sunset while grooming his eventual replacement...same with Oher.

[iamhubby1]

35 minutes ago, TheNewStandard said:

I just hope the cap continues to grow these next few seasons, that could be critical in being able to keep one or more players as opposed to letting someone walk. 

Imo, Kalil has already gotten his career salary and the laws of diminishing results are gonna start taking place for him sooner than later and I wouldn't be surprised if we get a hometown discount as he rides off into the sunset while grooming his eventual replacement...same with Oher.

 

As long as revenues continue to increase, so will the cap. No worries on that front.

 

We will be losing some players starting really soon. It may not start next year. Cuz Gman has stated he is aware of KK's value. As well as Stah's. So we are ready for them. But down the line, we ARE going to have years with multiple players needing to be paid. Those are the years we may lose a player or two.

 

 

[TheNewStandard]

2 hours ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

As long as revenues continue to increase, so will the cap. No worries on that front.

 

We will be losing some players starting really soon. It may not start next year. Cuz Gman has stated he is aware of KK's value. As well as Stah's. So we are ready for them. But down the line, we ARE going to have years with multiple players needing to be paid. Those are the years we may lose a player or two.

 

 

TD may have 3-4 years left in him. Same for Kalil and Oher. I really have no idea what's been going on with CJ, but it's obviously something considerable for him to come back at the price he was brought back for. If he doesn't play up to par this year, I'd imagine he's done not only here, but maybe retiring altogether.

So this could be the draft that we get their replacements and when these guys are gone, the former contracts will be rolled over to the successors. 

Thinking about it this way, the next couple of drafts are tantamount for the big-picture, long-term. 

I love that line of thinking because we can draft the athletic freaks that may not be the most polished and we have the luxury of bringing these developmental players that everyone always gets the big eyes for but no one will draft them because this is a win-now league.

[jdpanther5]

Seems pretty unlikely. You can basically eliminate QB, RB, TE, DL, LB, and CB (in base or nickel) right off the bat. It's also highly unlikely any rookie OL or WR starts right away, MAYBE if you consider a third slot receiver as a starter but even then it's unlikely. 

So, aside from punter, that leaves safety. We've certainly been sniffing around them (been linked to Bell, Joseph, Cravens, Neal, Cash, Killebrew, and maybe a few more), but I'm not sure any of them start over Coleman/Boston initially. 

[iamhubby1]

26 minutes ago, TheNewStandard said:

TD may have 3-4 years left in him. Same for Kalil and Oher. I really have no idea what's been going on with CJ, but it's obviously something considerable for him to come back at the price he was brought back for. If he doesn't play up to par this year, I'd imagine he's done not only here, but maybe retiring altogether.

So this could be the draft that we get their replacements and when these guys are gone, the former contracts will be rolled over to the successors. 

Thinking about it this way, the next couple of drafts are tantamount for the big-picture, long-term. 

I love that line of thinking because we can draft the athletic freaks that may not be the most polished and we have the luxury of bringing these developmental players that everyone always gets the big eyes for but no one will draft them because this is a win-now league.

 

Gman was just complaining about how kids nowadays come out of college needing help in fundamentals. Because college kids only get so many hours to practice. Colleges don't have the time to spend on fundamentals. Meaning it is truer than ever, that it takes kids 2-3 years to get caught up.

 

Problem is, bad teams can't always wait for kids to develop. So they reach for guys they hope can contribute earlier. Good teams have the depth to allow these kids the time they need to develop. Which one are we?

 

Keep drafting well, bringing in quality Vets when needed, and keep teaching the kids how to be pros. Sounds easy.

[ctrcat]

2 hours ago, jdpanther5 said:

Seems pretty unlikely. You can basically eliminate QB, RB, TE, DL, LB, and CB (in base or nickel) right off the bat. It's also highly unlikely any rookie OL or WR starts right away, MAYBE if you consider a third slot receiver as a starter but even then it's unlikely. 

So, aside from punter, that leaves safety. We've certainly been sniffing around them (been linked to Bell, Joseph, Cravens, Neal, Cash, Killebrew, and maybe a few more), but I'm not sure any of them start over Coleman/Boston initially. 

Safety has been a very solid late 1st/early 2nd play for other teams in recent years.  

[panthers55]

Given that backups are one injury from being a starter and inevitably injuries will occur it is highly likely that a rookie may end up starting at some point. Will it be day 1? Let's hope not. Good teams don't start a bunch of rookies unless they have had a rash of injuries. And then only when they are ready. Otherwise you are likely not very good.

[thefuzz]

On 3/30/2016 at 4:10 PM, Bartin said:

Technically Shaq was a day 1 starter at SLB in our 4-3 base

Technically true, although his presence wasn't really felt until later in the season....stupid schools and their quarter systems...