But not at 8...

[top dawg]

I have heard "but not at 8," so much in this offseason that I just think that it's the en vogue thing to say. Look, I am not saying that there is anything necessarily wrong with thinking that way about a draft prospect in and of itself, but if you're going to say it---if ya gotta use it---then give rationale as to why, because the next question I am going to ask is "Why not?" 

@panthers55 brought up a good point which was really what prompted me to start the thread.

I think that Pat Kirwin's logic there is compelling. If the player that you want at #8 is available, and you don't believe he is going to be available at #40, then you take him, particularly if you don't believe that you can gain at least equitable value by trading down. You have to gain the value for a trade down to make any sense whatsoever. This is the part that some Huddlers may be simply glossing over. 

Now, one thing about Dave Gettleman, he has proven to be a man that keeps things simple (but not simplistic).  In the draft, regardless of the so-called "consensus" viewpoint, he goes and gets "his man." We have seen it time and time again. Even last year (though not in regards to day one) he drafted Bradberry in the second round. Many---myself included---thought that this was at least a round early, but Getty picked #24 and got a nice return on his investment. If Getty will do that in the second round, I would bet that he's not going to be saying to himself, "I really like this guy, but not at 8" when the time comes. I believe that if a call comes in that makes sense from a value standpoint, and one that he believes will allow him to get his guy anyway, then of course he'll trade back. But I don't believe that he is necessarily going to say to himself that his guy at 8 has inherently better value just because he drops to 12 or 22. I believe that if he deems the guy his BPA, he's going to take him, regardless of some general notion that getting a certain player a few spots down will make drafting them oh so much more palatable within the minds of everyone else. I think this will particularly be true with positions that are not as deep as others. But, even then, if he thinks, for example, that O.J. Howard is "that guy," then I won't be surprised if he takes him at 8, and there won't be any "ifs, ands or buts not at" about it.

[KillerKat]

I hope DG redeems himself this offseason. I'd like O.J. for the simple fact this offense was at it's best when we had 2 TE sets with Shockey. It still amazes me how we went away from that after 1 season that had so much success with it. It would also make Tolbert's role on this team even more insignificant which I hope leads to his departure.

[Daddy_Uncle]

1 hour ago, KillerKat said:

I hope DG redeems himself this offseason. I'd like O.J. for the simple fact this offense was at it's best when we had 2 TE sets with Shockey. It still amazes me how we went away from that after 1 season that had so much success with it. It would also make Tolbert's role on this team even more insignificant which I hope leads to his departure.

I agree. Cam needs that other safety outlet like he had year one. OJ Howard us a beast. Great size, catching ability and run after the catch. The commentators during the senior bowl said his nfl comparison was Greg Olsen for his ability to block and catch. Much faster than Greg though. I would love that pick

[Ace_Aladdin]

8 minutes ago, Promethean Forerunner said:

We're not drafting Howard at #8. He's not a transcendent talent. He's not even the best TE in this draft. The guy wasn't utilized in Alabama enough because he's not what he's barked up to be. Yay, he shredded Clemon's talentless secondary on blitzes and busted coverages. Awesome.

Give me Njoku who still amassed yardage when he had safeties and linebackers on him at all times. Howard is just another overrated Alabama product. No thanks.

NJoku is an oversized WR & would be usless in this offense. We will get either get Leggett  or OJ Howard.

1. Fournette

2. Leggett 

[tiger7_88]

2 hours ago, top dawg said:

I have heard "but not at 8," so much in this offseason that I just think that it's the en vogue thing to say. Look, I am not saying that there is anything necessarily wrong with thinking that way about a draft prospect in and of itself, but if you're going to say it---if ya gotta use it---then give rationale as to why, because the next question I am going to ask is "Why not?" 

@panthers55 brought up a good point which was really what prompted me to start the thread.

I think that Pat Kirwin's logic there is compelling. If the player that you want at #8 is available, and you don't believe he is going to be available at #40, then you take him, particularly if you don't believe that you can gain at least equitable value by trading down. You have to gain the value for a trade down to make any sense whatsoever. This is the part that some Huddlers may be simply glossing over. 

Now, one thing about Dave Gettleman, he has proven to be a man that keeps things simple (but not simplistic).  In the draft, regardless of the so-called "consensus" viewpoint, he goes and gets "his man." We have seen it time and time again. Even last year (though not in regards to day one) he drafted Bradberry in the second round. Many---myself included---thought that this was at least a round early, but Getty picked #24 and got a nice return on his investment. If Getty will do that in the second round, I would bet that he's not going to be saying to himself, "I really like this guy, but not at 8" when the time comes. I believe that if a call comes in that makes sense from a value standpoint, and one that he believes will allow him to get his guy anyway, then of course he'll trade back. But I don't believe that he is necessarily going to say to himself that his guy at 8 has inherently better value just because he drops to 12 or 22. I believe that if he deems the guy his BPA, he's going to take him, regardless of some general notion that getting a certain player a few spots down will make drafting them oh so much more palatable within the minds of everyone else. I think this will particularly be true with positions that are not as deep as others. But, even then, if he thinks, for example, that O.J. Howard is "that guy," then I won't be surprised if he takes him at 8, and there won't be any "ifs, ands or buts not at" about it.

Well said.

Which is why, if neither Allen nor Adams nor Fournette are there at #8, it wouldn't shock me one little bit to see us pick Howard.

[Ace_Aladdin]

46 minutes ago, Promethean Forerunner said:

Lulz, no, we won't.

If Njoku is an oversized WR then so is Howard. For a guy who is 6'6", Howard possesses a weak lower body. The difference between the two? One was heavily employed in their system and has at least two years of solid production. The other one was just used in certain situations. 

I'll take the guy who is being compared to Vernon Davis and is coming from an institution that has a rich history of producing TE talent (Winslow, Olsen, Shockey, Graham, Franks) which is nicknamed Tight End U.

Howard is built way better and your lying, OJ was one of the reason Bama had a potent running game. 

We are gonna get Leggett in 2nd round. 

[Tarheels23]

3 hours ago, KillerKat said:

I hope DG redeems himself this offseason. I'd like O.J. for the simple fact this offense was at it's best when we had 2 TE sets with Shockey. It still amazes me how we went away from that after 1 season that had so much success with it. It would also make Tolbert's role on this team even more insignificant which I hope leads to his departure.

I get what you're saying, and I somewhat agree, but don't get it twisted, this offense was at its best last year. 

[Hoenheim]

You know it's the off season when you have huddlers having heated debates about tight ends  ..

 

The reality is, who knows which one will be bettter. I wouldn't be upset with Howard at 8. If you can get the #1 prospect at amy position (besides QB of course in our case), I don't think it's a bad move.. 

Now if say 3 DEs came off the board and we pick the #4 DE at 8, that is poo for value and I'd be upset with something like that. 

[Doc Holiday]

A lot of Draft position worth charts went out the window with the Rookie Salary cap.  draft position mattered a lot more when for example drafting a QB top 10 could mean a $50M commitment but one at 40 could mean $15m.  A lot of people, especially in the media still haven't caught on to this because they are used to doing predraft evaluations the same way that they have been doing for years.  But when your total rookie cap hit year in and year out is going to be between $10-$15m a year, it doesn't really matter who you draft or where just as long as they are the person you need.

I dont care who we draft or where, just as long as they are the right person to fill a need you currently have.

With that said I hated the Vernon Butler last year because it did not fill an immediate need on the roster, instead he was drafted in case KK walked in 2 years, you cant worry about stuff like that when you have a current obvious hole on the team. you need to fix the current problems not the ones you may have in 2 years.

[stirs]

14 minutes ago, Hoenheim said:

You know it's the off season when you have huddlers having heated debates about tight ends  ..

 

The reality is, who knows which one will be bettter. I wouldn't be upset with Howard at 8. If you can get the #1 prospect at amy position (besides QB of course in our case), I don't think it's a bad move.. 

Now if say 3 DEs came off the board and we pick the #4 DE at 8, that is poo for value and I'd be upset with something like that. 

Pie for opening statement.

Yeah, nobody really knows anything yet, much less enough to be namecalling and turning up the heat.  We haven't even gotten to the combine yet.  

[usmcpanthers]

We got luke at #9, we will hit a homerun with #8

Sent from my SM-G935V using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

[stirs]

Just now, Promethean Forerunner said:

The combine means nothing.

Njoku > Howard

I mean, anybody who has watched college football this season knows who the best TE between the two is, and it ain't Howard. Njoku consistently got behind safeties and beat linebackers. There's a great breakdown on him on youtube and he outshines Howard in almost every category.

Sorry, I'm not on the hypetrain for Howard just because he obliterated Clemson's defense.

Yeah, but being or not being on a train does not make one a dimwit, at least not in early Feb, that was all I was saying.

Seeing a Youtube video, which is about all the public has, is not the same as what coaches see.  Did any here predict Bradberry would be the best rookie CB in the NFL?  More importantly, did anyone here even mention Bradberrys name before the draft.  All I am saying is that the whole thing is fluid, so don't drive your stakes too far in the ground at this point

[Guest Lasus83]

Somebody once said "you pick the best talent and then find ways to get them involved "...

Or something to that effect.

Which is why my I, for one, say "not at 8".

The exception, for this, would be scheme fit/character.

Which is why I'm not an Allen Fan, a Cook fan or a proponent of reaching.

Just too much talent to do anything otherwise.

My big board, in order, is:

1. Garret
2. Fournette
3. Barnett
4. Adams
5. Foster
6. Williams
7. Tabor
8. Hooker

Everyone else is trade down material.

And, even if we do not get value chart compensation, adding picks never hurt anyone.

But I don't think we will. I don't think we will have to.

Sent from my SM-G930P using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

[Panthers8969]

I agree we need to go back to a two TE system, but howard is overrated imo. I would much rather have leggett or butt later on in the draft.