Don't believe that this is a weak WR class!

[Peon Awesome]

5 hours ago, top dawg said:

The Pats are a different animal, and everyone knows it. And, let's be honest, now that Gronk has retired, they're going to strive to upgrade their receiver game (not that they weren't already).

So let's ignore the Pats (although convenient that we can just say "oh but they're special" if they don't fit your point but whatever), and look back at the last 10 years and say how many of them had a stellar wr corps. 1 or 2?

[top dawg]

12 minutes ago, Peon Awesome said:

So let's ignore the Pats (although convenient that we can just say "oh but they're special" if they don't fit your point but whatever), and look back at the last 10 years and say how many of them had a stellar wr corps. 1 or 2?

And let's try and validate my own point by insinuating that someone used the word "stellar" with all of it's connotations, and feign that Super Bowl Champions simply field untested scrub wide receivers and hoist Lombardis year after year.

The context for the Pats: GOAT QB, GOAT TE and GOAT Coach, along with some damned good teams.

[Toomers]

1 hour ago, yasuhara2241 said:

I think we need another receiver. I love what I've seen from Moore and Samuel. I also think Wright and Hogan are nice pieces as well. But let's be honest Samuel has been injured a decent amount since coming into the league and Moore searches for contact. 

What exactly happens to our receiving group if one of those guys go down?

What happens if Colin Jones is our FS? What if we don’t have a starting LG, SDE, NCB, or a DE signed for next year. Not to mention LT/DT as well. There’s a long list of issues before I’m worried about getting insurance for the strengths we have. 

  We have 4 WRs and an anchor now. Between this and a QB, how many picks are we actually using to fill these other holes. 

[top dawg]

1 hour ago, Toomers said:

What happens if Colin Jones is our FS? What if we don’t have a starting LG, SDE, NCB, or a DE signed for next year. Not to mention LT/DT as well. There’s a long list of issues before I’m worried about getting insurance for the strengths we have. 

  We have 4 WRs and an anchor now. Between this and a QB, how many picks are we actually using to fill these other holes. 

 

So, I guess Chris Hogan fills our every need?

Just about every national company NFL.com, ESPN, Bleacher Report (or their writer(s) has listed WR as a need for us. Admittedly, Edge or OT has arguably been listed as the biggest need, but don't tell me wr is a strength based upon a guy in his sophomore season, a guy that some even forget we have (maybe because he hasn't seen the field that much relatively), a WR4/5 on most rosters (basically a bench warmer), a guy that most of the Huddle says should have been cut long ago, and Chris Hogan are considered a strength. They may be projected as a strength by Huddlers due to what we have had lately, but most experts don't see our receiving corps as a certain strength, and it’s pretty obvious to me why they don't.

 

 

[pantherj]

If there is a #1 caliber WR at 16 you take him. It's 2019. The rules heavily favor throwing TDs to stars. Get the muddle in the middle players later.

[Toomers]

1 hour ago, top dawg said:

 

So, I guess Chris Hogan fills our every need?

Just about every national company NFL.com, ESPN, Bleacher Report (or their writer(s) has listed WR as a need for us. Admittedly, Edge or OT has arguably been listed as the biggest need, but don't tell me wr is a strength based upon a guy in his sophomore season, a guy that some even forget we have (maybe because he hasn't seen the field that much relatively), a WR4/5 on most rosters (basically a bench warmer), a guy that most of the Huddle says should have been cut long ago, and Chris Hogan are considered a strength. They may be projected as a strength by Huddlers due to what we have had lately, but most experts don't see our receiving corps as a certain strength, and it’s pretty obvious to me why they don't.

 

 

Yes. Because that’s what I said. Hogan solves everything? The only thing he solves is the only issue we had at WR. Paying 5M to a washed up WR4. 

  Just edge or OT? Not any other position are more important than getting insurance in case someone gets hurt. None of what I listed is more critical than getting a WR4-5. I mean since you brought it up, why is there a need at WR with a WR4 or 5 is making 5M a year and is worth every penny and more. At least that’s what you said over and over again. 

  You want a QB and a WR with quality picks. What are you ignoring? I mean, if a “national” publication lists WR as a need, I guess it has to be. Given how accurate those guys are with team information. Don’t you watch the team? Can’t you make up your own mind? 

 Just like the QB discussion, people want things but don’t want to think about the cost. We should ignore positions with no starters for backups at positions with many. Makes perfect sense. 

[Peon Awesome]

3 hours ago, top dawg said:

And let's try and validate my own point by insinuating that someone used the word "stellar" with all of it's connotations, and feign that Super Bowl Champions simply field untested scrub wide receivers and hoist Lombardis year after year.

The context for the Pats: GOAT QB, GOAT TE and GOAT Coach, along with some damned good teams.

Ok I'll concede that but are you saying our current wr corps are scrubs? I'd argue our current wide receivers are not markedly worse than the average wide receiver corps of the past 10 super bowl winners unless you anticipate our young guys are going to regress significantly. But our pass rush and secondary are below average, which is why I think we need to invest our early picks there. But sure, if we want to take a receiver in rounds 3-6, by all means go ahead. 

 

[Lumps]

Would’ve been nice to put DJ and Samuel in place day one last season and see what we have as well as give them experience.

Unfortunately, our #1 is gone and #2 is worthless.

Hard to judge how much of a need WR is at this point, and really hard to have faith this coaching staff even knows what the hell they’re doing when it comes to he position.

I’d scratch Olsen off because I have more reasons to than not to. 

[Varking]

On 4/13/2019 at 2:18 PM, top dawg said:

Your chance of winning a Super Bowl with  a JAG receiving corps is slim and none. You need as many legitimate threats as possible (and not only threats in theory). 

A true WR1 is a matter of definition, but some of us know true playmakers when we see them. A rich stat sheet just makes them that much easier to distinguish.

Ahhhh the old "some of us" humble brag. I say it's better to have a good group of WRs than a dominant true number 1 so they can't get locked down. You argue that a JAG group gives you slim to none odds of winning a super bowl. You shouldn't have quoted me as I didn't mention a JAG core of WRs in my post.

[JARROD]

I would argue that while Curtis showed some incredible YAC and much improved catching focus,.. he still has a lot to prove as far as durability.

Moore showed what he’s going to be capable of and that he should grow into a great receiver, possibly dominant.

if we are going to draft another(I think we should), then it’s just a questions of BPA when we get to 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks. That’s Parris Campbell, Terry McLaurin and Dillon Mitchell types there. Fast, athletic, and of course different range of question marks hence where they are drafted.

personally I’m not into thinking another receiver is a luxury pick. I think having a 6-6’2 foot, 200-210lb 4.3-4.4 receiver that is chippy, fights press coverage and has decent to great hands is hard to pass up. 

Our offensive line needs depth and I’m a proponent of getting a OT and OG in the top 5 picks but if we ended up taking what I said in there, I’m not going to cry if we don’t. 

Good receiving corps make an offensive line look much better— get the ball out to sure handed receivers that can beat one on one coverage and all of a sudden they have to back off. 

[top dawg]

5 hours ago, Toomers said:

Yes. Because that’s what I said. Hogan solves everything? The only thing he solves is the only issue we had at WR. Paying 5M to a washed up WR4. 

  Just edge or OT? Not any other position are more important than getting insurance in case someone gets hurt. None of what I listed is more critical than getting a WR4-5. I mean since you brought it up, why is there a need at WR with a WR4 or 5 is making 5M a year and is worth every penny and more. At least that’s what you said over and over again. 

  You want a QB and a WR with quality picks. What are you ignoring? I mean, if a “national” publication lists WR as a need, I guess it has to be. Given how accurate those guys are with team information. Don’t you watch the team? Can’t you make up your own mind? 

 Just like the QB discussion, people want things but don’t want to think about the cost. We should ignore positions with no starters for backups at positions with many. Makes perfect sense. 

I never said that there weren't other needs, but obviously the biggest two are Edge and OT. The other ones are arguable as far as importance.

Even with Edge (or, if you want to argue DL) and OT(or if you want to argue OL), there is a good chance that every one of the ones perceived to be sure things are gone. If that happens, then everything else is debatable in my mind. The pick could be a corner, perhaps a safety, a WR, or even a TE. I don't have a crystal ball, nor am I going to start whining about the pick. Some people apparently think that drafting is simply filling needs and putting the next plug-and-play player on your team to fill a void. It's about taking the BPA, especially at the top of the draft. The more it goes on, then maybe you can get a little "cute" and take a risk, but BPA should be the overarching guide (IMO). 

I still say WR is a need, and I believe it's a little presumptuous, if not foolhardy, when you consider our circumstances and history at the position to call it a strength. If you have a different opinion, so be it.

[45catfan]

I think this place will explode if the Panthers take a luxury pick (i.e. not DE or OL) at #16 such as a WR.  Even though there should still be a top LB, CB, TE, WR and certainly DTs available at #16.  I've seen mocks where one of the LB Devin's , Greedy Williams, Brown and/or Metcalf, Noah Fant--possibly Hockenson and  DTs Wilkins, Lawrence and Jones makes it to #16.  Most, if not all, of them would probably do well in a Panthers uniform, but fans will be banging their collective heads against the wall if it were to occur.   Sort of like I was when we took Vernon Butler.  Stunned and pissed off doesn't fully capture my thoughts when that occurred.

[steven8989]

7 hours ago, top dawg said:

 

So, I guess Chris Hogan fills our every need?

Just about every national company NFL.com, ESPN, Bleacher Report (or their writer(s) has listed WR as a need for us. Admittedly, Edge or OT has arguably been listed as the biggest need, but don't tell me wr is a strength based upon a guy in his sophomore season, a guy that some even forget we have (maybe because he hasn't seen the field that much relatively), a WR4/5 on most rosters (basically a bench warmer), a guy that most of the Huddle says should have been cut long ago, and Chris Hogan are considered a strength. They may be projected as a strength by Huddlers due to what we have had lately, but most experts don't see our receiving corps as a certain strength, and it’s pretty obvious to me why they don't.

 

 

There is where u messed up, you listened NFL.com, ESPN worldwide leader of not knowing poo, and Bleacher Report. Hey how about u go find some better media to listen to!

[steven8989]

There is no way we take WR at 16, right after we took wr first Rd last year. I don't think we get one if at all till 5th Rd or later.