Greg Little (Now Off) PUP

[stbugs]

49 minutes ago, Peon Awesome said:

I know you were responding to someone who said rookies rarely start on the line so your point is true but of all the players you are referring to, only 3 were tackles and 0 were left tackles. Interior linemen do tend to translate more easily from college to the pros. And left tackle in particular is notoriously difficult for rookies. I get that Little hasn't done anything to garner our awe but he basically did what we'd expect out of a rookie LT. Let's hope he takes a leap forward while acknowledging he very well might fail. 

Actually of the 13 OL in the top 20 OL picks who started half a year to a year, 6 of them were RTs. The “LTs” in this draft either didn’t perform (Little and Dillard) or got hurt (Williams). I wasn’t really talking about just the OL playing for playoff teams/Rams. That was just to show that OL rookie starters aren’t just on bad teams.

[panthers55]

22 hours ago, Waldo said:

I never said he was a bust, I did say it was bad signs concerning him. And Daley looked like a OG playing out of position but he still looked better than Little at LT. That is concerning. Little only being able to play in 4 games and showing up on the PUP to start year 2 is concerning.Twist it how you want but thats what I saw. So far he hasn't shown any value of a 2nd round pick that we traded up for, that is also concerning. The fact we traded a starting OG to put an aging starter in front of last years 2nd round pick is also concerning. To summarize, I said he wasn't very good and you think I am labeling him a bust...something that takes more time where him just sucking is a coment on his current standing which takes no extra time whatsoever.

Not saying the concussions aren't concerning but it seems to my untrained eye his problem is technique more than lack of ability. 

[panthers55]

22 hours ago, stbugs said:

Houston had two OL rookies start 14 and 8 games. Buffalo had one start 16 games. Rams had a rookie start 7 games and another start 10 games. Minnesota had a rookie start 16 games. GB had a rookie start 14 games. NO had a rookie start 16 games. Tennessee had a rookie start 12. All 7 teams were above .500 and 6 were playoff teams. All rookies listed above either started the whole year or finished the year as starters. All will be starters this year unlike Little who’s only a starter if an injury occurs.

Also, 8 of the 9 were among the first 20 picks and in the first 3 rounds. There was 1 5th rounder. 13 of the top 20 OL started half a year or more. The other 7 included the top two OL picks out almost all year due to injuries. Only Andre Dillard and Greg Little in the top 15 OL picks appear to not be starters in year 2. Little was the 8th OL and the next 6 OL taken after Little started 14 to 16 games.

Rookies not starting right away is a fallacy that we try to hide behind when defending day 2 picks that don’t play well. Not saying rookies don’t develop but the 6 guys taken after Little were discussed as great picks and they panned out. That’s 95% of our disappointment. We liked other guys. I wanted McCoy at C and Evans at 77. We’d have McCoy, Evans and Moton as our right side, potentially for years if you resign Moton. That’s my disappointment.

 

We started cornerbacks in 2016 who were rookies. The question is how did they do?  Sure you can just put names out there but it doesn't mean they were good options or most rookies who start do well. And as another poster pointed out, how many left tackles were rookies? None.

Whether a guy was decent as a guard is irrelevant to the discussion. Even Darryl Williams did decently as a guard but sucked as a tackle so you are comparing apples and oranges with an agenda.

And let's be real here, you might get by with a rookie guard if the tackle and center aren't new as well. But what happens when the whole line shifts from week to week or everyone is playing different positions. 

You make a point that rookies can start at guard or even right tackle if they play on a good line and have good support and stay healthy. But how many were in the same situation as Little?   And your right tackles were all top 20 picks. Any right tackles start outside of the first round on a bad line and do well?

 That is comparing apples to apples. 

[Waldo]

1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

Not saying the concussions aren't concerning but it seems to my untrained eye his problem is technique more than lack of ability. 

His ability would have made him a 5th round pick in this years draft. It's not impressive. That was just a bad draft for LTs.

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, Waldo said:

His ability would have made him a 5th round pick in this years draft. It's not impressive. That was just a bad draft for LTs.

Since when did you become an expert at draft analysis? Or are you just spitballing it like usual.

[Waldo]

20 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Since when did you become an expert at draft analysis? Or are you just spitballing it like usual.

Lol at you calling out others for not being an expert on a fan forum. Still living in fantasy fanboy land.

[panthers55]

1 minute ago, Waldo said:

Lol at you calling out others for not being an expert on a fan forum. Still living in fantasy fanboy land.

I readily admit I am no expert and only a fan. But I am not telling someone that a guy who was a second rounder and first rounder to some, would be a 5th rounder this season. That assumes a certain amount of expertise in the draft. I can assume by your response you aren't an expert which is easy to see. Then admit it is your uneducated opinion and I wouldn't have said anything. But to state your opinion as fact is going to get a reaction when clearly you don't have more of a clue then I do. The difference is I am not acting as an expert where you clearly are trying.

[Waldo]

15 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

I readily admit I am no expert and only a fan. But I am not telling someone that a guy who was a second rounder and first rounder to some, would be a 5th rounder this season. That assumes a certain amount of expertise in the draft. I can assume by your response you aren't an expert which is easy to see. Then admit it is your uneducated opinion and I wouldn't have said anything. But to state your opinion as fact is going to get a reaction when clearly you don't have more of a clue then I do. The difference is I am not acting as an expert where you clearly are trying.

Clausen had a 1st round grade to some, same with a long list of WTF were they thinking picks. Your entire argument is to argue further in a vague and constantly shifting narrative, for some reason endlessly. So boring and a complete waste of time. 

[panthers55]

23 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Clausen had a 1st round grade to some, same with a long list of WTF were they thinking picks. Your entire argument is to argue further in a vague and constantly shifting narrative, for some reason endlessly. So boring and a complete waste of time. 

My arguments had been clear and on point. What I am not doing is acting like an expert and making analyses with nothing to base it on like you. Will Little be good? I haven't a clue. But he surely doesn't deserve the crap he gets from folks like you who go on and on without a clue. I am sorry you got mad that I pointed out the obvious.

[Waldo]

20 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

My arguments had been clear and on point. What I am not doing is acting like an expert and making analyses with nothing to base it on like you. Will Little be good? I haven't a clue. But he surely doesn't deserve the crap he gets from folks like you who go on and on without a clue. I am sorry you got mad that I pointed out the obvious.

All of the fact have been posted on this site before and since that draft. I am not responsible to do the work required for you to be semi-competent in your argument on this discussion. Look at the first post on page 8. 

Please stop your projecting your need to pretend to be an expert on other people. Am I mean about how little I think of Little? I would say realistic. Good news for Little is that he has a rookie contract so he should continue to get a shot at proving me wrong. Sadly, he has yet to do much of that. If he did then you wouldn't have to protect him from getting crap on the internet while making millions doing little for the Panthers to date. 

I am not mad, just sad that I am being stalked by a keyboard jockey that is known for wasting time here. So do your last word thing and I will agree to disagree, or in this case live in different realities.

[stbugs]

5 hours ago, panthers55 said:

 

We started cornerbacks in 2016 who were rookies. The question is how did they do?  Sure you can just put names out there but it doesn't mean they were good options or most rookies who start do well. And as another poster pointed out, how many left tackles were rookies? None.

Whether a guy was decent as a guard is irrelevant to the discussion. Even Darryl Williams did decently as a guard but sucked as a tackle so you are comparing apples and oranges with an agenda.

And let's be real here, you might get by with a rookie guard if the tackle and center aren't new as well. But what happens when the whole line shifts from week to week or everyone is playing different positions. 

You make a point that rookies can start at guard or even right tackle if they play on a good line and have good support and stay healthy. But how many were in the same situation as Little?   And your right tackles were all top 20 picks. Any right tackles start outside of the first round on a bad line and do well?

 That is comparing apples to apples. 

Huh? Damn you move goal posts. First it’s rookies only start on bad teams and I disproved that. Now it’s none of the OL were LTs. Well, one LT was hurt before the season started and one was Little.

Also it’s only top 20 picks, which is 100% incorrect. None the RTs that started were top 20 picks. Bobby Evans started for the 9-7 Rams next to another rookie. Evans was a late 3rd rounder that we could have taken along with a stud C/G instead of Little. Evans sidekick was a 5th rounder. Both of them did well and will probably continue to start and improve. Taylor, Ford, McGary, Evans, Edoga and Howard were all post top 20 picks that started at RT. Only 1 tackle was taken top 20 and he was IR’d in preseason.

Also, Bradberry had a solid rookie year. Worley didn’t and neither did Bene or Boston or Coleman. Our whole secondary was trash. Do you think if the nickel and safeties were good that maybe Worley could have been better? He played well in Oakland. You are using the whole line shifting as an excuse.

Listen, it’s already a fact that Little was a bad pick. It’s year two and we traded Turner to get a new starting LT. We could have had a potential pro bowl center and a guy who could be our RG this year and/or replace Moton. Instead the Saints have the stud C and the Rams have a young and improving right side of their OL. We’ve got a backup.

[stbugs]

1 hour ago, Waldo said:

Clausen had a 1st round grade to some, same with a long list of WTF were they thinking picks. Your entire argument is to argue further in a vague and constantly shifting narrative, for some reason endlessly. So boring and a complete waste of time. 

Look at his posts with me. He’s made blatantly incorrect statements like rookie OL don’t start on good teams and then everyone who did start was a top 20 pick when half of the RTs who started were taken after Little.

He will bend himself over backwards to defend every move by the team. We’ve had bad drafts. 13 of the top 20 OL started and played significant time for their teams, most the entire year. Most of the 13 played on above .500 teams/playoff teams. We could have had two solid OL instead of Little. It was a bad reach. No one had a first round grade on Little other than us otherwise a solid LT doesn’t go 37 to the only team that coveted him. I would have been happier even if we took Little without the trade up so we could have gotten Evans or Crosby at 77 and another OL/DL at 100 instead of freaking Grier. Day 2 with picks 47, 77 and 100 and we got two backups, one of whom we know will never start unless we’re desperate. So many good OL went in day 2.

[Waldo]

Just now, stbugs said:

Look at his posts with me. He’s made blatantly incorrect statements like rookie OL don’t start on good teams and then everyone who did start was a top 20 pick when half of the RTs who started were taken after Little.

He will bend himself over backwards to defend every move by the team. We’ve had bad drafts. 13 of the top 20 OL started and played significant time for their teams, most the entire year. Most of the 13 played on above .500 teams/playoff teams. We could have had two solid OL instead of Little. It was a bad reach. No one had a first round grade on Little other than us otherwise a solid LT doesn’t go 37 to the only team that coveted him. I would have been happier even if we took Little without the trade up so we could have gotten Evans or Crosby at 77 and another OL/DL at 100 instead of freaking Grier. Day 2 with picks 47, 77 and 100 and we got two backups, one of whom we know will never start unless we’re desperate. So many good OL went in day 2.

It's just a complete waste of time. If it was some other poster then going over old data and facts can be fun. 

I couldn't agree more and I enjoyed your facts in this thread. It sucks but drafting for need can really screw you, the fact we thought they were BPA is just tragic. I completely understand missing on a draft pick but when you look at the opportunity cost, as you have stated, it's painful.  I really want to see this unit in action this year, it's a position group I am guessing and hoping we will be addressing heavily out of need in the next offseason. Can Daley grab a starting job or will he have his sophomore slump? Will Paradis continue to get thrown around like a chew toy or regain some of his pre-injury play? Is Moton on the cusp of a breakout year? Will we look like a nightmare on the left side again? How much will the quick passing game cover up some of the Oline's known deficiencies? Either way it's going to be fun to watch and hope for improvement one way or the other. 

[stbugs]

56 minutes ago, Waldo said:

It's just a complete waste of time. If it was some other poster then going over old data and facts can be fun. 

I couldn't agree more and I enjoyed your facts in this thread. It sucks but drafting for need can really screw you, the fact we thought they were BPA is just tragic. I completely understand missing on a draft pick but when you look at the opportunity cost, as you have stated, it's painful.  I really want to see this unit in action this year, it's a position group I am guessing and hoping we will be addressing heavily out of need in the next offseason. Can Daley grab a starting job or will he have his sophomore slump? Will Paradis continue to get thrown around like a chew toy or regain some of his pre-injury play? Is Moton on the cusp of a breakout year? Will we look like a nightmare on the left side again? How much will the quick passing game cover up some of the Oline's known deficiencies? Either way it's going to be fun to watch and hope for improvement one way or the other. 

You know what's the most tragic part about the OL? Out of our expected starters, Paradis (joy!) is the only guy we have signed for 2021 and he's very likely cut if he doesn't play amazing. Not drafting interior OL in 2018/2019 when they were incredibly deep after knowing we'd lose Norwell, Ryan and Turner in back to back to back years was a big miss.