Outside of a QB who do you have and why?

[imminent rogaine]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

No trade ups. This is a Hurney team, no fuging trade ups, thank you.

Fair enough. But we’ll just end up with the Cabarrus poly tech QB that projects as a WR or maybe the Bertie County State corner that could maybe play safety.

[jfra78]

19 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I like the Parsons kid but unless he is BPA at the time we pick, no way I make another LB pick. I know we need one but fug me running we gotta eventually pay attention to positional value. 

If he is available when we pick he will be bpa

[thefuzz]

2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Hurney is living in the past in terms of positional value. He also has a fetish for "project" players.

He just doesn't really understand the game, and what he needs on the field to compete.

Kinda like he's been around folks that are very stuck in their ways like Jerry Richardson, John Fox, and Ron Rivera.

[Shocker]

Best player available...we need top talent

[thefuzz]

1 minute ago, Shocker said:

Best player available...we need top talent

I'm usually here as well, but not sure that I am with this team.

We have needs at very important positions:  CB, DE, QB, OT.

Those positions are really hard to fill, and while I'm not advising over drafting due to position, at some point we have to try to plug these specific holes or we are never going to compete on a consistent basis.

[theinstrumental]

24 minutes ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Luke,  TD, Beason and Morgan didn't work out well?  Shaq not so much but our 1st round LBs have been stellar. 

Those are best-case scenarios and there are still a lot of lost years on that list. Positions with short shelf lives and non-premium values aren't idea uses of high draft picks. That's running back and linebacker. 

[thefuzz]

4 minutes ago, theinstrumental said:

Those are best-case scenarios and there are still a lot of lost years on that list. Positions with short shelf lives and non-premium values aren't idea uses of high draft picks. That's running back and linebacker. 

Strangely enough, when I was once again having this discussion with posters on this board backing up Hurney's love affair with LB's and RB's....I came across some not so great stuff on the MLB's.

Yes, they have been great players, with Luke being one of the very best of all time...however, how many "great" years did we actually get out of all of those 1st rounders?

Beason, Morgan, and Luke all had abbreviated careers, and ALL of them got PAID by the team.  Our luck isn't as good with MLB's as good as it seems.

[MasterAwesome]

30 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

At the right positions. Every time you spend highly valued resources in the form of a draft pick or salary cap at a non-premium position, you could've also spent those resources at a position of higher value. I'd rather have a decent MLB and an elite pass rusher rather than vice versa, but you sure as hell don't settle for a Tahir Whitehead either.

Sure, but it's a bit idealistic to assume if passing over Luke or Beason or CMC, we would have taken a surefire elite pass rusher instead.  What if we took Quentin Coples (who a lot of people mocked to us) instead of Luke in 2012? 

I think every single person on here would rather have an elite pass rusher than an elite MLB, but that isn't necessarily how things would have played out in retrospect. 

[CRA]

27 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

Strangely enough, when I was once again having this discussion with posters on this board backing up Hurney's love affair with LB's and RB's....I came across some not so great stuff on the MLB's.

Yes, they have been great players, with Luke being one of the very best of all time...however, how many "great" years did we actually get out of all of those 1st rounders?

Beason, Morgan, and Luke all had abbreviated careers, and ALL of them got PAID by the team.  Our luck isn't as good with MLB's as good as it seems.

I'd probably argue we got more great years from them than any first round picks not named Peppers, Gross, Cam.  Others can be added down the road...but you can't even put CMC over Luke right now.  CMC has 2 years of great play at his position. 

 

[thefuzz]

1 minute ago, CRA said:

I'd probably argue we got more great years from them than any first round picks not named Peppers, Gross, Cam

 

Draft capitol and how much money we tied up with them vs. Wins and amount of games played doesn't really add up.

We gave all 3 of those players top of the league extensions and all of them didn't live up to said money.  Not hating on the players, just that's why you can't put all the draft capitol and $$$ into LB's and RB's.  Their impact on the game and their propensity for getting hurt just don't add up.

[CRA]

3 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

Draft capitol and how much money we tied up with them vs. Wins and amount of games played doesn't really add up.

We gave all 3 of those players top of the league extensions and all of them didn't live up to said money.  Not hating on the players, just that's why you can't put all the draft capitol and $$$ into LB's and RB's.  Their impact on the game and their propensity for getting hurt just don't add up.

Well, I also wouldn't lump them all together.  I mean, there is a pretty big difference IMO between Dan and Luke.  

Our biggest issue wasn't drafting LBs and paying them IMO.   It has been GMs that cant' build complete rosters.    Investing in strong positions (limiting the return of a player) and ignoring weak positions.    Stewart or Butler or Shaq.    We had legit holes and drafted guys to sit on the bench or share duties.  That type stuff bothers me most. 

IMO we have nothing at LB going forward.   I'm over Shaq. I don't want it to be the new S position.  Where we bring in a new Whitehead every year. 

 

[Captain Morgan]

Time to put the left tackle issue to bed.

We're not going to fix our team with next year's draft.  I'm starting to think there might be a chance to get Sewell.  If not, there's some good choices later in the first.  I'm all for trading back and getting a 1st between 15 and 22, plus an extra second.  We can go into the third round with 3 starters, one of which should be our long term starter at left tackle.  He could go along with the stud safety we've needed longer than LT, and either a CB or LB.

Use the next couple of rounds to add IOL, and your choice of DT to replace Short, TE,  or WR.  Let the OL gel for a year and look for the QB next year.

[shaqattaq]

1 hour ago, imminent rogaine said:

Sewell and trade back up to get Humphrey. If Sewell is gone, Parsons then trade back up to get Humphrey.  Parsons should at least be solid. Sewell and Humphrey will be probowlers.

Sewell is a no-brainer, and I like Parsons as well. As much as I love the idea of grabbing the best center in the draft, If we don't go for 1 of the top 4 QB's, Trask, Newman and Jones are projected QB's that'll be sitting at the bottom of 1st or the top of the 2nd. How big is the drop off between the top 4 and these guys? I hate the idea of walking away from such a talented QB draft without one.

[t96]

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Again, looking too small. Investments aren't made in a vacuum. There's opportunity cost there as well. Those resources spent on LBs (and RBs) could have been spent on players with higher positional value. One of the reasons why we've always sucked at OL and DB is because of those resources tied up at LB and RB. We've been focusing on the wrong spots and our overall record reflects that.

Then we just disagree about positional value. LB can affect the field at every level if they're elite. Plus non-pass rushing LBs get paid significantly less than corners or pass rushers. I'd much rather have Luke or TD at LB market value than Gillmore or another top CB at CB market value. It's a no brainer.