Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

My draft needs now…

Sub Zero

By Sub Zero,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

pantherj Grand Master

pantherj

Posted
Posted

#1 WR.

#1 TE.

Edge rusher.

CB for depth.

Basically you don't start a season without a #1 TE and #1 WR and expect to do well on offense. We'll struggle until you get that fixed even if the rookie QB plays fairly well. It's not optional if you want to win. This is a passing league.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sub Zero Rising Star

Sub Zero

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, pantherj said:

#1 WR.

#1 TE.

Edge rusher.

CB for depth.

Basically you don't start a season without a #1 TE and #1 WR and expect to do well on offense. We'll struggle until you get that fixed even if the rookie QB plays fairly well. It's not optional if you want to win. This is a passing league.

Not really a Wr 1 potential in this draft after top 3… And TE isn’t that big of a need now and aren’t going to produce TE 1 numbers the 1st year anyway.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sub Zero Rising Star

Sub Zero

Posted
  • Author
Posted
12 minutes ago, The Huddler said:

Agreed

 

though i will add a side note: As a VaTech fan, i love Barno's potential and he flashed. complete physical freak. The sinking ship at VT really fuged up his draft prospects but holy poo let Evero get a hold of that dude he can be molded into a monster

Love Barno but having a rotation like Philly is very exciting…

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Urrymonster2 Enthusiast

Urrymonster2

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, pantherj said:

#1 WR.

#1 TE.

Edge rusher.

CB for depth.

Basically you don't start a season without a #1 TE and #1 WR and expect to do well on offense. We'll struggle until you get that fixed even if the rookie QB plays fairly well. It's not optional if you want to win. This is a passing league.

Hurst was the Bengals TE1… they have studs at WR though, so I think we can do just fine if we can get lucky and land a potential WR1 or TMJ makes a massive move this season

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sub Zero Rising Star

Sub Zero

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Urrymonster2 said:

Hurst was the Bengals TE1… they have studs at WR though, so I think we can do just fine if we can get lucky and land a potential WR1 or TMJ makes a massive move this season

At this point Hurst has a better chance of producing TE 1 numbers then a rookie.. 
 

ppl don’t talk about the transition of TE’s from college to Pro’s being difficult..

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pantherj Grand Master

pantherj

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Sub Zero said:

Not really a Wr 1 potential in this draft after top 3… And TE isn’t that big of a need now and aren’t going to produce TE 1 numbers the 1st year anyway.. 

The only way we could get a #1 WR in the draft would be a trade up which is possible, but unlikely. TE is I see as a need and it's a great target for a rookie QB. Tall, fast, elite prospect getting open and making life easier on CJ or Young. Perfect.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sub Zero Rising Star

Sub Zero

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, pantherj said:

The only way we could get a #1 WR in the draft would be a trade up which is possible, but unlikely. TE is I see as a need and it's a great target for a rookie QB. Tall, fast, elite prospect getting open and making life easier on CJ or Young. Perfect.

TE is a difficult transition position.. You shouldn’t expect to get that kind of production their rookie year.. That’s why we brought in Hurst.. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pantherj Grand Master

pantherj

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Urrymonster2 said:

Hurst was the Bengals TE1… they have studs at WR though, so I think we can do just fine if we can get lucky and land a potential WR1 or TMJ makes a massive move this season

I want to upgrade from Hurst in this draft if a better option is available. I see that as important for the reason I gave in the other post. Be careful thinking of our WRs as studs because that could be a bit of echo chamber thinking. The Huddle's response is that our WRs our these awesome studs, but other fan bases are not impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pantherj Grand Master

pantherj

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sub Zero said:

TE is a difficult transition position.. You shouldn’t expect to get that kind of production their rookie year.. That’s why we brought in Hurst.. 

It's not about big time production, but rather helping our rookie have a great big target to find. That works wonders for confidence and development. So important. We're not headed to the SB this upcoming season, or lighting the league on fire, but our QB development is critical.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sub Zero Rising Star

Sub Zero

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, pantherj said:

It's not about big time production, but rather helping our rookie have a great big target to find. That works wonders for confidence and development. So important. We're not headed to the SB this upcoming season, or lighting the league on fire, but our QB development is critical.

That’s why you brought in Hurst.. I have no problem grabbing a Kunz later in the draft but at this point I don’t see it as a top 3 need or worth spending a high pick on..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pantherj Grand Master

pantherj

Posted
Posted
Just now, Sub Zero said:

That’s why you brought in Hurst.. I have no problem grabbing a Kunz later in the draft but at this point I don’t see it as a top 3 need or worth spending a high pick on..

i would be happy to spend a high big on a better TE than Hurst to have more separation for our rookie. We simply disagree on priorities. You're thinking defense, I'm thinking explosive passing weapons better than what we have now. We'll see how it pans out. Fair to disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sub Zero Rising Star

Sub Zero

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, pantherj said:

i would be happy to spend a high big on a better TE than Hurst to have more separation for our rookie. We simply disagree on priorities. You're thinking defense, I'm thinking explosive passing weapons better than what we have now. We'll see how it pans out. Fair to disagree. 

That’s the problem again it highly unlikely you’re getting a TE better then Hurst will be for the next 2 years atleast.. Let’s not forget Hurst was a 1st round prospect as a TE and while this draft is deep at the position.. The position alone is a hard transition.. Even if you get Mayers or Kincade they probably won’t be better then Hurst for atleast 2 years..

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...