Official Sound off like you got a pair Panthers Draft predictions thread

[Mr. Scot]

A bit of draft history...

Really hope that quote doesn't end up applying to us as well 

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

Panthers send shockwaves through the NFL and draft Anthony Richardson to sit behind the Red Rifle for a year

Seriously though when we traded up I thought it was for Bryce Young and I'm sticking with it

[Sloth]

1. Young

2. BPA at CB/DE

3. BPA at CB/DE (depending on 2)

4. BPA IOL/WR/TE

[Gerry Green]

20 hours ago, tukafan21 said:

I'm so sick of this argument

As The Athletic's article today points out, since 2000 there have been 368 QB's who have played in the league, only 9 of them have been under 6 feet.  Yes, as I've said it's not about his height, but his frame/weight/bulk, but that number would be even smaller if looking for players of Young's size.

To make any significant revelation based on a sample size like that, it's just flat out ignorant and is only used by teams publicly as a way to help sell it to their fan base.

Nobody arguing against Young due to his size is saying bigger QB's are guaranteed to stay healthier, but it's just common sense to say a 5'10" 190 lbs QB has a higher probability to get injured than someone 6'2" and 215 lbs.  Yes, anyone could get hurt on any given play, but if you put those two sized QB's up for comparison and you had to pick one or the other as to who is more likely to get injured, you'd have to be fooling yourself to say there isn't even a slightly better chance of the smaller player being injured more often than the bigger player there.

No, there are no guarantees, but the people asking for past examples/proof of smaller QB's being more injury prone, and leaning on a sample size of 9 out of 368, is just completely asinine in itself.

Hell, even if all 9 of those guys kept getting hurt and thus helping my argument, I'd still say it's far too small of a sample size to be used in these discussions.

 

 

In any normal year, if you told the Huddle we were drafting the shortest QB in league history. There would be chaos. Rioting in the streets would only be the beginning. 

 

So what's so different about this short QB? 

[Icege]

1. Bryce Young, QB, Alabama

39. Keion White, DE, Georgia

93. Jonathan Mingo, WR, Ole Miss

114. Nick Hampton, EDGE, Appalachian State

132. Ivan Pace Jr, LB, Cincinatti

145. Riley Moss, CB, Iowa

[bigjohn]

My main prediction is a complete overreaction by about a fourth of the Huddle fanbase saying we completely fugged this pick.

[OldNorthPowell]

CJ Stroud, Jack Campbell first two picks.

[MHS831]

As you can see from this photo taken at my last physical, I am more than qualified to modify my answer if the only prerequisite is "having a pair."  In fact, I think I may have been the inspiration for a South Park episode, but I digress.

Now that I have provided my qualifications, I would like to offer a revised opinion:

1. Young

39.  Trade back:  DJ Turner, CB, Michigan (reason?  As much as I want an edge here, Jackson may not be slightly above average after the Achilles injury.  Henderson and Taylor have been toasted a lot.  Horn is solid, and needs to be on the #1 WR, not playing nickel.  Turner makes us better immediately-he starts off by playing the nickel and next season, when Jax moves on, becomes the #2 CB.)

93.  Matt Bergeron, OT, Syracuse (Reason?  Bergeron can play swing T and allow for Mays and Christensen and McCray to compete for the LG position.   Bergeron would be an ideal replacement for Moton when he becomes too expensive to keep in a year or two.  The OL needs depth, and I feel that we will address the OL in this draft after drafting a small QB.)

114.  Nick Hampton, OLB/Edge, Tweetsie U (Reason?  Hampton is a special pass rusher--just kinda sucks vs. the run.  We need a pass rushing edge on passing downs opposite Burns.  Imagine moving Brown to NT and YGM (for example) to DE?)

145. Luke Schoonmaker, TE, Michigan (reason?  Solid #2 TE that fills a need)

168.  (For trade from 39 to about 45 in round 2):  Anthony Bradford, G/T, LSU.  (Reason?  We need depth on the OL and he can play 4 positions.  By trade, a RG to give depth behind Corbett and perhaps his future replacement.)

[MHS831]

On 4/21/2023 at 4:11 PM, tukafan21 said:

I'm so sick of this argument

As The Athletic's article today points out, since 2000 there have been 368 QB's who have played in the league, only 9 of them have been under 6 feet.  Yes, as I've said it's not about his height, but his frame/weight/bulk, but that number would be even smaller if looking for players of Young's size.

To make any significant revelation based on a sample size like that, it's just flat out ignorant and is only used by teams publicly as a way to help sell it to their fan base.

Nobody arguing against Young due to his size is saying bigger QB's are guaranteed to stay healthier, but it's just common sense to say a 5'10" 190 lbs QB has a higher probability to get injured than someone 6'2" and 215 lbs.  Yes, anyone could get hurt on any given play, but if you put those two sized QB's up for comparison and you had to pick one or the other as to who is more likely to get injured, you'd have to be fooling yourself to say there isn't even a slightly better chance of the smaller player being injured more often than the bigger player there.

No, there are no guarantees, but the people asking for past examples/proof of smaller QB's being more injury prone, and leaning on a sample size of 9 out of 368, is just completely asinine in itself.

Hell, even if all 9 of those guys kept getting hurt and thus helping my argument, I'd still say it's far too small of a sample size to be used in these discussions.

 

Here you argue against analytics due to the lack of a sample size that is large enough to suit you, but you actually say, "it's just common sense" in your answer without providing any evidence to counter the small sample size.  Then you go about calling people who are using this data "ignorant" and their position to be "asinine".  How large is the sample size you are using to counter these conclusions?  You even try to qualify a point by saying, "As I said..."

I research for a living.  Your points are reasons to want to see more data, a larger sample size, for example, but they disprove NOTHING.  The only evidence on the table supports the position opposite your "common sense."

Other articles I have read suggest that smaller players are only injured more because they twist and turn more due to their agility, not contact with larger forces. 

Tell me an injury that is not joint related that is caused by the size of the person hitting you?  Maybe a broken rib?  Concussion?  These injuries are not due to the size of the person being hit.  In fact, larger athletes put more stress and strain on their joints and ligaments than smaller players, which is probably why smaller players are actually hurt less.

Your entire argument is based (without data or facts) on the presumption that larger players get hurt less than smaller players.  There is no data to support that assumption, but you call it common sense.  Your data is based on QBs only--but if you expand the group to all small NFL players by including other positions, you will see that there are studies that demonstrate how injury is due to the mobility and elusiveness the position requires, not size.   These players wear helmets, pads, etc. and there is rarely an injury caused by contact to a small person that would not have been equally damaging to a larger person. 

 

 

[bigdog_10_2002]

1. Young

2. Trade back to pick up an extra 3rd

 

[Bear Hands]

1 hour ago, MHS831 said:

As you can see from this photo taken at my last physical, I am more than qualified to modify my answer if the only prerequisite is "having a pair."  In fact, I think I may have been the inspiration for a South Park episode, but I digress.

Now that I have provided my qualifications, I would like to offer a revised opinion:

1. Young

39.  Trade back:  DJ Turner, CB, Michigan (reason?  As much as I want an edge here, Jackson may not be slightly above average after the Achilles injury.  Henderson and Taylor have been toasted a lot.  Horn is solid, and needs to be on the #1 WR, not playing nickel.  Turner makes us better immediately-he starts off by playing the nickel and next season, when Jax moves on, becomes the #2 CB.)

93.  Matt Bergeron, OT, Syracuse (Reason?  Bergeron can play swing T and allow for Mays and Christensen and McCray to compete for the LG position.   Bergeron would be an ideal replacement for Moton when he becomes too expensive to keep in a year or two.  The OL needs depth, and I feel that we will address the OL in this draft after drafting a small QB.)

114.  Nick Hampton, OLB/Edge, Tweetsie U (Reason?  Hampton is a special pass rusher--just kinda sucks vs. the run.  We need a pass rushing edge on passing downs opposite Burns.  Imagine moving Brown to NT and YGM (for example) to DE?)

145. Luke Schoonmaker, TE, Michigan (reason?  Solid #2 TE that fills a need)

168.  (For trade from 39 to about 45 in round 2):  Anthony Bradford, G/T, LSU.  (Reason?  We need depth on the OL and he can play 4 positions.  By trade, a RG to give depth behind Corbett and perhaps his future replacement.)

I like that.  The only thing is that I think it could be a bummer not landing a potential playmaker/speedster.  We've got Chark as the only sub 4.42 in the RB/WR room.  

[Turtle]

I’ll go ahead and get my poo boots on..

Anthony Richardson #1 Overall. You’re at one, you swing for the fences.

The staff is great by all accounts! They are however, working together as a unit for the first time. It may take them a year or two to hit their stride.

Get the guy to grow with then!

Despite the current obsession with rankings, there is no guarantee you get any player at any spot unless you have the #1. RE: Fitter: “conviction, get your guy, hold my beer ”

Don’t over think it. We get the young super stud with the massive ceiling who may indeed bust. Accept the risk, throw out you baby blanket and dare to be great! 

Who’s with me?

#unpopularopinions

#bringoutthepoocanon

 

[Mr. Scot]

On 4/21/2023 at 1:26 PM, 3838 said:

Levis will be the no.2 pick.

Wouldn't that be some carnage?

Someone said they thought I'd crow about it if a trade down happens. Not really true. I've long said it could happen but never predicted it would.

There's not a lot to crow about if all you've done is acknowledge that anything can happen

[FuFuLamePoo]

On 4/21/2023 at 6:11 PM, Mr. Scot said:

A bit of draft history...

Really hope that quote doesn't end up applying to us as well 

The Cardinals are in a bit of a weird spot, but I doubt they regret the Kyler pick even a little bit. Through four years he’s been named to the Pro Bowl twice, has a 2:1 TD:INT ratio, has ran for 20+ scores, taken his team to the playoffs. Obviously they may go 2-15 this year and draft Caleb Williams next year, but even if they do they’ll get probably two firsts for Murray pretty easily.

Also, Bosa was a far better prospect than anyone we’re passing up on here. He was generational as a EDGE/DE, clearly better than anyone in this class.