Tony Pauline: Panthers like CB Will Johnson

[Shotgun]

I think we should draft a big fast WR with terrible hands and bad route running. The Panthers are great at player development so it will work out great!

[SCO96]

17 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

If they are young guys looking for their 2nd contract? Maybe. The first pick has to be bpa for the defense.  A corner ranked anywhere from 15 to 25 among the class does not scream must take over other positions.  JMO.

I'd even be ok with a LB at #8  if we could draft a Luke K, Beason, or even a Dan Morgan (who still holds the record for most tackles in a SB game BTW). These are guys teams have to plan around. We only have 2 of those guys on our defense (Brown and Horn).

A LB who can drop into coverage and blitz would be an awesome acquisition.

 

[CRA]

2 hours ago, tukafan21 said:

I get what you're saying, but it's also kind of a disingenuous way of phrasing it when the best player on our whole team is a defensive lineman.

Also, sometimes the best pass rush is by having great coverage downfield so the QB has to hold the ball longer, even the best offensive lines can only block players for so long before one gets loose to the QB

Best player is a DT.  He also is the only legit player up front.  And being the only legit guy up front lowers his ceiling.

for any example of a pass rush created by great secondary play and you can name 10 great pass rushes as a byproduct of DL talent 

[MHS831]

2 hours ago, tukafan21 said:

This would be peak Panthers

Draft someone in the Top 10, stick with them for 3 years while they can't stay on the field due to injuries, despite other teams likely willing to give up a decent pick for him.

Player finally has a full healthy season and makes the Pro Bowl.

Panthers don't want to extend him and then trade him for a 2nd round pick for us to draft another bust.

There are some signs that they are going to keep him--getting rid of some of their training and conditioning staff--when they go back to grass on the field, I will see that Tepper is on board.  Horn has missed 25 games (more than a season) and I think the field and perhaps the training staff had something to do with his rehab.  They do make a difference.  Furthermore, they lost Brooks again for another year--which may have been the last straw for them.  It is interesting (to your point). 

My comment was not based on what I would do--it was based on what they might be thinking (not to say that you were assuming it was my idea).  I look at management from their perspective--not mine.  Any good GM would consider the injury history.  Until we go back to grass, I will assume Tepper is not interested in this aspect of team ownership.

Regardless, giving a player who has missed a season and a half in four years a lucrative contract is risky, and that risk needs to be minimized by considering all variables. 

[tukafan21]

18 minutes ago, CRA said:

Best player is a DT.  He also is the only legit player up front.  And being the only legit guy up front lowers his ceiling.

for any example of a pass rush created by great secondary play and you can name 10 great pass rushes as a byproduct of DL talent 

That's not my point, I'm just saying it's a very micro way of looking at it.

As I said to someone a week or two ago when they said "we need high draft picks on the defensive side of the ball"

That's just a flawed way of looking at building a roster, we need to have impact players on the defensive side of the ball, not necessarily high draft picks, they're two different things.  Everyone keeps talking about going all defense in this draft, but the reality is we need to just forget about the draft right now and focus on defensive FA's.

If we target and sign the right players in FA, namely not trying to spread our cap around but sign 1-2 serious impact players with at least one being a pass rusher, then it opens up all sorts of draft possibilities.  Even if we went defense with every pick of our draft, they better not be the most impactful newcomers on the team next year, as it then means we screwed up our free agency.

[tukafan21]

1 minute ago, MHS831 said:

There are some signs that they are going to keep him--getting rid of some of their training and conditioning staff--when they go back to grass on the field, I will see that Tepper is on board.  Horn has missed 25 games (more than a season) and I think the field and perhaps the training staff had something to do with his rehab.  They do make a difference.  Furthermore, they lost Brooks again for another year--which may have been the last straw for them.  It is interesting (to your point). 

My comment was not based on what I would do--it was based on what they might be thinking (not to say that you were assuming it was my idea).  I look at management from their perspective--not mine.  Any good GM would consider the injury history.  Until we go back to grass, I will assume Tepper is not interested in this aspect of team ownership.

Regardless, giving a player who has missed a season and a half in four years a lucrative contract is risky, and that risk needs to be minimized by considering all variables. 

Yea I get what you're saying, my comment was just in general, that a team with as many holes and as few cornerstone players as we have, trading one of those few good players, injury history aside, would just be exactly something we'd end up doing.

I get that injury history needs to be considered, but in the end, we don't have enough of a built out roster to trade him, we have to take the risk.  It can be structured in a way that it minimizes our risk on the back end of the deal so we can get out of it after a year or two without much pain in case he gets hurt, but signing him to an extension is a must.

Hell, we could always threaten him with the franchise tag the next 2 years to force him to show he can stay healthy and use it as leverage to get him to sign a shorter contract now instead, which would actually benefit both sides.

It gives us the chance to make sure he stays healthy, and it allows him to either hit FA or sign another extension in 2 years and cash in then if he stays healthy.  Sign him now to a 3 year extension at just over the franchise tag number, on a front loaded deal.

If he stays healthy, in 2 years we sign him to a monster contract, if he can't, then he made more money than he would have on the franchise tag and we get out of it without much future cap hits.

[MHS831]

2 hours ago, Shotgun said:

I think we should draft a big fast WR with terrible hands and bad route running. The Panthers are great at player development so it will work out great!

Not a popular pick here and we were not proven wrong. Morgan's first draft he picks a local guy with limited experience and intelligence (seemingly) who he tells (before the draft) that he is going to be the pick and then that player announces that the Panthers told him that he is going to be the pick--a nightmare of horrors.  I hope Morgan learned something.  He wanted dogs, and he drafted a horse.

[MHS831]

Just now, tukafan21 said:

Yea I get what you're saying, my comment was just in general, that a team with as many holes and as few cornerstone players as we have, trading one of those few good players, injury history aside, would just be exactly something we'd end up doing.

I get that injury history needs to be considered, but in the end, we don't have enough of a built out roster to trade him, we have to take the risk.  It can be structured in a way that it minimizes our risk on the back end of the deal so we can get out of it after a year or two without much pain in case he gets hurt, but signing him to an extension is a must.

Hell, we could always threaten him with the franchise tag the next 2 years to force him to show he can stay healthy and use it as leverage to get him to sign a shorter contract now instead, which would actually benefit both sides.

It gives us the chance to make sure he stays healthy, and it allows him to either hit FA or sign another extension in 2 years and cash in then if he stays healthy.  Sign him now to a 3 year extension at just over the franchise tag number, on a front loaded deal.

If he stays healthy, in 2 years we sign him to a monster contract, if he can't, then he made more money than he would have on the franchise tag and we get out of it without much future cap hits.

I heard your point too, and it was on point.  I think we stay with Horn--loyalty to your veterans has to start at some point.  Coaches, core players, etc. have been like temp workers here. 

[flagfootballcoach28]

People keep mentioning trading Horn. 
 

We’ve let go DJ Moore, CMC, Burns, Chinn, Luvu. At some point we have to start keeping our good players. It’s getting old. 

[tukafan21]

2 minutes ago, flagfootballcoach28 said:

People keep mentioning trading Horn. 
 

We’ve let go DJ Moore, CMC, Burns, Chinn, Luvu. At some point we have to start keeping our good players. It’s getting old. 

To be fair, Burns and Chinn made sense as Burns wanted more money than made sense for the player he is and Chinn wasn't coming back here since we weren't using him, while Luvu we tried to re-sign but couldn't.

Don't get me started on the DJ or CMC trades though, they both still infuriate me beyond belief.  Give me the two of them and all our draft picks over Bryce any day of the week.

Edited 7 hours ago by tukafan21

[AU-panther]

5 hours ago, WhoKnows said:

That’s not the choice. It’s more like CB2 vs Edge2. With potentially two QBs, one DT, one CB, one Edge being off the table, our choice will probably be between CB2, Edge2 or WR1. If there is a surprise OT or Clelin Ferrell then who knows but we aren’t choosing the 3rd or 4th Edge over CB 2.

Teams don’t think in terms of positional rankings, they think in terms of grades.

CB2 could have a higher grade than Edge2 or even WR1. 
 

Think in terms of tiers.  Wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of teams end up with  1-2 players in their top tier, and 3-4 in the next.  If any of those fall to 8 they have to be considered. 

[MHS831]

I also think you have to look at draft depth.  If a DT is the best player but you expect some good ones to be around in late round 2, do you take the edge, even though he might be a bit lower on your board, then take the DT later?  They always say, "We take BPA," but would 2 starters be better than 1?  Hard to say hypothetically, but if I know DTs are deep, I value them a bit less than an edge players, who I have higher on my board based on the scarcity of the talent at that position--this is, of course, if you enter the draft with needs that were not adequately addressed in free agency. 

If we need a DT and an Edge, for example, let's say Graham, DT Michigan is ranked 22nd on your board.  There are 8 DTs expected to go later on day 2.  Pearce, Edge, Tennessee, is ranked 26th on your board but there are few Edge rushers with his skill set left in the draft--let's say 1 more until the talent level drops significantly.  Who do you take? 

[MHS831]

19 minutes ago, flagfootballcoach28 said:

People keep mentioning trading Horn. 
 

We’ve let go DJ Moore, CMC, Burns, Chinn, Luvu. At some point we have to start keeping our good players. It’s getting old. 

They stayed with TD, and that paid off.

I think people are wondering if the rumored interest is indicative of their thinking. You have to know they are working the cap all day--and looking at Horn's deal.  In the past, we dealt players with injury concerns--Horn has missed a season and a half.  We are about to invest a lot of money in him if we keep him.  Horn's CarFax report has 3 accidents on it.  You buyin'?  Just reading tea leaves.  I think I would keep him with the new training and conditioning staff-but I hear you.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by MHS831

[RockyTopVol]

This would be a fantastic pick.