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!

     

Get your Priorites straight.

jramsey4

By jramsey4,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

jramsey4 Newbie

jramsey4

Posted
Posted

Over the past couple of years I have gotten a lot of flak over my suggestion that WR are usually not worth top 20 picks (or even a 1st at all). The first comment I always get is "You wouldn't draft -CJ or Fitz- in the 1st?" this kind of argument to me ignores some things.

1st almost never are those types of WR every outside the top 5. The problem there is if your in the top 5 of the draft you have so much more trouble then just at receiver. Think about the Lions (and boy did they have to try and fail a bunch to finally get him) and Cards when they drafted there stars.

2nd because your in the top portion of the draft there is almost always someone available that is a star at another position. Why have CJ when you could have Joe Thomas/Patrick Willis/Revis or even our own John Beason? Would you trade Beason for CJ? I wouldn't.

3rd if you do have this superstar at WR it really doesn't make a hill of beans difference if your QB sucks and can't get the ball to him or his Oline can't give him enough time for the WR to get open. WR are also useless when your D can't stop anyone.

4th unlike QB/OT/CB/S (before you say it I know that rare cases can be used) extremely productive WR's can be found in all rounds of the draft. We have one of the best cases on our own team. Am I saying its easy? No we also have one of the best cases of that but it can be accomplished.

Considering we have the QB and a pretty good Oline the 3rd doesn't completely apply to us now but our D is in shambles. I think through WK 4 it has been proven that a high powered O doesn't mean much your D can't even put up a good fight but somehow another WR would make all the difference. This is the logic the Falcons had when they mortgaged 2 drafts for one. Now it might work out in the future but right now it isn't helping much what was already a playoff team.

The point I want to make is not that if you want a WR in the 1st your stupid, not at all. In the right circumstances when the rest of the team is set you can start making these types of choices. And even in a case (however unlikely it is) that a WR will bring the most to your football team even though you have holes elsewhere. This could definitely be a possibility when Smith retires and if none of our WR can step up.

I believe a dominate CB/S/LB that would help shore up a struggling D will be there when we pick. I could see Xavier Rhodes being that guy or Zach Brown but I just don't see a WR being the BPA this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • MHS831
      Isaiah Simmons: "A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma"

      By MHS831 · Posted

      I hear you and I have said the same thing at times, but blanket statements are accurate part of the time at best.  I have also coached kids who had the "tools" but they were slow and unproductive on the field--and a few adjustments to the scheme or teaching techniques, and the light comes on.  We call them "late bloomers."  Based on my limited experience, it should be called "coaching."  As a former coach, if you gave me kids with the tools and I could not get them to perform at the level of their ability, then I have failed.  The coaches know this, so their timetables to win may be shorter than the time they have to develop a player--I think a lot of talent goes down the disposal, which is why the success rate for drafted players is so low. In my view, based on my career as a professor and researcher, my job is to produce successful people for the workplace.   I use data to identify central problems and I use my relationships with my students to strengthen weaknesses.  I have a limited amount of time to do this before a decision is made about their development.  In this case, I would look at the variables (data and the situational influences unique to this individual that may have stunted growth) and not the ineffective player as the center of the problem.  The team has already interviewed him, talked to his college coaches, measured him, etc. So I would minimize the assumption that the kid is the problem and look at his system of support and teaching strategies.  Nobody wants to admit THEY might be the problem.  To blame a first-rounder for failing, you have to admit either you did not properly identify the prospect's potential (which is your job) or you were unable to prepare that prospect (with all the tools that got him the job) to succeed (also your job).  So are we going to blame the 24-year-old kid with all the tools to succeed for sucking or are we going to take responsibility for his success as his mentors and teachers? I also find it curious that we give our first-rounders much more time to develop than an UDFA or day three pick.  I get the pressure to succeed and the investment, but If I were a professor (I am one) and I was sent the elite students to pass a professional examination, I would expect my elite students to pass and I expect my bottom feeders to need more time.  If my elite students were not passing after being given more time, then I would question my teaching methods--so would the University.  
    • chknwing
      Defensive Tackle: The Need that Shall Not be Named

      By chknwing · Posted

      i was hoping they might bring robinson back but he went to the darkside
    • ForJimmy
      Kaye with a nice breakdown on what Dan just did

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      Flexibility. If they don’t work out we simply walk away. If they look great we have the first crack at extending them. 
×
×
  • Create New...