Brockers to visit with the Panthers

[panthers55]

If you want to over analyze it then of course every pick not named Andrew Luck(according to the so called experts) is a gamble. I just think they were calculated risk they the front office, coaching staff deemed a worthy risk. When I think of the word gamble I think of rolling the dice and hoping you get lucky. I think those decisions are better described as calculated risk that we deemed worthy.

Its okay to agree to disagree anyway. Better than wasting our time trading stupid insults on a internet forum.

Obviously your definition of a gamble is different that what the rest of us are talking about. Taking a draft pick by rolling the dice and hoping to get lucky would be akin to puttiing all the draftees in a hat and randomly pulling out a name and calling that your first pick. Who would do that?? Obviously not someone who expected to be there for the next draft.

Rolling the dice and hoping you get lucky without understanding the odds and having a plan is not gambling, it is stupidity. Successful gambling involves controlling the odds, taking calculated risks based on what you know and observe and taking less or more risk based on when the odds are in your favor. That is the kind of gambling we are talking about. It isn't agreeing to disagree as much as helping you to get on the same page as the rest of us using a common understanding. Taking high risk/high reward players over guys who are going to be good but never great is gambling in the draft world. Taking OL is safe and hardly ever a gamble. While many times taking the third or 4th rated quarterback in the first round is a much bigger gamble.

[frash.exe]

Too many people seem to undervalue the importance of keeping our QB "clean"

wouldn't surprise me one bit to see OL be our first round pick.

if the team didn't pick one first round, they wouldn't undervalue protecting cam any more than NE would undervalue protecting Brady

[X-Clown]

Do you think the guys we have are problems for Evans and Nicks in New Orleans? To attack your biggest rival's strength, you need solid DTs. Brockers and Edwards is a good start.

I dont think nicks will even be there next year, but even if he is, the lions got no push up the middle against them with Suh, Corey Williams, and Fairley. What makes you think that Edwards and Brockers is going to solve that?

[panther4life]

They were great examples. In addition to what RB brought up, we believed in Newton but it is always a gamble picking a guy with little pro-experience coming from a spread offense. What we gambled on was that Newton would be driven to work his butt off and that Chud and Shula could bring him along and develop him.

As for Stewart regardless of whether we knew the surgeons or not, there is always risk in taking a guy who is coming off surgery especially when there were many other guys out there who had no issues at all. Hurney took a risk and it paid off.

Every draft pick is a gamble to some degree. If you wanted to cite that Hurney is willing to gamble or take higher risk/reward type of chances then the trades he does would be good examples. Or taking a guy like Thomas Davis without knowing if he'd be a safety or a LB.(Only thing we new for sure was that he was brought in to help stop Vick).

The Newton one, I think too much time and research was dedicated towards learning about him to consider him one of the higher risk. Fug what the media says or other teams leak or even us fans think before the draft. I mean hell look at all the things they said they did to find out about him and every where they turned it was all positive. I even remember them giving each QB a small playbook before their pro day or something and then we quized them later.

Jonathan Stewart's surgery was on his big toe. Not exactly a career threatening injury. If it was an acl or something like that I would agree with you. But it was his big toe and done by our own team doctors.

So once again while Marty will do some riskier things(stuff most other GM'S would not) on draft days I just can't agree that Newton or Stewart are good examples of such

[Guest Bwood15]

Too many people seem to undervalue the importance of keeping our QB "clean"

wouldn't surprise me one bit to see OL be our first round pick.

Too many people seem to undervalue the importance of getting the opposing teams QB on the ground as much as possible.

I just witnessed the giants win their second super bowl with great defense.

[pdandy1994]

Who knows who the Panthers will take? All I know is that I trust the FO to make the best pick possible for the team. If thats Brockers, I'll stand behind it, just like I did with Cam and everyone else did with Cam, and years past.

[rayzor]

Obviously your definition of a gamble is different that what the rest of us are talking about. Taking a draft pick by rolling the dice and hoping to get lucky would be akin to puttiing all the draftees in a hat and randomly pulling out a name and calling that your first pick. Who would do that?? Obviously not someone who expected to be there for the next draft.

Rolling the dice and hoping you get lucky without understanding the odds and having a plan is not gambling, it is stupidity. Successful gambling involves controlling the odds, taking calculated risks based on what you know and observe and taking less or more risk based on when the odds are in your favor. That is the kind of gambling we are talking about. It isn't agreeing to disagree as much as helping you to get on the same page as the rest of us using a common understanding. Taking high risk/high reward players over guys who are going to be good but never great is gambling in the draft world. Taking OL is safe and hardly ever a gamble. While many times taking the third or 4th rated quarterback in the first round is a much bigger gamble.

a good gambler will bank on having knowledge or insight that others ( or the majority) don't. they are banking on their ability to assess the situation is better than the ones they are playing against.

in this case, conventional opinion was that newton was too raw and the system that he came from didn't translate to the pro game mainly because it wasn't a "pro-style" offense. he was too much of a project to warrant the overall first pick. he wasn't viewed by the majority to be the most talented player in the draft. wasn't even viewed by most to be the best QB even.

there was the "history is a predictor of future events" nonsense that people bought into seeing that there had not been a "dual threat" or "running QB" that had ever really been successful in the league, esp. for a long period of time. for the most ignorant and narrowminded, there were those who said that since there had never been a black QB to win a superbowl that showed it couldn't happen. i even saw that argument in here.

there was also the those who bought what that nawrocki clown was selling (and he wasn't the only one that heard those things from "unnamed sources" 'close' to the situation). there were those that looked at his troubles in florida and then the "pay to play" stories and allegations that came out and thought that this kid was nothing but trouble and wouldn't be worth a first overall pick.

those were the easy and lazy ways of looking at newton and they proved to be inaccurate and way too limited. JR, hurney, and rivera decided to do their own research rather than going on the assumptions that others had made and did what seemed foolish to others. they gambled with that pick. they were banking on their ability to assess the situation was better than the ones they were playing against.

[ed bell]

Begs the question how much credence team scouts and coaching staffs give to published in-depth draft prospect evaluations when they can get all the access to the player that they could possibly want? Basically read those reports for consideration, but make up their own minds....

[rayzor]

Begs the question how much credence team scouts and coaching staffs give to published in-depth draft prospect evaluations when they can get all the access to the player that they could possibly want? Basically read those reports for consideration, but make up their own minds....

none. a couple of these guys might have a source or two that are somewhat credible, but for the most part they are hack wannabes who get defensive when they are questioned about things they say.

i doubt teams read any of them. teams might feed things to some of these guys at the combine, pro days, or senior bowl type events but i think even then they aren't given an actual opinion...more just misinformation.

i think that these reports could be useful in planting seeds of doubt or help some with making people believe that where there's smoke there's fire, but for the most part i doubt any team considers these reports as viable. they have whole staffs hired to do what these guys do independently and with much less resources.

[panthers55]

a good gambler will bank on having knowledge or insight that others ( or the majority) don't. they are banking on their ability to assess the situation is better than the ones they are playing against.

in this case, conventional opinion was that newton was too raw and the system that he came from didn't translate to the pro game mainly because it wasn't a "pro-style" offense. he was too much of a project to warrant the overall first pick. he wasn't viewed by the majority to be the most talented player in the draft. wasn't even viewed by most to be the best QB even.

there was the "history is a predictor of future events" nonsense that people bought into seeing that there had not been a "dual threat" or "running QB" that had ever really been successful in the league, esp. for a long period of time. for the most ignorant and narrowminded, there were those who said that since there had never been a black QB to win a superbowl that showed it couldn't happen. i even saw that argument in here.

there was also the those who bought what that nawrocki clown was selling (and he wasn't the only one that heard those things from "unnamed sources" 'close' to the situation). there were those that looked at his troubles in florida and then the "pay to play" stories and allegations that came out and thought that this kid was nothing but trouble and wouldn't be worth a first overall pick.

those were the easy and lazy ways of looking at newton and they proved to be inaccurate and way too limited. JR, hurney, and rivera decided to do their own research rather than going on the assumptions that others had made and did what seemed foolish to others. they gambled with that pick. they were banking on their ability to assess the situation was better than the ones they were playing against.

Good analysis. As you note gamblers, particularly successful ones, are able to glean information from various sources, sift through lots of information and formulate a strategy which more times than not serves them well. What appears from the outside to be luck is in fact skill mixed with understanding of the situation. Knowing what we did about Stewart for example and Newton lessened the odds of a bust and while still a gamble was less so than if we had operated with little or no information.

Obviously some folks on here don't seem to understand that gambling still involves taking chances and risks and that understanding the lay of the land and having insider information is all part of the process. It doesn't mean you still aren't gambling, it means you have a perceived edge you are using to minimize the risk. Do you still lose sometimes even with the best information? Of course, that is why it is still gambling, but reducing the odds is plain smart and Hurney is surely that. Can you misread things and make mistakes. Sure just like we did with Jarrett and Brown. You just have to make sure you get it right more than you do wrong.

[panthers55]

none. a couple of these guys might have a source or two that are somewhat credible, but for the most part they are hack wannabes who get defensive when they are questioned about things they say.

i doubt teams read any of them. teams might feed things to some of these guys at the combine, pro days, or senior bowl type events but i think even then they aren't given an actual opinion...more just misinformation.

i think that these reports could be useful in planting seeds of doubt or help some with making people believe that where there's smoke there's fire, but for the most part i doubt any team considers these reports as viable. they have whole staffs hired to do what these guys do independently and with much less resources.

I think I heard an interview with Hurney and Rivera (it might have been a PSL call) where they were asked whether they listened to any of the analysts before they made their picks and they both laughed and said they don't pay any attention to that. They seemed to imply that when your future depends on making the right choices, you do your own homework and form your own opinions rather than counting on those of others.

After all if Kiper is wrong about Newton it means nothing. If we had been wrong after picking him with the first pick, we would have had to live with it for years to come and cost us tens of millions of dollars.

[panther4life]

They seemed to imply that when your future depends on making the right choices, you do your own homework and form your own opinions rather than counting on those of others.

After all if Kiper is wrong about Newton it means nothing. If we had been wrong after picking him with the first pick, we would have had to live with it for years to come and cost us tens of millions of dollars.

Thank you captain obvious.*joking*.

On a more serious note I think we are on the same page now about the Hurney "Gambling", I just reacted too quick yesterday without digesting what you meant, so my bad. Just depends on how you look at it, but either way we both agree there is varying levels of calculated risk when dealing with the draft.

[DaCityKats]

I think I heard an interview with Hurney and Rivera (it might have been a PSL call) where they were asked whether they listened to any of the analysts before they made their picks and they both laughed and said they don't pay any attention to that. They seemed to imply that when your future depends on making the right choices, you do your own homework and form your own opinions rather than counting on those of others.

After all if Kiper is wrong about Newton it means nothing. If we had been wrong after picking him with the first pick, we would have had to live with it for years to come and cost us tens of millions of dollars.

exactly no team buys into what Kiper, McShay or Mayock thinks. i went to a coaching clinic and Jay Cullen ex Jags DL coach called all draftniks a joke. he said how they gave them a bad grade and said they reached for Tyson Alualu with the 10th pick. but he ended up having a decent rookie season and they all changed their minds after the season. he also said you dont wait, you take your guy when your pick comes up.

[panthers55]

Thank you captain obvious.*joking*.

On a more serious note I think we are on the same page now about the Hurney "Gambling", I just reacted too quick yesterday without digesting what you meant, so my bad. Just depends on how you look at it, but either way we both agree there is varying levels of calculated risk when dealing with the draft.

What seems obvious to me still seems to elude others. My sig says it all.

If you know what I mean, vern..............