Panthers Apparently "love" Luke Kuechly

[thefuzz]

I can't have any more discussions with people who think that ILB's and RB's are the best indicators of success in the NFL.

[cotblock]

I can't have any more discussions with people who think that ILB's and RB's are the best indicators of success in the NFL.

Excellent straw man! Congratulations. Have a cookie.

[panthers55]

I can't have any more discussions with people who think that ILB's and RB's are the best indicators of success in the NFL.

Don't go until you tell us about what it is like to work in the front office for an NFL team and what they all think.

[DaCityKats]

Actually Kearse played at the 1 and the 3 technique, they rotated guys in at both positions as they were trying to figure who gave them the best matchups. Shirley rotated in at NT as well but that didn't stop him from getting penetration. Kearse was fine I was just pointing out that he was not better than Shirley or Neblett.

Shirley was also in during passing situations and thats when he went to NT.they knew he could push the pocket,i do not remember Kearse lining up at a 3,and why would they when they knew he was more of a clogger, than a disruptor.

[frash.exe]

Actually to say you know what successful front offices think, you would have to interview all of them or have at least worked in one.

And the argument about not drafting RBs and ILBs high in the draft is irrelevant to us and what we should do. So whoever drafts RIchardson in the first will be a bad franchise because they did that, right? And whoever drafts a linebacker n the first will be a bad team because of it right or only bad teams will do it right???

So I guess drafting Jamal Lewis in Baltimore in the first round in 2000 which propelled them to win the Super bowl was a mistake and they were a bad team.

I guess Shaun Alexander in 2000 which propelled the Seahawks to a string of NFC West titles was a mistake and they were a bd team.

I guess LaDainian Thomas for the Chargers in 2001 was a bad first round pickup because we know how he sucked nd ho bad they were.

I guess picking up Deuce McCalister in 2001 draft was a big mistake and while the Saints weren't great, they would have been much worse without him. He ended up as the all time leading rusher for them.

I guess picking up Larry Johnson was a real mistake for Kansas City as well. And he didn't help them improve at all right??

I guess Steven Jackson hasn't been a stud for St Louis and was a total waste of a pick in the first round in 2004.

I guess Wiliams and Stewart were wasted picks for us because after all they haven't helped us all and they ar reason we hhave struggled over the past 5 years right?

I guess Adrian Peterson was a bad pick for the Vikings and was a waste when he was drafted in 2007.

I could go on but that is enough right now. When I get the time or inclination I can do the linebackers picked in the first. But the bottom line to make a generalization that picking running backs in the first round is a bad idea is naive at best. Can you find good guys later on in the draft as well? Of course. But picking what is usually the best back in football is hardly a bad idea or a sign you are a crappy franchise.

This is not a good argument btw

[koolkatluke]

I like the list of FA LB more then DT, CB, and DE. At this point.

[thefuzz]

Don't go until you tell us about what it is like to work in the front office for an NFL team and what they all think.

Don't have to bud. You are fighting an uphill battle.

The most consistent teams in the NFL don't agree with you or place as much emphasis on the RB or ILB position as you and Marty Hurney do.

You don't have to work in a FO to see that, all you have to do is look at players drafted, when they draft them, and how much they pay them.

[cotblock]

Don't have to bud. You are fighting an uphill battle.

The most consistent teams in the NFL don't agree with you or place as much emphasis on the RB or ILB position as you and Marty Hurney do.

You don't have to work in a FO to see that, all you have to do is look at players drafted, when they draft them, and how much they pay them.

That's absolute nonsense. Where teams draft players is based on a whole variety of factors, primarily including the size of the talent pool at a particular position and team needs.

[CRA]

Then you should see plenty of ILB's going in the first, as there are 2 more ILB's when playing the 34.

What it means is that the positions value is diminishing in todays NFL.

Go back and take a look at how often RB was drafted really high in the past...like say 30 years, and compare it to today. Same can be said for LB.

Order of importance goes a little something like this: QB, DE, OT, DT, CB.

The positions that Hurney likes to draft high, and resign for major bucks is not high on that list. LB's and RB's that don't rush the passer are no longer "cogs" like they once were.

Different scheme. Ray Lewis I think most agree is the best LB in the game for easily the last 15 years or so......Lewis says MLB in the 4-3 is tougher to play than ILB in the 3-4. You need a great MLB if you run a 4-3.

There are fewer 43 Ds so that hurts the numbers. LB is still important....especially MLB. Luke can play WLB or SLB....and most importantly courted out MLB if needed..... And that could be a realistic reality

[CRA]

Don't have to bud. You are fighting an uphill battle.

The most consistent teams in the NFL don't agree with you or place as much emphasis on the RB or ILB position as you and Marty Hurney do.

You don't have to work in a FO to see that, all you have to do is look at players drafted, when they draft them, and how much they pay them.

Name overall the 3 best defensive teams over the last decade in your opinion.

[thefuzz]

That's absolute nonsense. Where teams draft players is based on a whole variety of factors, primarily including the size of the talent pool at a particular position and team needs.

The positions that teams draft in the first round is very telling.

The Giants have not picked a LB or a RB in the first since 2000.

The Eagles have not picked a LB or a RB in the first since 1986

Those are two of the most consistent teams in the NFC that run the 43 that there has been in the last 10 years.

Since the Giants last picked either position we have picked 2 RB's, 3 LB's, and we are in a thread advocating the pick of yet another LB.

Sounds like good logic.

[thefuzz]

Name overall the 3 best defensive teams over the last decade in your opinion.

Steelers, Ravens, Giants.

1 Inside LB chosen in the last 10 years by these teams combined. IIRC

[cotblock]

The positions that teams draft in the first round is very telling.

The Giants have not picked a LB or a RB in the first since 2000.

The Eagles have not picked a LB or a RB in the first since 1986

Those are two of the most consistent teams in the NFC that run the 43 that there has been in the last 10 years.

You think so? Over that span, the avg. overall defensive rank for Philadelphia is 11.7. For the Giants it's 15.2. For Carolina it's 12.5. Want to try again?

Since the Giants last picked either position we have picked 2 RB's, 3 LB's, and we are in a thread advocating the pick of yet another LB.

Sounds like good logic.

Yeah. Um. Come back when you have statistics that actually back up your argument.

[iamcline]

This thread is golden.