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!

     

What happened to the Warmack bandwagons?

nctarheel0619

By nctarheel0619,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

What gets me is the fact that 1/2 this damn forum is all over how bad our offensive line was. Yet no one thinks taking Warmack or Cooper is a good idea. No way either of these two fall out of the first round. And definitely not to 44.

Gettlemen is a from an organization that believed in strength in the LINES. IMO Warmack and Cooper are definitely an option in there. I would say that if either is available we will take one of them before we take Richardson at DT.

no one really thinks that they will last into the second round, esp. to 44. i just said that's about where i would feel comfortable drafting them.

i, along with most people, just don't see the sense in drafting an OG in the first round. it just doesn't make that much of an impact compared to other positions.

do we need help at RG? absolutely. do we need to be reaching up into the first round to get it? nah....not when you can find solid players elsewhere.

regardless, we haven't met with any OG that is slated to go anywhere near the first round. the only OG we talked to is

Edmond Kugbila and i had to do a cut and paste on that because he's nowhere near a household name which lets you know how seriously they are looking into picking up an RG in the first. they have talked to lane johnson and dj fluker, tho, and fluker is believed to be someone who could make the shift to RG, but i don't know that is what we had in mind when we met with him.

and yes, gettleman does come from an organization who believed in the strength of their lines...but what did they have invested in them from a draft pick standpoint? they haven't drafted an OL in the first round since 1999 and the last OT was in 1988. they just have had the view that you can wait and address it later and they trust their judgement...and gettleman was part of that braintrust. he knows what pro-level players look like and he knows that you can find them later as evidenced by all pro and pro-bowl OL and esp. OGs being drafted in many different rounds.

i just don't think it's the first round priority or even will be a tendency to draft OL in the first. it for sure isn't necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaveThePanther2008 Grand Master

DaveThePanther2008

Posted
Posted

no one really thinks that they will last into the second round, esp. to 44. i just said that's about where i would feel comfortable drafting them.

i, along with most people, just don't see the sense in drafting an OG in the first round. it just doesn't make that much of an impact compared to other positions.

do we need help at RG? absolutely. do we need to be reaching up into the first round to get it? nah....not when you can find solid players elsewhere.

regardless, we haven't met with any OG that is slated to go anywhere near the first round. the only OG we talked to is

Edmond Kugbila and i had to do a cut and paste on that because he's nowhere near a household name which lets you know how seriously they are looking into picking up an RG in the first. they have talked to lane johnson and dj fluker, tho, and fluker is believed to be someone who could make the shift to RG, but i don't know that is what we had in mind when we met with him.

and yes, gettleman does come from an organization who believed in the strength of their lines...but what did they have invested in them from a draft pick standpoint? they haven't drafted an OL in the first round since 1999 and the last OT was in 1988. they just have had the view that you can wait and address it later and they trust their judgement...and gettleman was part of that braintrust. he knows what pro-level players look like and he knows that you can find them later as evidenced by all pro and pro-bowl OL and esp. OGs being drafted in many different rounds.

i just don't think it's the first round priority or even will be a tendency to draft OL in the first. it for sure isn't necessary.

.

I hear you.

Outside of Star and Sherif there really isn't a player I think is worthy of #14. Everyone is all over the balls of Austin and I am not sold. They rant and raved about M. Crabtree when he came out of Cincinnati. It took him 4 seasons before he finally broke 1000 yds receiving. Granted he finally got a QB that would throw him the ball. But part of it is it took him that long to be a star. I feel the same about Austin. It isn't like Austin played in a great conference against great talent.

I would prefer to opt out of 14 and trade down. If a trade doesn't happen then any player we take is going to be a reach at 14. No matter who we take, including Austin, Patterson or Keenan. Cooper and Warmack are beast and probably as NFL ready as any other choice.

I will say this. I doubt I would be upset at any pick we took as long as it isn't QB or a Kicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

i think people are expecting too much from a #14. they are looking through the eyes of a team that has been picking in the top 10 for a while. they are expecting top 10 talent, which you most likely aren't going to be finding at 14.

at 14 there's a lot of possible good starters at several positions. beyond just a handful of players at the top of this draft, there's really not a whole lot of separation between the next bunch of players you're going to find in the next round and a half and i think that's the reason for a lot of the dislike of the players available when we pick...it's not head and shoulders above talent you can find later, but that's more to do with the talent in this draft than lack of talent at 14. we can trade back and still do well, but even if we don't we'll still be picking up a really good player/starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

So one of the best guard prospects in years and played for a national championship team isnt worth 14th overall pick or a first round pick but a 5'8 slot receiver is???.....................Great huddle logic.

it is...because one of those guys is a guard. you don't miss out on much by passing one up in the first. that's why most teams are going to be passing them by. teams late in the draft who might pick one up are usually ones who don't have many needs and can afford to burn a pick on a guard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CPF4LIFE Grand Master

CPF4LIFE

Posted
Posted

it is...because one of those guys is a guard. you don't miss out on much by passing one up in the first. that's why most teams are going to be passing them by. teams late in the draft who might pick one up are usually ones who don't have many needs and can afford to burn a pick on a guard.

Dude.......tell that to the niners, they used 2 top 20 picks on Offensive linemen and its paying off pretty well for them. Damn well. You can never have enough talent on a offensive line to the point it doesnt matter how talented your QB is. You can still win. Lets not even get into how good we would be if we had that talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TANTRIC-NINJA Community Regular

TANTRIC-NINJA

Posted
Posted

So one of the best guard prospects in years and played for a national championship team isnt worth 14th overall pick or a first round pick but a 5'8 slot receiver is???.....................Great huddle logic.

One gives defensive coordinators nighmares the other is a blocker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CPF4LIFE Grand Master

CPF4LIFE

Posted
Posted

dude.....tell that to all the successful teams who have good olines who don't draft them very often at all in the first.

dude....

And i guarantee you those teams arent going deep into the playoffs consistently every year and able to switch Qbs like its nothing as well...........DUDE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

And i guarantee you those teams arent going deep into the playoffs consistently every year and able to switch Qbs like its nothing as well...........DUDE.

looking back at the OL taken in the first round and who took them the last 10 years...neither the giants nor the colts took one.

the saints, green bay, pats, houston, and falcons have only taken 1 in the first round in 10 years and the one the saints drafted isn't on the team anymore.

the ravens, seahawks, denver, and bears have only drafted 2 in the first round in 10 years.

the steelers and 49ers took 4 and only 3 are with the 49ers still and 2 with the steelers.

comparing OL taken in first vs. second.... there's been 100 OL taken in the first two rounds since 2002. 48 in the first and 52 in the second. 34 of 48 are still active who were taken in the first compared to 33 of 52 in the second. there just isn't that much difference. looking at the 3rd round there have been 53 taken in that time frame and 34 of those are still active so even then it's not that big of a deal and you can find pro-bowlers, all-pro, and even just starters all through those rounds.

point is, teams do just fine without taking OL in the first round. taking more isn't a sign of greatness and it isn't the path to being a perennial contender. it's a path that some teams might use, but not many at all have. it's just not the crucial piece people make it out to be. you can find good value in the 2nd and later and teams usually do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

Yea I subscribe to the theory that most teams picking between 1 and 15 have allot more needs than a OG.I look as it as a pick for a team that is only missing a guard to make a run.I say he slips.

agreed. typically the only teams taking an OG in the first really don't have that much in the way of holes to fill.
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

    • csx
      How long do you feel it takes for a head coach to turn a team around?

      By csx · Posted

      Canales has his msjor issue not doing the obvious regarding running Dowdle but with an average QB we would be in the playoffs with an average QB. 
    • kungfoodude
      How long do you feel it takes for a head coach to turn a team around?

      By kungfoodude · Posted

      1. fug TikTak, I ain't clicking that stupid poo. 2. This is really very situationally dependent. Coaching is a huge part but sometimes you step into a scenario where a lot of building needs to happen that is largely out of your control  Recent examples(Last season's hiring cycle): 1. Ben Johnson Johnson chose the OVERWHELMINGLY best open coaching job due to a combination of solid ownership, a solid front office and the most talented roster of the open jobs from that cycle. Negatives were, insanely stacked division. Results have so far indicated that this coaching change has been a massive boost. 2. Mike Vrabel Vrabel went a different direction. He went to a franchise that has solid ownership, a mediocre front office and one of the worst roster in the NFL. However, he has a track record of NFL head coaching success AND lucked into one of the easiest schedules in NFL history(I believe 3rd easiest). Even with that caveat, a clear indicator that coaching has been a huge boost. 3. Pete Carroll Carroll chose one of the NFL's most voliate franchises. Notoriously bad ownership, very bad front office and a terrible roster. But, Carroll is a HOF caliber NFL HC with success at every stop. At the moment, coaching has not been able to overcome the apparent obstacles. In fact, it's been a complete diaster to the extent that Carroll has already fired multiple coaches. One could certainly argue that pethaps Pete has lost his touch but regardless, this coaching change didn't result in a turnaround and Carroll's future there seems in doubt. 4. Aaron Glenn Glenn's first HC opportunity was a doozy. Near worst ownership, a mediocre front office(at best) and a talented core group of players on an underwhelming roster. This experiment has been quite the ride to date. Glenn's personnel decisions have seemingly led to multiple close game losses(2-5 in games decided by one score or less) and the FO decided to have a roster firesale prior to the trade deadline for a wealth of draft capital. The question will be if Glenn will be given the time to actually see this future draft capital realized, now that a significant chunk of the talented core is not longer there. Coaching has not made a difference but is the franchise now setting him up to fail further? 5. Liam Coen Coen picked a mixed bag. Terrible ownership, a remade front office he essentially had a hand in selecting(or at the miminum influenced) and a middling roster. The early results show promise even if the roster shows significant flaws(and Coen shows visible frustration with his "franchise" QB every Sunday). Could be close to turning a 4 win team into a playoff berth. Coaching has mattered. 6. Brian Schottenheimer This was resoundingly viewed as a bad hire but it's also under challenging circumstances. Bad ownership in the sense that the ownership is also the front office, a future Tepper dream I assume. Very talented but very flawed roster. The initial results have been...interesting. A Cowboys team that was a bad 7-10 after a previous streak of three 12 win seasons is now....mediocre? Couple that with wild roster changes prior to the start of the season and up to the trade deadline and it makes for an incomplete picture. It's not much progress but it doesn’t appear to be regressing either. TBD. 6. Kellen Moore Moore chose the most challenging of all openings. The Saints are in the midst of a simulateous roster teardown and attempted rebuild. Decent ownership, a mixed bag in the front office(great at evaluating draft talent, less so in free agency and in salary cap management). The Saints have been awful but, they were expected to be awful. To that note, they were net sellers before the trade deadline. It was reported that Moore secured an agreement that this is long term building effort prior to taking the position so his status seems safe even while the team flounders week to week. Difficult to grade this now as the entire scenario seems to be a long term strategy. TBD.
    • Tr3ach
      How long do you feel it takes for a head coach to turn a team around?

      By Tr3ach · Posted

      I think he has started to build a culture here.  I think if we had a qb with no limitations we would be seeing a lot more with the offense.  I think most of the coaches that come in and instantly win went to teams that were underachieving previously based on roster talent level.  Based on our roster talent,  we werent underachieving,  we were just bad.
×
×
  • Create New...