1st round CB

[Woodie]

I am not fully buying the BPA approach (or I do not know what that means to the Panthers), but I can say that a lot depends on how much the Panthers actually believe the talk about the the young WRs or the "Bell to LT" project.

 

I do not expect a T to worth the 28th pick to be there at 28, and I think there are going to be WRs 28-75 that are all about equal.  So.......

 

There are positions that could attract Gettlemen that are both BPA (?) AND needs--but you have to remember one thing--the needs are not necessarily for 2014.  Gettlemen is looking longer term.  Most rookies go through adjustments and some hit the wall.  If you are drafting for 2014, you are probably making a mistake in some cases

 

About CB, we could take a player like Fuller, but I doubt it.  CBs are not "QBs, TD scorers, hog miollies, pass rushers" (the players Gettlemen said he likes).  I think CB in this defense is not prioritized.  I think he wants to be strong up the middle DT, MLB and S.  I think he wants the pass rushers. 

 

If not a WR or OT, I think it could be a S or a DE.  I think we know we will be without CJ or Hardy in 2015. 

 

Good thread.  Makes us think outside the box.

 

I think this is a very important point.  There is no consensus definition of what BPA is.  Some try to categorize it as overall BPA and some say BPA from a position of need. 

 

IMO, the truth is that they really are one and the same.  There is no such thing as overall BPA, because a player that has no value for you cannot be the best player that is available...at least for you.  For instance, If we had the #1 pick last year, Andrew Luck would not have been BPA because we have Cam, so Luck would have held no value as a player.  The value is what other teams place on him, resulting in a potential trade.  Therefore, BPA is simply the value a team places on how much a player will help the team.

 

People like to use Kalil and Luke as examples of us taking overall BPA regardless of need.  But that's not the case.  The team identified them as filling immediate needs in roles other than their college positions (Kalil started as a Guard, Luke at OLB), while also filling potential future needs at their natural positions...therefore, they had value as players.  But if the team didn't see any need for them, and didn't plan on or expect them to even see the field, then they would have held no value to the team, thus they would not have been BPA on their board.  

 

Using the Cam and Luck example, as things are, Luck would have held no value as a player for us because Cam is young, a star in the making, and we plan on keeping him long-term.  So, he would not have been BPA for us.  However, lets pretend that Cam was a 16 year veteran about to enter the last year of his contract, then Luck would have held value as a player since he could fill a future need as Cam's replacement. 

 

Bottom line, BPA is very subjective, and varies from team to team based on their needs and future plans.

 

       

[Woodie]

The draft gurus tab him as a nickle corner, not something I feel a first round pick should be spent on.

 

Depends on who you listen to.  Many label him as a nickel, then describe him with the skill set of someone that can play any role.  The bottom line is that most of the nickel labeling come from his height, but his skill set is that of someone that can play inside or out. 

 

My main point is not to question where he is best fit, but to say that while he may not have the desired height, he plays big.  Go watch some clips, and you'll see him do well against all types of receivers.  Even during combine coverage they were talking about how his height doesn't really hurt him because he plays smart and and has the skills to dictate where the receiver goes.  And Deon said that a lack of height might keep a CB from being able to go for interceptions in certain situations, if he knows how to play (and Verrett does), he should be in position to get a hand in and prevent the receiver from coming down with the ball.  Nobody there had any question about Verrett's ability to be a legitimate starting CB in the league.  

 

[micnificent28]

I don't think at this point it's possible for us to take anything on defense before offense. look at the signings we made on defense. were ok there no matter what.

[MHS831]

I think this is a very important point.  There is no consensus definition of what BPA is.  Some try to categorize it as overall BPA and some say BPA from a position of need. 

 

IMO, the truth is that they really are one and the same.  There is no such thing as overall BPA, because a player that has no value for you cannot be the best player that is available...at least for you.  For instance, If we had the #1 pick last year, Andrew Luck would not have been BPA because we have Cam, so Luck would have held no value as a player.  The value is what other teams place on him, resulting in a potential trade.  Therefore, BPA is simply the value a team places on how much a player will help the team.

 

People like to use Kalil and Luke as examples of us taking overall BPA regardless of need.  But that's not the case.  The team identified them as filling immediate needs in roles other than their college positions (Kalil started as a Guard, Luke at OLB), while also filling potential future needs at their natural positions...therefore, they had value as players.  But if the team didn't see any need for them, and didn't plan on or expect them to even see the field, then they would have held no value to the team, thus they would not have been BPA on their board.  

 

Using the Cam and Luck example, as things are, Luck would have held no value as a player for us because Cam is young, a star in the making, and we plan on keeping him long-term.  So, he would not have been BPA for us.  However, lets pretend that Cam was a 16 year veteran about to enter the last year of his contract, then Luck would have held value as a player since he could fill a future need as Cam's replacement. 

 

Bottom line, BPA is very subjective, and varies from team to team based on their needs and future plans.

 

Well stated.  I think there are things that factor in as well that most draftniks like us fail to consider because our job is not to consider all aspects of the selection, as the GM is paid to do.

 

Existing contracts:  What are you paying guys now vs. how much can you upgrade and save $$ in the draft?  This is something that the new Rookie scale has created.  Before 2011, your first rounder was a big contract, but now, times have changed.  Hardy is tagged and there is not much movement to lock him up long term.  This befuddles some fans, but a long term deal limits options next year.  Johnson's contract is less restrictive in 2015, for example, and the DE crop is better in 2015.  What if Frank Alexander starts beasting in 2014 and Hardy disappears? 

 

Long-term vs. Short-term need: When we draft a player, it is for the long haul, not merely 2014.  However, people get upset with the one year contracts because they are stop-gap and not building a roster (in their eyes) but then expect the GM to draft players and give them 4-year deals to fill immediate needs.  Some positions take time to develop, and players are not natural fits.  Knowing the maturation of a player, the free agent and draft markets going forward, and the current roster are critical.  Think about drafting for 2014 needs--the players get no time to develop and learn the system and they often hit "the rookie wall". So you get a slow start and a slow finish in many cases. I think you need to look farther down the road when you draft.

 

Scarcity of the Position: Take a look at salaries today and you can clearly see how rare a good player at a particular position is--and it is a fluid process.  For example, above - average QBs are making $18-20 million.  A top DE is making $15 million.  A stud LT is making $14 million.  SO, it only makes sense that you want to draft one of these positions if you can because 1. they are hard to find, and 2. they save more money (for the length of the rookie contract). If I draft a RB in the first round (like Cleveland did) when they could have drafted a DE, they minimize the savings. Sure, they needed a RB in 2013, but RBs are cheap.  If you can use a rookie to fill a spot that costs you $10 million or more with a veteran, then you are in better position to find talent at other positions.  I think the Panthers should have a rotation at DE.  One veteran, one rookie contract at all times--like it was in 2013. 

 

Upside:  Some players have little upside and others are loaded.  Lately, some are questioning Alabama players in the NFL.  They are coming in banged up or maxed out in terms of potential.  They are better (on paper) because they are surrounded with better talent, some say, and when they have to carry a team, they cannot.  For Example, Cyrus (LT, Alabama) has a chronic knee issue that some scouts fear will end his pro career prematurely.   If you ask me, I would rather have Turner (LOT, N. Dakota St) because he will blossom into a better pro, in my opinion.  This is not profound stuff, but a lot of players who are maxed out tend to become busts.

 

Skill Set, physical attributes, divisional foes :  Teams are looking for certain attributes in players and, at times, they seem to override talent and upside.  Seattle seems to have showed the league you can win with big, 4.6 40 CBs found on day 3 of the draft.  Now everyone is looking for big.  The Panthers are giving that impression to me as well, going with the six footers at CB and WR. In fact, at WR, we seem to be focusing (according to visiting players) on route running and catching radius.  Cam throws high when he is off, so don't expect Brandin Cook (5'9") in the draft.  In addition, the strengths of divisional foes tend to determine what we do as well.  Remember when we took Thomas Davis with the 10th overall pick?  He was an answer to Michael Vick. 

 

So what is BPA?  Remember, all of the mocks take a look a look at the needs of a team and they create a big board based on the general talent-level of the players in the draft. If the Panthers need WR, OT, CB, then they will slide the top ranked OT over and insist that is what we are going to do.  I disagree.

 

Yes, we will find a T and a WR in this draft because it is good for both, but DE is not showing up as a need on any list.  If Gettelmen does not want to be handcuffed by Hardy/Johnson entering Cam's deal, do you think he might take Ealy if he is sitting there at #28?  Ealy would save $10m the day he is drafted.  Do you think he does not value the FS position?  Strong up the middle, remember.  If no WR or T is there, would he grab Pryor or Clinton-Dix?  Yessireee. 

 

So, it is my opinion that BPA has little meaning, for the most part. Don't get me wrong, if there is a top center sitting there in the fifth round and we have yet to draft a CB, we could go C.  Then we shop Kalil in 2015, drop a huge contract, and get younger.  That is the way it works.

 

 

[Matthias]

Let's assume for a minute that the value at OT and WR aren't there in the first. In that scenario the next most likely position should be CB. Assuming that is the case, who would you want?

I really like Fuller. He fits our scheme perfectly, is big and talented and is likely to be available around our pick.

What say you?

 

 

I'm of the belief that this coaching staff sucks at developing corners.  So unless there was a cornerback at 28 who is already fundamentally sound, I'd say no all the way. (No matter his upside)  Now we did bring in Cason, and I feel he will bring stability to our corner position.  So we could draft a corner in the later rounds.

[DaveThePanther2008]

I don't think our system calls for 1st round CBs.

 

Shame on us if we pass on a solid CB in the first round because "our system doesn't call for a 1st round CB".

 

Why reach on a player that isn't a 1st round caliber OT or WR?   

[Jackofalltrades]

Shame on us if we pass on a solid CB in the first round because "our system doesn't call for a 1st round CB".

Why reach on a player that isn't a 1st round caliber OT or WR?

Agree, and how nice would it be to have a guy to put their best receiver on lock down? Give the front four more time to work?

My preference is offense, but a CB as BPA doesn't bother me at all.

[Woodie]

Well stated.  I think there are things that factor in as well that most draftniks like us fail to consider because our job is not to consider all aspects of the selection, as the GM is paid to do.

 

Existing contracts:  What are you paying guys now vs. how much can you upgrade and save $$ in the draft?  This is something that the new Rookie scale has created.  Before 2011, your first rounder was a big contract, but now, times have changed.  Hardy is tagged and there is not much movement to lock him up long term.  This befuddles some fans, but a long term deal limits options next year.  Johnson's contract is less restrictive in 2015, for example, and the DE crop is better in 2015.  What if Frank Alexander starts beasting in 2014 and Hardy disappears? 

 

Long-term vs. Short-term need: When we draft a player, it is for the long haul, not merely 2014.  However, people get upset with the one year contracts because they are stop-gap and not building a roster (in their eyes) but then expect the GM to draft players and give them 4-year deals to fill immediate needs.  Some positions take time to develop, and players are not natural fits.  Knowing the maturation of a player, the free agent and draft markets going forward, and the current roster are critical.  Think about drafting for 2014 needs--the players get no time to develop and learn the system and they often hit "the rookie wall". So you get a slow start and a slow finish in many cases. I think you need to look farther down the road when you draft.

 

Scarcity of the Position: Take a look at salaries today and you can clearly see how rare a good player at a particular position is--and it is a fluid process.  For example, above - average QBs are making $18-20 million.  A top DE is making $15 million.  A stud LT is making $14 million.  SO, it only makes sense that you want to draft one of these positions if you can because 1. they are hard to find, and 2. they save more money (for the length of the rookie contract). If I draft a RB in the first round (like Cleveland did) when they could have drafted a DE, they minimize the savings. Sure, they needed a RB in 2013, but RBs are cheap.  If you can use a rookie to fill a spot that costs you $10 million or more with a veteran, then you are in better position to find talent at other positions.  I think the Panthers should have a rotation at DE.  One veteran, one rookie contract at all times--like it was in 2013. 

 

Upside:  Some players have little upside and others are loaded.  Lately, some are questioning Alabama players in the NFL.  They are coming in banged up or maxed out in terms of potential.  They are better (on paper) because they are surrounded with better talent, some say, and when they have to carry a team, they cannot.  For Example, Cyrus (LT, Alabama) has a chronic knee issue that some scouts fear will end his pro career prematurely.   If you ask me, I would rather have Turner (LOT, N. Dakota St) because he will blossom into a better pro, in my opinion.  This is not profound stuff, but a lot of players who are maxed out tend to become busts.

 

Skill Set, physical attributes, divisional foes :  Teams are looking for certain attributes in players and, at times, they seem to override talent and upside.  Seattle seems to have showed the league you can win with big, 4.6 40 CBs found on day 3 of the draft.  Now everyone is looking for big.  The Panthers are giving that impression to me as well, going with the six footers at CB and WR. In fact, at WR, we seem to be focusing (according to visiting players) on route running and catching radius.  Cam throws high when he is off, so don't expect Brandin Cook (5'9") in the draft.  In addition, the strengths of divisional foes tend to determine what we do as well.  Remember when we took Thomas Davis with the 10th overall pick?  He was an answer to Michael Vick. 

 

So what is BPA?  Remember, all of the mocks take a look a look at the needs of a team and they create a big board based on the general talent-level of the players in the draft. If the Panthers need WR, OT, CB, then they will slide the top ranked OT over and insist that is what we are going to do.  I disagree.

 

Yes, we will find a T and a WR in this draft because it is good for both, but DE is not showing up as a need on any list.  If Gettelmen does not want to be handcuffed by Hardy/Johnson entering Cam's deal, do you think he might take Ealy if he is sitting there at #28?  Ealy would save $10m the day he is drafted.  Do you think he does not value the FS position?  Strong up the middle, remember.  If no WR or T is there, would he grab Pryor or Clinton-Dix?  Yessireee. 

 

So, it is my opinion that BPA has little meaning, for the most part. Don't get me wrong, if there is a top center sitting there in the fifth round and we have yet to draft a CB, we could go C.  Then we shop Kalil in 2015, drop a huge contract, and get younger.  That is the way it works.

You're right, there is so much more that goes into draft picks than simple BPA.  Fans have the luxury of falling in love with a player because they go to our favorite college, are great players in college, blow up the combine, have great measurable, or the Mike Mayocks keep telling us how great they are, but teams have to look so much deeper.  All the things you talked about are real considerations that most fans don't even think about. 

 

For instance, a lot of people like Kelvin Benjamin because he's big and can be a great red zone threat, while also helping Cam out with some of his high balls.  But what we don't know is what does the team want it's receivers to do.  Do we even want a receiver to be that guy or do we want a guy that can run crisp routes and be where he's supposed to?  Sure, both would be nice, but if it's a choice, what does the team prefer?  We really don't know.  We just know what we perceived as a weakness and need, but the team may have seen a completely different cause for that weakness.  Instead of the weakness being that we didn't have a guy that was big enough to go up and get some of those high balls and win a jump ball in the end zone, the team may see the weakness as we didn't have anyone but Smitty that could be trusted to be where he was supposed to be.  So, that forced adjustments in play calling as well as Cam having to wait too long and force a ball somewhere he didn't want to. 

 

This is why I don't think there really is a true BPA...there are just too many factors that go into determining who you'll pick that it's not as simple as this guy is the better general player, so we'll take him.  It's also why these so called experts (even the ex-GM's/scouts) rarely get it right and why someone they project in a particular round may go much higher than they rate. 

 

Kugbila is a guy that fits that mold.  Just because most of those analysts didn't have him high on there board, doesn't mean there were teams (us, obviously) that looked at his skill set and felt he fits exactly what we want out of the position.  Yet, most fans make up their own personal draft boards based on what these analyst say, which is why they get so up in arms over a so-called reach...which may be a reach in perception only, not reality.  Just like the Panthers had Kugbila higher than the analysts, whose to say other teams didn't as well (and from what I heard and read, there were several). 

 

This is why, as fans, we can discuss and debate, but ultimately should trust the front office to make the right decision, even if it's a bit counter to what we think...at least until they prove otherwise. 

[Panthro]

I want one of the top 3 TEs

[cgarsmoker]

I don't think our system calls for 1st round CBs.

A good cover corner will improve any defense, regardless of the system you run. It would give us flexibility to run more schemes and mix things up. When you play Drew Brees twice a year, you need all the cover guys you can get.

[tiger7_88]

I'm fine with a 1st round CB if that's where the value is.

 

And Fuller seems to be the possible choice at our position because I highly doubt Dennard and Gilbert will slip that far.

 

But if either Dennard or Gilbert slip, I'd rather have either of those two over Fuller.

 

Do not want Roby or Verett.

[tiger7_88]

 

IMO, the truth is that they really are one and the same.  There is no such thing as overall BPA, because a player that has no value for you cannot be the best player that is available...at least for you.  For instance, If we had the #1 pick last year, Andrew Luck would not have been BPA because we have Cam, so Luck would have held no value as a player.  The value is what other teams place on him, resulting in a potential trade.  Therefore, BPA is simply the value a team places on how much a player will help the team.

 

 

 

You see, this is where I disagree with you.

 

In the situation that you describe, IMO you *still* choose Andrew Luck.  Why?  Because he was FAR AND AWAY the best and most valuable player in that draft.  And you do not pass on him just because you don't "need" him.

 

And why do you not pass on him?  Because as soon as you select him, teams are beating down your door asking you what it would take to get him.  Or (in this same case) Cam.

 

IOW, selecting a guy like Luck in the hypothetical you describe adds value to your team because of what you will MOST ASSUREDLY get in return for one or the other of Luck or Cam.

 

I don't care if you have a 26 year old Tom Brady or Peyton Manning on your team, if a player like Luck is sitting their when you are drafting, you take him.

[tiger7_88]

I want one of the top 3 TEs

 

 

I agree with this.

 

I think adding an Ebron/Amaro/Jenkins/Niklas would add more value to a Shula offense than adding a Cooks/Beckham/Matthews/Benjamin.

 

If Ebron happens to slip in this draft (I doubt he will but *IF*) I'd have my draft card handed in with his name on it faster than we did with Star last year.

[Woodie]

You see, this is where I disagree with you.

 

In the situation that you describe, IMO you *still* choose Andrew Luck.  Why?  Because he was FAR AND AWAY the best and most valuable player in that draft.  And you do not pass on him just because you don't "need" him.

 

And why do you not pass on him?  Because as soon as you select him, teams are beating down your door asking you what it would take to get him.  Or (in this same case) Cam.

 

IOW, selecting a guy like Luck in the hypothetical you describe adds value to your team because of what you will MOST ASSUREDLY get in return for one or the other of Luck or Cam.

 

I don't care if you have a 26 year old Tom Brady or Peyton Manning on your team, if a player like Luck is sitting their when you are drafting, you take him.

 

But in your scenario, he isn't the BPA.  Yes, he is a valuable commodity, but not the best player that is available for the Panthers.  And I don't believe you take him with Cam already on the roster...it's a wasted pick for a player that you don't envision getting on the field for you.  You don't pick him to trade unless you already have a deal in place, otherwise you could get stuck with a talented guy that won't see the field for you, after passing on someone that could be an impact player for your team, or if you do find a partner, very possibly not getting as much value in return as you gave up.  

 

As far as his value, it's how much value other teams place on him as a player.  If they see him as a starter, then he is BPA for them and you can make a trade before the pick.  The idea is to find opportunities to improve your team.  But talking strictly about BPA, a player can only be that if he improves your team on the field.  No matter how talented he is, if he's sitting on your bench, he's not helping your team like someone who will see the field.  Now as the draft goes on, those players do start to fill needs...as backups and potential future fill-ins.