Mendenhall

Steve Salton, RB, in the 3RD or the 4Th round. he is speedy and can return kicks problem solved.

 

I think he is the back up plan, solely my opinion and speculation.

I stil think we will see another back show up

 

fair enough

 

We need two backs.
During the Fox era, the Panthers feature back has averaged 52% of the carries on a run first team. Don't you want the best back available for the remaining carries? Do you remember the injurys and lack of depth we had in 2004 and 2005?

You're absolutely right. RB is going to be the best value at #13. Fox is all about value. Just look at last year's draft. No value in round one...trade down. The round two selections were not positions of need, but rather outstanding values. The third round was a DE that was projected to go in the top of the 2nd round.

Remember that draft picks are not for this season. The last time the Panthers had more than one rookie on the opening day starting lineup was 2004 (two), and that was when we opened with a two TE offense. The last time they had three start was 2001 (1-15), a rebuilding year.

Successful programs will look ahead and not look to the draft to fill holes in their lineup.

Yes, we do have our starter, but as I mentioned above, he only carries the ball a little over half the time. The Panthers can't go into the season an injury away from Toefield starting. Toefield was #3 and sometimes #4 on the Jaguars depth chart. I see nothing from him that would lead me to believe that he can be #2 here. As a Panther fan, that's not acceptable.

We've got a definite need at RB...

...and the value will be there in the upcoming Draft. There may be no value at the OT position until round 5, and if the Panthers didn't select one until then, I'd be fine with that. I'm confident that they could find something after the June cuts.

It's all about value, and the future.

 

We can get a day 1 starter at LT and RB in this draft but not if we take the RB first.

I'm all about the BPA too but there has to be some balance. If Matt Ryan drops to 13 or we trade down and the best rated player there is a WR or LB we'd be plain stupid to go in that direction. Even when we picked Kalil last year and everybody was wondering what the heck was going on time has shown that the Panthers had some indication that Hartwig wasn't the long term answer so that pick wasn't as out there just being the BPA. I'm just saying you have to look at the team needs too.

We've seen numerous low level RB's do very, very well when given the starter position although usually for a short period of time but most teams aren't going to replace there 1st string guy with the backup and expect no dropoff. Nick Goings has had how many 100 yard games. I can't ever remember a 3rd string LT carrying the load and being able to deliver.

 

I want the best available for every position. That's not really relevant.
I'm well aware of two backs, and even 3. Of course, we received one back in FA, and people commonly forget about that. We have a starter, and the team has always

This is what I don't get. How do you and Meat know what's going to be there at 13 directly in conjunction with lobbying for a RB?

we have at least one hole that would be a starter. RB isn't it. I would expect a first round pick to start, and our first round picks have started every year other than 2005 and 2006. Those were "we don't have needs, we think we're pretty damn good" years, and I'm not seeing that here. I'm seeing major reconsctruction this year, obviously.



.

OK, I don't think anyone said "don't draft a back, ever." I think most of us believe that RB, especially a non-starter, is something we can fill with actual value, not perceived need.

 

I remember when we ran the legs off of Davis. It seems like there was a poster here that was quite pissed about wearing down a RB as the season went on. After that year we had depth issues at that position. We need two good ones.

There are teams that are very good against the run. To some degree, some are very good at stopping break away guys and some at stopping the pounders. Sometimes one back is just going to have more success against certain teams. Sometimes it's the other guy. It's nice to have options.

With O linemen, generally you get your starters and play them. I don't view as some here do that with RBs you have starters and back ups. It's more role or situation oriented.

 

I'd swear myself guilty of this, only I'm not guilty. I feel like that was still correct. And, of course, when we got through the 2nd half of that initial year running less and more toward when the situation was right, we were a better team.

definitely agree.

I don't see that either. Like I said in the post before this, myself and most aren't against options, against having a big back, against having another shifty back. We all want the best at every position. A first round RB isn't feasible, and that's what I'm arguing against.

 

I'm trying to remember the last time someone took two backs #1 within three years. I just don't think you can afford to.

The Colts got a backup runningback from Canada. The Pats backup is like 50 years old. In our own division, primary backups, or split starters, include Earnest Graham, Aaron Stecker, and J. Norwood. None of these players are expensive or drafted high. All of them were productive in their roles last season.

Right now, we have Williams, Toefield, Goings, and Haynes at running back. We aren't going to take a running back very high. At the most, we will take a second day guy, if anything.