Grade the Panthers 2009 Draft

Nelson was light and weak. Robinson has some ass to anchor him down. I'm telling you, some of that weight will come off in training camp. The strength will come along with being in a regimented workout program.

I have no worries. Robinson might even be starting over Vincent by mid-season, IMO.

 

yeah, we have done better drafting linemen in the more recent staff organization than we had in the time prior - Henning and Maser definitely worked better with vets but had some busts for both. Davidson and Magazu have put more into it in shorter time, but definitely got results. It's not that a 1st and 2nd in 2003, 3 in 2004, and 3rd/5th in 2005 (along with two prime FAs) isn't enough, though, and that's what that first pair had to work with.

 

who knows. But physically, he's the guy who's the least ready to play of the guys we drafted, and since that's the one you approve of compared to the guys that can contribute right now, I'm not sure I get that.

 

All I approve of was his availability and selection in the fifth round exactly where I would have based on the draft proceedings. I think he will eventually start, maybe not this year, but the only thing I disapproved of was the order of players leading up to the fifth round.

I'm not saying the actual selected players won't pan out, I just would have done it differently.

 

OL and QBs generally take the longest to develop, that's why you draft a guy like him a year before you need them to start.

 

value is the only/main criteria you're grading on, then?

 

Value isn't the only criteria, but need in order of necessity as I see it as well. That's the reason I would have stayed put and drafted Marks (keeping our first rounder in 2010) and then coming back to DE.

Combine results are not the end-all be-all. Did you know Goodson was LAST in bench press of all RBs at the combine? Would that have deterred you from drafting him?

Again, I'm not too upset with the selections, but giving up next year's first and getting (IMO) the most galring need in the 3rd in a weak class (not to metion a FB in the 4th) was what unsettles me a little about how things went down.

 

going by need (and I agree, DT was the bigger need) we get worse players, however. Also easy to know Sidbury is there in 3 when stating that, when the draft just doesn't work that way. And I think you're discounting pretty soundly getting a 1st round player at 43, regardless of how we got 43 (which was much, much better value than our trek back up to 19 last year), if value's legitimately the concern you're weighing it as.

am I drafting him to block? Or to run? Which do you think he was 7th best in combine at? Goodson was consistently one of the most athletic RBs at combine and we're drafting him to be athletic.

Yes, a FB in the fourth.* And a RB in the fourth when we have two good RBs. Does that make them bad players? Does that mean they won't contribute, though? Of course not. Both will add depth and special teams. I don't think you were expecting a 1st year starter in the fourth, the DTs didn't look good there, and yet I think both picks will play vital roles.

If you're not too upset, you're fooling me, but it's not a big deal (and, of course, you're entitled to it either way), I just disagree.


*in 2007, top FB taken was in the 2nd. By the end of the 4th, Le'Ron McClain was taken too. In 2008, one was taken in the 3rd, and two more by 5. Garrett Mills in 06 was taken 9 picks into the 4th. I believe Fiammetta is better than these players, as a blocker.

 

I'm not at all upset, disappointed slightly, but the thread was grading the Panthers' draft. If I were pissed I would having given an F grade. I graded the draft a C meaning not bad, but not great. We got the postions needed, GREAT! It's one of the few drafts where we didn't draft for our 8th LB, or 6th DB or something of that nature. The war-room went after needs (for once), that's a good thing in my view. I just don't like the trade up LOSING a first rounder (hell, we could have pulled a Ditka Saints and traded the whole draft for Orakpo if we wanted a DE that badly). Secondly, I think the order of positions could have been different. I won't detail that again.

Lastly, while it's not totally abnormal to get a FB before the fifth round, it's not exactly a common practice unless you want the top dog. Even by your research says 4th is about the highest you pull the trigger on the top FB, rarities aside. I guess the team wanted Fiammetta badly enough to not run the risk of him being there in the fifth. Their choice.

 

fair enough, and yes, agreed. This was one of the very few drafts we didn't draft a linebacker since Fox started. Needed or not (still wish we had that Butler-Anderson third round back). Maybe in time I'll think that of the RB - laden 4th round now, but I didn't like that round then (and I like our 4th now), and I don't think either is concidental.

There's no doubt I would've done things differently (as I would've last year). But when I see what they did I like what they did more than what I would've. Still, in mine I feel solid I would've gotten another DT.

Definitely. And some of those top dogs were guys who filled in more at RB than FB. But I do feel like we got the top dog, by far. And of this, or the other few, guys at FB that topped the list, this by far beats those. Maybe it's that we got the guy who can do everything well but blocks better than anything, and in that I'm shocked so I love the pick all on its own, but regardless of why, I adore this pick. I guess I never figured they would, just like I never figured they'd go after an Otah. But I believe each betters us so much more than any of these "versatile" linemen.

Like I said, though. Fair enough. And hopefully I''ll do the honorary enough thing and leave it alone from here.