Draft order

Then we disagree.

yeah, he had a lot of run failures. He registered a lot of stops, from PFF's suggestion, but he definitely had problems in the run and from wearing down. This year that hasn't happened on either front .

and again that's situational. You don't bench a starter to be able to use him situationally. Smitty in the slot. The end result is that Hardy gets his pressure outside, and pigeonholing him as someone who should be limited to situations suggests he can't rush outside, and, uhh, 8 sacks.

I'm not really worried about his contract. They're not forced to keep him the way they may have felt with Johnson (I'm on record myself as saying I'd have done about anything I could've to keep him). In the meantime, he's here and he's a starter. The idea that he shouldn't have been or shouldn't be, is more something I'd be uncomfortable with than what they do with him for 2014.

easier to find a situational guy. DTs are a fairly precious commodity in general, and yet we need every part of what a DT would bring. I don't sit here and find myself thinking that the biggest team need is more outside rush given that two starters are tied for 3rd and 5th at their positions in sacks. More rush is always better, but it's really just not the top worry.

in a one gap, you're placing a player in a gap and that's about the extent of it inside. I've suggested many times that Johnson would work inside too, just that he's better outside (again, ends don't have to be 240 lbs and lightning quick to be outside rushers). He probably wouldn't make sense at OLB in a 3-4 every down. But, others have done it.

But, sure. The pieces have changed over time, and so do opinions. A long term future with Kuechly, and potentially without Davis/Anderson, is a different team schematically - in potential.

Yes, I'm absolutely "rationalizing" a way to keep two of the team's better players in a position to do what they do best. That seems to be the point of strategy in general. Ideally I'd prefer a one gap pro multiple but that's highly unlikely. The thing that kinda sucks, is that you're arguing against it because you want to find a motive, more than whether it's that implausible.

 

Not really. You're only suggesting that Alexander is a "good 3rd DE" because you feel compelled to doggedly defend your position that the team doesn't need upgrades at the position. I can't imagine that anyone else besides you would think that he's a "good 3rd DE."

Even if Hardy remained the starting RDE, it would be easy to slide him inside and bring in an edge rusher for obvious passing situations. I'm suggesting that the team could benefit from a better starting DE, and that Hardy would be most effective as a backup. Even though we agree that he's improved against the run, he's hardly an asset there.

He doesn't, though. Most of his success seems to come from getting inside the LT.

Then you're being exceptionally stupid. Oh hey, let's just ignore a position because you're satisfied with a guy who will be gone after 2013. What is the team going to do after that? Who cares!

Your hypocrisy remains amusing to me. Greg Hardy's performance says that the team is fine at DE, yet Dwan Edwards' performance somehow doesn't say the same about DT. You can't hold up the stats for one guy and then ignore them for the other.

This defense looks vastly different in games where it can get pressure versus games where it can't, thus having that pressure consistently is vitally important.

Except for one, the pieces haven't changed, though. The team added Kuechly, and suddenly after spending two years insisting that "most everyone we have is a waste in a 3-4," you've suddenly changed to the complete opposite position. It's bizarre and yet again shows that you argue based on emotion as opposed to reason. Your positions aren't based on dispassionate analysis but rather whatever whim suits you, which is also why you must adamantly defend every position you take even if the facts argue otherwise, because it's about ego and preference for you rather than rationality.

Playing ILB in a 3-4 is pretty significantly different than MLB in a 4-3, especially behind a one-gap front. We don't know if Kuechly or Beason would be equally productive in that system, yet you're advocating it after being totally opposed to it before the team drafted Kuechly. You're pretty transparently just coming up with flimsy excuses to keep Beason around. You were correct the last two years when you insisted that the personnel on this roster is better suited for a 4-3. They can certainly use 3-4 looks, but switching the base just to cover up for Hurney's ridiculous decision to give a huge contract to Beason and then draft Kuechly is taking a mistake and adding another on top of it.

No, I'm arguing against it for the same reason that I agreed with you the last two years before you magically changed overnight to the complete opposite position. This roster isn't suited for a base 3-4. You can force them to do it, but it would be putting square pegs in a round hole.

 

Coaching staff said they sat down with Hardy earlier this season and talked to him about playing all out and then disappearing both in practice & games. Their feeling was that he could be a force all the time if he got serious about things. So hopefully, the last 8 are a sign of what he can do and do consistently.

 

It's possible. He always had the talent.

 

oh, again with the "this is what you really think". No, not really. I think Alexander is talented, and he's put together some good pressure.

But, you don't think a guy who has 8 sacks is good enough because you're still on this whole DE thing. The one you trolled me about in the only game the team didn't have 2 or more sacks.

The one that started when you actually got a little upset that, even though you knew it wasn't realistic in any part, you still demanded that I be on board with trading the 9 pick for pending free agent Mario Williams. The guy who
*wasn't going to be franchised, so wouldn't have needed to even trade for him
*wasn't going to sign here
*couldn't be afforded
*has a half sack more than Hardy, and 9 fewer tackles

Moving players situationally is fine. The ideal that the team could use upgrades? They're 3-8.
Jordan Gross being the team's 5th best OL, that'd be fantastic.
Steve Smith playing the slot because the team has two Megatrons would be amazing.
And then think if those things are realistic, or if there are bigger needs (speaking of that, I'd put the line at a much higher need). But, I guess it's good that you're backing off, slowly and sheepishly, the "he's not a starter" argument.

And that's the thing. Situationally, you aren't talking about having a good 3rd end (which we have). You're talking about a team that got 8 sacks out of reserves - one making the minimum, the other UDFA - last year. Neither of which were even on an opening day roster. An undersized edge rusher that can only do one thing, that could be a guy who doesn't actually provide you real depth.

And yet, that's outside rush. That he doesn't get 100% of his pressure using one move isn't a detriment. It doesn't require demotion.

Tell me more about that. When you want to get under the cap, Dwan isn't at all in your plans (he appeared to not come up until I actually showed you amounts like "how much the 2013 cap will be"), but otherwise, a 32 year old DT is, potentially just for this conversation, somehow a cornerstone that means we don't have to have a DT.

I mean, Hardy may or may not be here in a year. I honestly think the best ideal might be to trade him off, but I don't think that's likely. But I don't see, in any scenario, how this team goes through front office and coach change and pays a then-33 guy to play for $4 million in this situation. We more or less get that Hardy will be here, and that he'll be under consideration to extend that.

I'm not arguing the team has no needs in its front. I didn't actually argue that last year, either, even though you wanted it to sound that way. I said the need was to get someone snaps to not force Hardy to wear down, and then suggested various starting players and top draft picks.

No, absolutely, a 9 pick at LB, a couple catastrophic injuries, and an end gaining 20 lbs is just standard issue for an offseason. These things happen every year. And, while you're assigning conspiracy theories, the feeling on the 3-4 was more to get both ends playing at the 5, and limit the DT need to one. But what do I know, it was only my idea. Tell me what I really think.

 

Yes, and I'm far from the only person who thinks this about you. Everyone here knows that you're a guy who can't ever admit that he's wrong. For God's sake, magnus, you spent six years refusing to admit that you made a mistake when you said before his draft that Shawne Merriman was a DE-only. When you take a position, as you did last season by insisting that DE wasn't a need, then you will defend that position to the death no matter what facts are presented. That's because you're far more concerned with protecting your ego than with discussing things rationally.

Alexander might one day become a good NFL DE, but it was ludicrous for you to say that he is one already. You only said that because you needed it as ammunition in your quest to pretend that defensive end doesn't need to be addressed.

Cool, so you're back to lying. It's fun when you start to lie whenever you feel like you're being embarrassed in an argument. I never at any point demanded that you agree with trading the #9 for Mario. I wasn't even sure that I wanted to do it. What I didn't like was you pretending that DE didn't need to be addressed at all.

The reality that you continuously ignore is that Greg Hardy's contract runs out after 2013. Either the team creates room to give him a big extension or they'll need a new starter regardless. And again, it's funny to watch you use stats to hold up Hardy as a quality starter but then want to pretend that the same kind of stats don't say the same about Dwan Edwards. Your constant hypocrisy is entertaining.

No one thinks the Panthers have three good defensive ends, not even you. You're only bullshitting about Alexander being one because you have to do it to prop up your idiotic campaign against addressing DE.

Playing Hardy at DT instead of DE in passing situations isn't a "demotion." And no, cutting inside the LT is not "outside rush." This is why people (especially me) get frustrated with you, magnus. When you're caught and you know you're losing an argument, you blatantly lie because you can't ever admit something that undermines your position.

Hey dumbass, you're confusing Dwan Edwards with Ron Edwards. Ron is the one that was mentioned as a possible cut. Please don't waste my time unless you can post with a minimum level of intelligence. You're not a fan of the Raiders, so you shouldn't be confusing two Panthers DTs just because they share the same last name.

Awesome. You've seen me constantly refer to how much I'd like the Panthers to draft Star Lotulelei, so this is another outright lie on your part. If you can't be honest in a discussion then you have no business posting, but you can't help it because lying is your natural reaction to anything that undermines your argument. What I have said is that you can't hold up one season of stats to say that DE is fine and then refuse to do the same about DT. Saying it for one and not the other is complete hypocrisy. DT absolutely needs to be addressed, but DE does as well. Even if you believe that Hardy will stay as effective as he has been over the last eight games (DEs having a hot streak and then disappearing is pretty common, for the record), the issue comes back to his contract running out after 2013.

See, that's the cool thing. I have always used your own quotes against you, which is why you get so frustrated and end up looking so stupid. Not only do I prove you wrong, but I use your own words to prove you wrong. And the fact is that for two whole years you insisted that the team's personnel were a bad fit for the 3-4 aside from Greg Hardy. You magically changed your mind to the exact opposite opinion when you decided that it was a way to cover for Hurney's idiocy in giving Beason a huge contract only to draft Kuechly at the same position.

 

Tell me about other people that think I only think things to cover some other nonsense. I can't possibly think that Frank Alexander can be good, or has been a good reserve.

Tell me more about that. I wanted to sign various veterans, I was very interested in Upshaw and Ingram, and was at various points OK with being forced Coples on us.

But, I did say that I felt Hardy was a starter (he is), and that his biggest issue was too many snaps (something backed by advanced stats). He had a lot of stops, a lot of pressures, and he was starting to make plays. We got a good quality depth player in Alexander and that's about the correct decision.

What I said then, and now, was that there were bigger needs. There still are.

You didn't state that I had to agree. But you admitted, even though it was unrealistic, that you felt they should do it, and when I said it was foolish, you bitched and moaned for DAYS. That's where this all started from.

But, see, that's part of your bag of tricks. Focus HARD on the little bit that you can make something of ("Why *gasp* I can't believe you'd say I made you ...).

And then ignore that you wanted to trade for a player that was going to be a free agent, that was going to get Peppers money, and that was coming off injury. That's why you're full of shit about all this truth nonsense, because you argue whatever you think will "win" instead of addressing the topic. I bring up Mario Williams - something that would've been a disastrous trade - and you don't really have the time to talk about that.

ignore it? I have stated it. Saying I ignored it is a lie, since you're so into hypocrisy and truth and blahblahblahblah.

Dwan Edwards was a patch. Hardy either will be here in 2014 or he won't, but he's a starter. No one has Dwan Edwards in their long term plans. Dwan Edwards is not playing at the same level as our ends.

Player has contain, player rushes from the outside. That he cuts inside as a move doesn't make him a defensive tackle.

No. You do. You constantly push your decade long obsession as somehow my issue. You get frustrated. You honestly have trouble handling your anger. It's a weakness. There's no reason for you to be this upset right now.

No. We both talked about both of them going. I quoted that Dwan was making $4 million. We talked about Ron going - you said it was easy to cut Ron to get rid of Godfrey, then you were unaware the team was $10 mil over the cap, and so on. Then you mentioned that you wanted to cut or trade about 20 players and I had to show you the cost of replacing all of those players at a minimum, UDFA level. Remember?

Lotuleilei being drafted in one conversation is fine, but in this one, you've brought up Dwan as someone who's here. If Dwan's here, we don't need a DT more than a DE. Your actual words in the post I'm quoting state that you want to cut Ron but not Dwan. You say Dwan's success doesn't make DT a bigger need.

And yet I've shown last year's stats on DE. And we know that DT was a massive failure last year. But, maybe that's OK.

Since

It's a parlor trick. Congrats on being good at that, but it doesn't make you right, just that this means so much to you that you'll distort whatever you want and try to make the other person angry. Because you're angry.

 

Correct, because you're not mentally retarded or completely new to the concept of football. Again, Alexander might one day become a good third DE, but everyone knows he isn't one right now.

You did like Ingram and Upshaw, but neither of those guys are NFL DEs. But holy shit no, please do not add to your list of lies by pretending you were fine with Coples. You were adamantly against taking Coples and I will gladly provide a mountain of quotes on that if you persist in that lie. But for the record, I didn't have a problem with you not liking Coples specifically either. My issue was never you being opposed to DE X, but insisting that the position shouldn't be addressed at all.

You said it wasn't a need at all, that at most the team might want to add a guy to sub for Hardy in run situations.

Why do you lie when you know I will get the evidence to expose and humiliate you? You didn't say that trading Mario was "foolish," and I even said that it probably wasn't practical because of the salary he'd require: http://www.thisboardrocks.com/forum/f19/no-dl-worth-8-9-pick-181419/index2.html#post2689076

It's comical to watch you insist that adding a guy 11th in the NFL in sacks and has been one of the best DEs in the league over the last few years would be "disastrous." If Hurney hadn't fucked the cap, this defense would absolutely be better with Mario Williams, Charles Johnson, and Greg Hardy playing together.

No, you continuously avoid addressing it. Again, Greg Hardy's contract ends after 2013. Either the team needs to pay him big money, which means ignoring other positions, or else they will need a new starter at DE.

Yeah, actually Dwan Edwards is playing at the level of those ends. Like Greg Hardy, he's never had this level of production before, so who knows if he will keep it going.

Cutting inside the LT is not an "outside rush." You lied when you said it was because you're defensive and hostile about me humiliating you yet again in this argument. Again, the way Greg Hardy rushes the passer seems like it could be just as effective at DT as DE because he's not using speed or rushing around the edge. He's engaging and using leverage, which is exactly what you want a pass rushing DT to do.

I absolutely get frustrated, but what's funny is that you can never admit how you lose control of yourself. I can't create these threads by myself, magnus. You always pretend that you're in control of your emotions except that you're blatantly and repeatedly lying while making these huge responses to my posts.

No, we didn't. Yet again you're lying instead of admitting that you made a mistake by confusing Dwan with Ron. I only talked about cutting Ron Edwards.

Do a search for my posts containing the word "Lotulelei" and see evidence that you're yet again lying by pretending I only mentioned him once.

Oh cool, you accidentally admitted here that you lied and that what I said was correct. Let's see how you try to back-peddle out of that.

 

Tell you what. I have a game to watch. I don't care what ways you want to cut me down for disagreeing, and I don't care whether you said the word "Lotuleilei" in three threads instead of one, if you can't be bothered to admit how much of a fuckup trading for Mario Williams would've been. I mean, that was the 9 pick. AND HE WAS A FREE AGENT.

 

At that time the Texans were expected to franchise and trade him, which you already know. Just more dishonesty, since that's the only type of response you can think of. And I mentioned Lotulelei in five threads.