Mr. Scot

Joe Person goes in depth on the process that led to the drafting of Luke Kuechly. How the Panthers were sold on Luke Kuechly in the 2012 Draft Articles like this are a big reason why I subscribe to The Athletic. Lots of interesting stuff in here, including a revelation that some guys on the defensive staff were upset they didn't draft Quinton Coples instead. Excerpts: Panthers area scout Robert Haines was responsible for checking out prospects in the Northeast for the better part of a decade. In fall 2009, Haines was in a hotel room in a college town — he doesn’t remember exactly where — writing reports before a Saturday night game. But Haines remembers this: He had the noon regional ACC telecast on as background noise while he worked and kept hearing the announcers mentioning the name of a Boston College freshman. Haines: I’m just sitting there and hearing, “Luke Kuechly on the tackle, Luke Kuechly.” Time after time after time to the point where I stopped and said, “Who the hell is this kid?” Then I turn around and see this No. 40 running around and making plays all over the field. That’s how we got him on the radar and started tracking him from there. ... Before returning to Carolina as an assistant coach in 2011, former Panthers wideout Ricky Proehl worked as an analyst for Wake Forest and ISP’s ACC game of the week radio broadcasts. In those roles, Proehl called a couple of Kuechly’s games at Boston College, where Kuechly led the nation in tackles twice during his three-year career (he finished second in the country as a freshman). Proehl’s Kuechly experience was similar to Haines’. Proehl: It was unbelievable. When I was doing the game, it was literally: “Kuechly on the tackle. Kuechly on the tackle. Kuechly on another tackle.” It was like the whole game. It’s like, who the hell is this guy? ... Rivera, a linebacker for nine seasons with Chicago, met Kuechly briefly at the Nagurski Award dinner in Charlotte in December 2011. Around that time, Rivera got a call from former Bears teammate Jim Morrissey, whose son Mike played at BC and was Kuechly’s roommate for away games. Rivera: He said, “Hey, if you’re looking for a linebacker, I’ve got your guy. Luke Kuechly.” I said, “OK.” So January comes around. I get my list and start looking at the list. Obviously, I see Luke. So I called Jim Morrissey up and said, “Hey, can I talk to Michael?” He said, “Absolutely.” So I talked to Michael and (he) told me: “Hey, this guy’s the real deal. He’s a good person. You won’t ever have to worry about him. He’s smart. He gets everybody lined up. He knows how to do it.” ... Because Boston College restricted scouts’ access to underclassmen, the first time the Panthers met Kuechly as a group was in February at their hotel suite at the combine in Indianapolis. Hurney and Rivera led a big contingent that included Haines, defensive coordinator Sean McDermott, linebackers coach Warren Belin, defensive backs coach Steve Wilks, scouting director Don Gregory and personnel official Brandon Beane. Kuechly can still recall vivid details from that meeting, right down to what Rivera was wearing. Kuechly: Ron was super relaxed. I remember he had on either a vest or sweater. It was like an argyle sweater, Panthers’ blue, gray and white. And he was as friendly as ever. It was one of the best meetings I had because I walked in there and it went immediately to football. To me, that was easy to talk about. ... Haines: I put like a 20-play highlight tape (together) on him, that was playing in the background as Ron and Marty and everybody talked to him. About three plays in, it was a game at Clemson, he reads this screen before the ball’s even snapped, hits the flat and makes a great open-field tackle. I remember Marty turning to us and saying: “Turn the tape off. That’s all I need to see.” Kuechly: Some of the other (teams) were talking about like: “How fast are you gonna run? What do you weigh?” All that stuff. I don’t know how fast I’m gonna run. But Ron was like: “All right, we’ll just talk football. What is this look? What are you doing on this play?” I was like, “This, this and this.” He was like, “What is this guy doing?” I’m like, “That, that and that.” Then they show you a bad play. It was all football. And to me that was very relaxing, because going into those rooms, I was nervous. ... Proehl: I’ll never forget the day we drafted him. There were a bunch of guys on the defensive staff who wanted Coples. They’re like, “Who is this small, White linebacker we just (drafted)?” I said: “I’m telling you, this guy’s pretty special. He’s a ball hawk.” It’s so funny to look back now. I laugh. I think about that all the time. ... Gregory: We didn’t think about any Defensive Rookie of the Year or (Defensive) Player of the Year. We just thought we had a really good football player. And from there, let the chips fall after that. ... Rivera: I knew he would be good, but I didn’t know he’d be as good as he was. It’s unfortunate the concussion thing came up. ... McDermott: I kid Luke. We have a good relationship. And so (he would tell him), “Hey, you weren’t our guy, but we just had to take you because you were the only one left.” I can say that when, if I had to do it all over again, I’d take him at 1. ... Proehl: The guy is everything you want a football player to be. And person. He’s a great football player. He’s even a better person. Anybody who crossed paths with Luke Kuechly, you’re blessed to have known him. We should all be as polite — at least off the field. Because he’s a son of a bitch on the field. I tell everybody he’s a true Clark Kent. He literally comes in with his glasses, khakis and plaid shirt. And then he walks between the lines and he turns into just a straight baller.

It happens.

Remember a few posts back when I told you I was talking about general principles and not specifically about Willis?

Stats aren't what determine how good a passer someone is. We've had plenty of arguments about just how deficient stats are when it comes to judging football performance in general, but especially quarterbacks. Vick was not good on that front, and the reasons weren't physical. As to Darnold, the reason I asked that is he's a perfect example of a quarterback who has the physical tools but doesn't have what he really needs. And the answer is no, you can't win with someone who doesn't have those things.

It doesn't matter how much time you can buy to make a throw if you can't throw an accurate pass. And if you aren't reading the defense properly when you do make the throw, chances are you're gonna get a bad result. Again, all the athleticism in the world isn't going to save you from being a bad passer.

As an athlete, no. As a quarterback? Absolutely.

Dude, if you're really gonna try to say that Darnold's could be a better quarterback if he had Willis's athleticism, you're losing this debate. But if that's that you want to stick with, lemme give you another quarterback who was acknowledged to be a superior athlete. Tim Te... I'm not gonna say the rest of his name but you know who I mean. Same question: If things like processing and accuracy aren't that big a deal and all you need is the ability to run and throw it really far, why isn't that guy still in the nfl? And no, the answer doesn't have anything to do with any comparisons you want to make between him and Willis.

If you want to go that route, then answer this: Are the guys chasing those quarterbacks the same as the ones who were chasing Staubach and Tarkenton?

Is that the reason he's failing as a quarterback? If it isn't, what is? Are you saying that if he were a better athlete, he could be a good quarterback too?

But he has good athleticism. I'm being told that this is a vital characteristic and that it can make up for the other deficiencies. Are you telling me that it can't?

Same question then: Can we win with Sam Darnold? He's certainly a fine athlete. Heck, during the first part of last season, he ran for more touchdowns than any other quarterback in the league. He's shown that he's capable of throwing the ball far or throwing it hard as well as running for first downs or even touchdowns when needed. Using the criteria you've set yourself, he should be a perfectly capable quarterback. So can we win games with him? And if the answer is no, what's the specific reason why?

Where have I ever said that winning and losing aren't team things? But if that's the route that you want to go, then answer this: Can we win with Sam Darnold?

Let me put it this way: Would you want to go into a season with Kevin Kolb, AJ Feeley or Koy Detmer as your quarterback? Every one of those guys produced good stats and even won games in an Andy Reid system. Is that evidence that they were good quarterbacks?

Two things... Yes, lots of quarterbacks are capable of occasionally running for a first down if something opens up. Considering them "dual threat" quarterbacks or even mobile quarterbacks strictly based on that criteria is a huge stretch. By that definition, you could put Jake Delhomme in one of those categories. Second, and probably more important, you're arguing against a viewpoint that doesn't exist (at least not with me, but I can only speak for myself). It's not that you have to be a pocket passer to win. It's that you have to be a capable passer to win, regardless of what you can or can't do as a runner. The notion that you have to be able to run just isn't true, never has been. If you're capable of running, great. That adds value to your quarterback skill set. But it's the best that you can do is run for an occasional first down when something breaks open, that's okay too. Also to be clear, very little of what I've been talking about is any direct discussion of Malik Willis. I'm not a big Willis fan, but for most of the topic here I've been talking about general concepts more so than Willis himself. But focusing on him directly, this is how I'd summarize it. If he can develop into a solid passer, then yes he will succeed in the NFL. If he can't, it doesn't matter if he's more athletic than Vick, Newton and Jackson combined. He's going to wash out as a quarterback.

Yet still didn't succeed, even with arguably the best quarterback coach in the game helping him. Improved stats aren't the same as winning.

If we have a winning season next year, I'm going to say "well that was fun". I'm also going to say "sh-t, another year of Matt Rhule". Glass always slightly off...

Newton could throw. Jackson can throw. But Vick? No. Heck, I remember Falcon fans arguing for years that their receivers were terrible only to see them suddenly turn around and get a lot better after Vick left. And that was no accident. (that on top of the whole "how many years does it take to learn the West Coast Offense" silliness) Gearing the Atlanta offense around Vick's running was actually the better choice. It wasn't going to work, but it was still the smarter play given his abilities. Rivera built around Newton using the same concepts Buddy Ryan did with Randall Cunningham. The idea was that if you had a quarterback who could make two or three big plays a game, the defense would handle the rest. While Rivera did get closer to succeeding with that approach than Ryan ever did, it still ultimately failed and wasn't really built to last anyway. What Newton could have done with better will always be a huge unanswered question. It's also one of the big reasons why while I think Rivera the Man is worthy of respect, Rivera the Coach is somebody I just can't like.

I don't know that I'd consider them a unified front at this point. Fitterer seems to want to build for the long term. Matt Rhule can't necessarily afford to do that.

The offense under Shula, yeah. And as odd as it might feel, the Shula years up to 2015 were the most successful years we had. There were entire articles dissecting the kind of run concepts and ideas that Shula was using to make the offense go. Unfortunately, Dan Quinn and Wade Phillips dissected them too. Once there was an answer out there, Shula wasn't good enough to respond. Turner actually did a better job developing Newton, and I've always believed that if we'd have had someone like Turner from the beginning, things could have been different.

That's not really working out so well with Lance so far. And to be clear, those "ifs" are the problem, especially if he's a Panther. (I agree with you he'd be better off to not be)

No visit set with Penning? I mean, the obvious thing to do with him would be to take him to a horror movie.

What I would want to do and what would the Panthers do are different questions. They're also two things that hardly ever match up

That doesn't really help the argument though given that what Newton's injury affected was his passing, not his running. To be honest, Cam Newton discussions in general don't really benefit Malik Willis because Newton wasn't a running quarterback. He was a dual threat. Willis could conceivably turn out to be a dual threat, but arguing that he's one now would be a pretty big reach.

It's never worked, and until somebody shows a way to make it work, it's not gonna change. But chances are not too many teams are going to do that because, as mentioned, up to now it's never worked. It'd also be a pretty extreme reversal of history because when the NFL started, there was no such thing as the forward pass. It was the AFL that introduced the forward pass. Purists from back then hated it but now it's everything. I seriously don't see that being reversed. As to Newton specifically, his running ability might still be the same but his passing clearly isn't. Pretty much everyone acknowledges this is why teams aren't clamoring to sign him.