Mr. Scot

You asked about top three picks. I answered.

And again, how you think it happened doesn't square with what the team says. Your response to that so far has been that if what's reported doesn't that's what you think happened, it must be a lie. I'm not ready to buy that.

Well if you don't want to count rings as an indicator, there was this guy named Collins that led his team to a Super Bowl (I forget who drafted him). If you do count rings, then there's a quarterback named Plunkett who was taken number one overall. He wound up getting two of them. Another guy named Dilfer got a ring with another team after not working out at his first stop too. Of course there's that Tannehill guy too. No rings yet, but you said that isn't the only indicator. And likewise, while they weren't all necessarily top three picks, there are plenty of guys who were considered "busts" who wound up being pretty good with their second team, or third or more in some cases. It's not like it's unprecedented.

That's the way you see it. As I've mentioned many times, the Panthers don't necessarily see things the way you do.

You talked about passing on a quarterback who would have been good. That's not guaranteed. If you take a first round quarterback and Darnold turns out good, you've wasted a number eight overall pick on a backup when you could have solidified another starting position. If you take a first round quarterback and he's not good, you've screwed yourself out of two positions.

You sure about that? Two of those got their rings without playing in the game.

So by that logic, we're not sold on DJ Moore either? Seriously, if we were as iffy on Sam Darnold as you seem to think we are, why the hell did we trade for him at all? (and no, he isn't a "just in case"; that whole notion is ridiculous)

So again, whatever quarterback we'd pick at number eight is guaranteed to be great?

Again, see above. I'd add that if you're looking at the Redskins for your example of how to do things, you might want to rethink.

Likewise, if Darnold actually turns out to be good. You should probably just refrain from talking about quarterback evaluations. For my part though, if Darnold doesn't pan out, he doesn't pan out. Either way, trying to develop him and a first round rookie at the same time (and ignoring other needs in the process) is a stupid idea.

But...but...but...we need to keep acquiring quarterbacks until we know we've got a good one. I mean, that worked for Jon Gruden, right? We can't take the time to develop them. We have to take somebody who's good right now. As to how we know that...well, we just know. I have it on the authority of several huddlers that Sam Darnold isn't good enough. Their opinion should count for something, shouldn't it? And heck, it can't be that hard to try and coach up essentially two rookies at once, can it? I mean, why not take another one later in the draft just to be sure?

The school of thought that you can try to successfully develop two young quarterbacks at the same time is a pretty silly one. Even the example you gave of someone who tried it failed at it. If you really think that's a practical option, look back at ladypanther's post above.

That too.

Cousins was drafted in the fourth round. And as to them both being "solid" in Washington, I think that's highly generous. But hey, if Darnold has injury issues, then the smart thing to do is draft a tackle to protect him.

Flowers was playing guard for them.

The Panthers have already confirmed that they're basically treating Darnold like a rookie. Rhule specifically referred to his time with the Jets as being equivalent to his "junior and senior years". I don't recall ever seeing a team take two rookies in the same year and ask them to compete for the starting job. Hell, coaching up one rookie is difficult enough. Taking another quarterback with a high pick would be an absolute dumbass move.

Again, first round quarterbacks aren't guaranteed to be franchise quarterbacks either. That, plus if Darnold actually is good, then you stupidly wasted a first round pick when you could have used it on a player to make your team better.

Herbert has apparently been lobbying for his old teammate.

I want it to happen. Based on my history, that's a good sign that it probably won't

Kinda hoping somebody offers them a deal they can't refuse to trade up and take a quarterback.

I'm really hoping he is.

You mean quarterbacks picked in the first round aren't guaranteed to be great? I see people saying stuff like "keep trying, double your chances", etc but to me that'd be like taking a quarterback in the first round and then taking another one in the second. You know, just in case... The whole idea just sounds goofy to me.

Just saw that tweet and, putting it together with the news that we had talked to them, wondered if that was an option. Not in favor of it if Sewell is there.

Over the years, I've seen some pretty wild non-answers from coaches and GMs desperately trying to avoid saying anything about their draft plans. But up to now, I don't recall anyone else questioning the continued existence of the entire world to get out of giving an answer. This one takes the cake.