BrianS

Statistically, the answer to the OP is no. First round QB's generally hit at about a 50% rate. Odds are three first round picks would be at least one good QB and at least one "something else". However, if someone said to me today, Justin Herbert or Joe Burrow for our next three first rounders I'd bite their hand off taking that deal. But in all seriousness, things have to fall right and your scouting has to work and your staff has to be good at development . . . so many cards have to fall into place. When the collective wisdom of the minds behind 32 NFL teams only get it right 50% of the time, who am I to guess at the next franchise QB to be drafted? Working under the assumption you pick a guy your scouts like every year, with two first round picks there's still a 25% chance that you end up with no QB. Even with three, there's still a 12.5% you end up with no QB. Unfortunately, QB's generally don't show themselves immediately as success or failure. Herbert and Burrow are very odd in that regard that it's very clear they ARE the real deal. It's usually a lot muddier. So while your franchise may be willing to spend three picks, you don't generally spend them three straight years. You draft a QB you believe in, give him a year or two and then decide he isn't it. Giving up three straight? That'd be hard.

Here's what I don't get: We employed, rostered and had active an actual fullback for the entire season. He played 162 snaps. Got offensive snaps in every single game. He had zero catches on zero targets and zero rushing attempts. He was STRICTLY a blocker when playing on offense. WHAT IS THE POINT?!?! Tommy Tremble came out of college as a rookie and his calling card, his "NFL Ready" attribute was his ability to just (*&@ing destroy people as a blocker. Tremble caught the ball reasonably well. He was used in the run game. We'll never mistake him for the all around threat that CMC is, but he was reasonably flexible and achieved quite a bit for a third round rookie. So why on earth did we spend a roster spot on a fullback? Tremble could have taken those snaps, and been an actual threat. Forced the defenses to question what was happening. I have nothing against Ricci, really, I don't. Seems like a good kid. But putting him in the game was an absolute telegraph to the opposing defense. He's going to be a blocker. He's never deployed in any other way! Follow him to the ball! Just another naive move by our coaching staff.

Incorrect. Hackett's best year, arguably, was 2017 when he was OC for the Jags. That team was the #5 scoring offense in the league . . . helped them get to the AFC Championship game . . . with Blake Bortles as the starting QB. Don't look at his work with Green Bay as the Aaron Rodgers effect. Look at Green Bay as "Here's what happens when you give Hackett exceptional tools"

Cheers for the next Adam Gase.

Absolutely agree. Rhule was ridiculously off base with that comment. In the end, defense (and the NFL as a whole) has only one measure that matters - SCORING. If your defense is top five in points per game, and you're not a playoff contender, it's pretty safe to say the problems lie elsewhere. I'm looking at you Denver Broncos and New Orleans Saints. Though, Saints, if I'm honest, your offense was fine. Keep it just like it is.

There are so many things to say here. Did we give up fewer yards because we kept turning the ball over? Absolutely. Likewise, we gave up more points because our opponents started closer to our goal line. It's not all that hard to score when you get the ball and only need a couple first downs to be in FG range. Our defense was dead last in opponent starting field position. No other team's defense started, on average, in worse position. Our defense has flaws, I will readily grant this. However, we are not NEARLY as far away from being a true top 10 defense as some metrics (and fans, and pundits) would like us to believe. Give the Panthers an offense that isn't historically bad - even just an average NFL offense - and you'll probably see quickly that we have a defense which can be pretty darn good.

So, instead of Rhule, we could have a chance at a guy who many teams view as the next offensive mind. Yet here we are . . .

I think you misunderstood the original. Starting QB's going down obviously deep six any team, especially those with high quality QB's. The point I was addressing it that Murray needed to play at an astronomically high level to give his team a chance. Not just be healthy, but play so far out of his mind that it becomes comical. Where the coaching hardly matters. You know, like 2015.

Dear Mr Tepper: As a big believer in analytics, surely you've seen the numbers indicating that in the last 30 years NFL coaches who start with two losing seasons at a team fail to achieve success at that team. In fact, by nearly every measure available, our coach has us in a position that the odds tell us are so astronomically stacked against him as to be laughable. Why then would we show faith in a coach who would need cut so far against the grain in order to achieve what you've said is our team goal?

Sure, maybe he did get bulled a bit at LT . . . but he stayed in front of his man for the most part. Something our LT's generally seem unable to do since . . . forever it seems. There is no such thing as a "finesse" guard in our scheme. Maybe if you're running the old Broncos zone scheme, but ours is a power based scheme. Meaning our guards need to be maulers. BC will never be mistaken for a "mauler".

If he doesn't like Darnold's mechanics he's not going to be a fan of Cam's, for sure. The biggest flaw in Cam's game has always been his throwing mechanics. I think if Cam had the right coaching earlier in his career he could have fixed it, but at this point with his arm held on by duct tape, I think it's too late.

That certainly sounds familiar to Panthers fans.

I'm not truly certain it matters. Our line coach was definitely bad. Unfortunately, so was a lot of our talent. I hope we can do better this year at both, but I have my doubts. If you're a good line coach, do you really want to be here on a one year contract? Likewise coordinator? I just don't think Rhule can come back from where he is now. Regardless of whether you think he can one day be an NFL coach, I don't think that THIS situation is recoverable. To me, that makes replacing staff much, much more difficult.

I didn't even think about the Skip Bayless angle. OMG - that's gonna be priceless.

Pretty much what we should expect. No good coordinator will want to come to a team with a coach on the hottest seat in the league. There are not that many great OC's in the league anyway, let alone willing to risk their employment on Matt Rhule's regime. The entire report that Rhule's job security for next year hinged on a "rock star" OC hire never made sense to me. I just don't see how we could possibly hire one . . . as an OC. Now, get rid of Rhule and offer one of those rock stars the HC position, that's a different prospect entirely.

I mean, I guess I understand, hard to fire a coach who got you to the playoffs. But yesterday Jones is saying that the performance is unacceptable with the quality of the roster. Now he's saying it's not on the coaches either. So . . . . what? Is he all in on blaming the refs? I don't get it.

Don't think the announcers were taking their side at all. Romo said "You can't spot your own ball, he should have been looking for the referee".

Bitch about the refs all you want, but how many of those 14 penalties were even controversial? Maybe the Cowboys need a DBO sign.

That's Jerry being Jerry. Once again, taking no personal responsibility. Hey Jerry - remind me again - who hired the coach?

Colbert has already said he's staying through the draft.

I think Jimmy G is actually better than average. Perhaps significantly so. And there's the rub. No one is really sure what to make of him, because the guy just can't seem to stay healthy. In his two healthiest seasons, he's 13-3 and 9-6. I could sure stand a little of that in Panthers land. Also, in his two fullest seasons he has 4 and 3 fourth quarter comebacks. Yes please. Unfortunately, that's two seasons out of five. Even this year where he did play 15 games, he missed two. And while Jimmy can slide a bit in the pocket, he's not high level elusive. The 49ers have a pretty good line and he's missed a lot of time . . . imagine with ours. Yikes.

This is exactly - EXACTLY! - the case. There is no player more valuable than a franchise QB. There is nothing more valuable. Look at what was being talked about as the cost for Deshaun Watson before his legal issues came to light. Just to have a conversation the cost was three first round picks!

No. Incorrect thinking. It's not a question of desperation. It's a question of evaluation. The first question is trust. Do you trust your scouts? If the answer is no, get new scouts. Assuming your organization is functioning in a responsible way, the answer should be "Yes, we trust our scouts". Again, I'm commenting at a philosophical level here. I'm not making any commentary on the Panthers organization. Once you've established that you trust your scouts, you simply ask them the question: "Do you see a clear franchise QB in this draft?" If your scouts say "Yes, we do" then there is absolutely no excuse for not drafting the guy. It doesn't matter what pick number you may have. If your scouts tell you a guy is a franchise QB, if your team doesn't have one, and that guy is available when your team is on the clock, you draft that guy. It's when your scouts say "No, we don't see a clear franchise QB" that you start to look at other things. The point being that there should be NO PLAYER on your draft board rated higher than a clear franchise QB. Ever. There is no more valuable player in the NFL than a franchise QB. It's not even close. You can't think of a franchise QB like any other player, because he's not. There is no such thing as a "draft ranking" for a franchise QB. Franchise QB's exist on a board all their own. If you have a player on your franchise QB board, you draft him. Simple as that. College QB's who are not clear franchise guys (according to your scouts) can certainly go on the "normal" board. Franchise guys are different gravy.

Can our spanish language guy learn english? That'd be fun and different.

You're asking the wrong questions. What you, me or anyone on here believes about any of these QB prospects is completely and utterly irrelevant. All that matters is what our scouts think, and then, assuming the organization is structured and run in a responsible way, our front office acting on those opinions. If our scouts look at ANY of these QB prospects and say "This is a franchise QB", it would be irresponsible in the extreme to not draft that guy. Even the best scouts and evaluators are wrong regarding QB prospects half the time. Who are we as fans to think we know better? It's a coin flip man.