Panthers Rhule

Panthers: Do you have a Wilson at 8? BYU: Go Fish BYU: Do you have pick 2? Panther: Go Fish Panthers: Do you have super fast guy we can sign for almost nothing? BOOM!!! GAME OVER I must say I really like that we did that. This is another out of nowhere signing like the RB. Has something you can't teach so you bring him to camp and see what he can be taught. Zero risk with the possibility of finding a piece that can contribute to your team. That's due diligence. Very smart and I'm happy to be that team. I'm pulling for both of those guys. I always love underdogs. Hard work and perseverance can pay off. You earn your chance and take your shot. Dreams sometimes come true. Give it everything you have guys and good luck to both of you.

New signing. Former BYU WR Micah Simon. They liked him at Zach's pro day. He's super fast. Tom Pelissero on Twitter: "Zach Wilson wasn’t the only standout at BYU pro day last week. Former Cougars WR Micah Simon -- undrafted last year after COVID wiped out his pro day -- caught passes from Wilson, ran a reported 4.34 40-yard dash … and signed today with the #Panthers, per source." / Twitter

Not diving on a fumble in the Super Bowl. Or is that the opposite of bold?

Who is there for the Panthers?

Guy in mask: Do you want to get Sushi for dinner tonight? Billy: No

However, The 49ers didn't draft Young. He was brought in to be the back up and just ended up being good n Walsh's system. Before that he was considered a bust. The Montana-Young part shouldn't have been included in the original statement as it was a different thing.

If I'm Detroit, I'm waiting till draft day and if there is a QB still available then I'm on the phone with Carolina, Denver, Chicago, Washington asking who wants to make sure they get this guy? Detroit is in full rebuild so the more picks they can get is better than any one player they can get in my opinion.

First of all, thank you for responding to my post. I know you have a very valued opinion here and I value it too which is why I'm going to delve further. Perhaps I stated that wrongly, usually, there are few prospects that could go in the first but the order of those prospects are usually different per team. I would much more prefer to hear your take on the rest of what I said if you have the time and don't mind as I do value your opinion. "seems to me that every season teams don't always draft on general evaluations but evaluate based on what they want to do. So if I agree that Fields and Lance are more athletic, have better arms and higher potential but need to develop, and I have a team that's ready to win now and Jones has the attributes I want and will/can do what the play is designed to do, who do I bet my future on? The better prospect or the guy I think can do what I need him to do. My pick doesn't have to be the best player, just the best player for me. It's about winning. Marino was the best QB almost every season but Montana won 5 super bowls. The right player in the right system wins." Thank you in advance.

Isn't this usually the case? I'm not a scout nor an expert but I like trends. Seems to me that every season teams don't always draft on general evaluations but evaluate based on what they want to do. So if I agree that Fields and Lance are more athletic, have better arms and higher potential but need to develop, and I have a team that's ready to win now and Jones has the attributes I want and will/can do what the play is designed to do, who do I bet my future on? The better prospect or the guy I think can do what I need him to do. My pick doesn't have to be the best player, just the best player for me. It's about winning. Marino was the best QB almost every season but Montana won 5 super bowls. The right player in the right system wins. Which would you prefer?

No way. You do not draft a QB at 4 to sit on the bench for 2 years. Ryan is 35 and a top 10 QB. He could play well for at least another 3 years and the way his contract is it would be super dumb to cut him before 2024. Then, the QB you just drafted would only have 2-3 years left on his rookie contract. Why would anyone want to rebuild that way? ATL is notoriously loyal. They are not going to just cut Ryan. He's the most successful QB they have ever had and he will retire there. Their problem isn't even on offense but defense. They might go offensive weapon at number 4 or maybe OL but they are definitely not going QB. I'm not buying that sell at all.

YOu do know that the Jets drafted an LT last season with pick 11, right? Mekhi Becton, and he played well for a rookie LT. So why would they give up potentially 3 first round picks plus at least another 3rd to draft another LT at 2? They either draft QB or trade down to add an offensive weapon that they surely need. If they don't go QB it would make a lot more sense to trade down with someone like Carolina so they have all those picks plus they should be able to get 1 of the big 4 receiving threats. If I were them, that's what I would do but what they do I doubt they even know for sure yet. But I'm 99% positive they won't draft Sewell at 2.

I wouldn't agree with that at all. Are you really going to tell me that a coach and a GM purposefully lost games so that they could also lose their jobs and set up the next 2 guys for success? Man o' man. Where do you guys get this tanking stuff from? Is it a millennial thing? Too many participation trophies? This stuff just drives me crazy. Maybe I'm just old now but when I was coming up if anyone even suggested losing for next season they'd get socked in the mouth.

Actually, that statement is probably true. I could understand that. Doesn't mean they won't draft someone else but it could still be a true statement. I mean, it looks like the 49ers aren't so big on Fields and probably Lance neither. So who knows how each team evaluates them.

What's the good old boys club?

Everyone talks about consistency with Mond. I get it. I've read those same articles too but I also looked at his stats the last 3 years. *2018 Texas A&M SEC SO QB 13 238 415 57.3 3107 7.5 7.7 24 9 135.0 *2019 Texas A&M SEC JR QB 13 258 419 61.6 2897 6.9 6.9 20 9 131.1 *2020 Texas A&M SEC SR QB 10 188 297 63.3 2282 7.7 8.5 19 3 146.9 That looks pretty consistent to me while also showing improvement in his last season. Also, unlike the other 4 QBs in the discussion, he wasn't playing for the best team on the field most every game. He has faults just like the others but his faults are also correctable with coaching.

Actually, it's the later picks that I find this info the most interesting. Everyone knows that to get a good player, at any position, the best chance is in the first 3 rounds. From rounds 4-7, any time you can find a player that can start for you for a few season and be solid is considered a win. There are some positions that have much better success rates there than others.

Exactly, that's where organizational preferences come into play. We as Panthers' fans know that not everyone values positions the same. We have often drafted RB, LB and DT in the first round. Most wouldn't consider those high positional value positions but everyone loves most of those players.

True, but it's a modest indicator. You have to have a starting point and debating who's was really good or not is in the eyes of the beholder stuff. So having started half of your career is the median.

Absolutely. The data also doesn't differentiate between L and OG for example. I'm not a professional data collector hahaha. I just wanted to create a statistical breakdown. There are some interesting pattern to it if you look closely. I thought it would be an interesting discussion and a different way of looking at the draft

Every year we think about the draft and study players, read articles, watch mocks and form our opinions on who we, as fans, believe our team should pick and every year most are in someway disappointed or confused by picks that were made. The draft is not a science and no pick is ever a guaranteed success which makes it a gamble. Successful gamblers know how to play the odds. They know that not every hand is a winner and so they try to make the moves that give them the greatest chance of success. They also sometimes use "gut instinct" as many GMs do but these days more and more are starting to believe in the numbers and look for the moves that give them the greatest chance for success like any good gambler should. I found a POST from a Chief's fan named WesternChief that was written 5 years ago. It uses data collected from Pro Football Reference from 2005 - 20014 to create a chart of player success percentages by position and which round those players were drafted in. I have not conformed that the information is 100% accurate and how much those results may have changed in the last 5 years as I'm not a numbers guy but everything looks about right based on quick google searches and so for the sake of the discussion, I will be using those results as a reasonable starting point and using that data and comparing it with our perceived needs before FA to determine what our draft picks should or might be to make us more successful and when we don't get the pick we wanted or understand why a pick was made then perhaps this is why. TEAM NEEDS: QB, OL, TE, WR, RB, DL, LB, DB Yes, we need one of everything at this point and hopefully that will have changed by draft time but for now we will look at every position as a possible selection but where? Where should we look to address these needs? To do this we will look at the percentile rate of success for each position in each round. Success is defined as being a starter for at least half of their career. It does not differentiate between superstars and average starters but any time you can land an average starter for you team in the draft then it is a successful pick. OFFENCE QB - Round 1 (63%), Round 2 (27%), Round 3 (17%) Round 4 (8%) Rounds 5 and 6 (0%) Round 7 (Tom Brady and Ryan Fitzpatrick) A good gambler who wants to win a QB would definitely prefer to play in the first round which has the highest success rate by far. However the odds in the 2nd and even the 3rd are better than I had expected. I would also add though that at QB you want more than just an average starter and that must also be involved in the decision making process which is where "gut feeling" must come into play. Does this mean that we should automatically assume QB is our first pick? Let's look at the results from every position in the first round: Round 1 - OL (83%), LB (70%), TE (67%), DB (64%), QB (63%), WR (58%), RB (58%), DL (58%) As you can see, the most successful Gambler would be all in on OL in the first as it is overwhelmingly the most successful pick year after year at a whopping 83%! OL is perhaps our biggest need depending on who you ask. Also, if that OL is actually an LT then the importance of the pick is increased substantially. DB is another position of need and the first round is a good place to get one. Another interesting take away is that gambling on a WR, RB or DE is not the most fundamentally sound decision as each have the lowest rates of success at 58%. We all know about the idea of not drafting an RB in the first but the same could be said of WR and DL. In the past, we have routinely drafted these very positions in the first and we have been quite lucky it would seem. Okay, we have now narrowed it down to two obvious choices, QB or LT, right? Well let's have a closer look at OL then shall we? OL - Round 1 (83%), Round 2 (70%), Round 3 (40%) Round 4 (29%) Rounds 5 and 6 (16%) Round 7 (9%) Apparently, OL is the easiest position to evaluate as they are also the most successful picks in Round 2 with a rate equal to the 2nd most in Round 1. It's also still reasonable in the 3rd where they are again the most successful pick. We must keep in mind though that every team has 5 starting OL so there are a lot of them starting in the NFL. Drafting an OL in the first is as close to a guaranteed starter as you're going to get in the draft. However, it's still an excellent choice in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. The biggest difference could be WHERE on the OL. Is an LT still there? Should we go for 2? LT is the first and IOL in the 2nd? Should we go LT then QB? Or QB then OL and hope for an LT? Perhaps it's "gut decision" time again. What about the rest of Round 2? Round 2 - OL (70%), LB (55%), TE (50%), WR (49%), DB (46%), QB (27%), DL (26%), RB (25%) Important details from this data is that OL remains the safest pick in round 2 and both LB and TE remain very strong. I should also state that TEs are rarely taken in the first round though. The average is a little less than 1 per draft. QB drops significantly and WR remains very close to the same. Teams looking for a #1 and definitely a #2 WR might be better off waiting until the 2nd. The rate of success is quite similar and they come with a cheaper price tag. DBs see a slight drop but are still decent selections. DL and RB see a decline and remain the most dangerous picks. A pro gambler would need to feel very strongly about the player to draft these positions early. Next up we have TE. I personally feel like these guys are sometimes under valued. Having a good TE can open the middle of the field, get you 3rd downs and most importantly, TOUCH DOWNS! They usually don't put up as many numbers as the smaller peers on the outside but they can be even more important in crucial situations that change the flow of a game. As we have already seen, TEs have the 3rd highest success rate of any position in the 1st Round (67%), but should we consider one in the first? Likely not as QB is more important and OL is the safest. So where would a savvy gambler place his bets on winning one? Let's take a look. TE - Round 1 (67%), Round 2 (50%), Round 3 (39%) Round 4 (33%) Round 5 (32%) Round 6 (26%) Round 7 (0%) TEs have high success rates in round 1 but are more often selected later in the draft. The 2nd round is still an excellent round for your TE. However, rounds 3-5 have little difference and even round 6 has a 1 in 4 chance which is equal to a QB in the 2nd. If you really want a TE you should draft him before round 7 though. How do they compare to other position in those rounds? Round 3 - OL (40%), TE (39%), LB (34%), DL (27%), WR (25%), DB (24%), QB (17%), RB (16%) Round 4 - DL (37%), TE (33%), OL (29%), LB (16%), WR (12%), DB (11%), (RB 11%), QB (8%) Round 5 - TE (32%), DB (17%), WR (16%), OL (16%), DL (13%), RB (9%), LB (4%), QB (BACK UPS ONLY) Round 6 - TE (26%), OL (16%), DL (13%), WR (9%), DB (8%), RB (6%), LB (5%), QB (BACK UPS ONLY) In conclusion, while a TE can be valuable asset, it is also more of a luxury for teams that already have players at more important positions. A team who would like a TE but has other more important needs might consider using a pick in either rounds 3-5 or even 6 every season until they get their man. TEs are found at a high rate compared to other positions in each and every round so teams can always take a shot for 1 wherever in the draft. WR - Round 1 (58%), Round 2 (49%), Round 3 (25%) Round 4 (12%) Rounds 5 (16%) Round 6 (9%) Round 7 (5%) Surprisingly to me, WRs are one of the more dangerous picks to make in the first round. Perhaps because of the allure of incredible speed or athleticism blinds GMs to really see their skills properly or that they have been able to use those traits to mask their faults. Successful franchises must be able to hit on their first round picks which make WRs risky there. The 2nd round has almost the same rate of success and ranks much higher against other positions. Round 2 - OL (70%), LB (55%), TE (50%), WR (49%), DB (46%), QB (27%), DL (26%), RB (25%) Most WRs are drafted in the 3rd round though but only with 25% success which is in the middle. The 5th round (16%) actually does better than the 4th (12%) and ranks higher compared to their positions making it perhaps the best round to take a shot to add depth and maybe find your 3 or 4 wideout. It's also a good place to look for ST value. Round 5 - TE (32%), DB (17%), WR (16%), OL (16%), DL (13%), RB (9%), LB (4%), QB (BACK UPS ONLY) RB - Round 1 (58%), Round 2 (25%), Round 3 (16%) Round 4 (11%) Rounds 5 (9%) Round 6 (6%) Round 7 (0%) These guys take the honor of being the riskiest choice for any gambler in the entire draft process. Which is probably why drafting them in the mid rounds is so popular as you keep taking shots until you get one and then they don't cost very much. They are also popular UDFA signings as well. Their success rates are last in rounds 1-3. In round 4 they are less risky than only QBs and in rounds 5-6 they carry a little less risk than LBs and QBs do, however in the 6th that difference is only 1% and in the 7th they are again last with 0%. Strangely, more RBs are taken in the 7th than any other round. A gambler would probably prefer using the 7th round taking a shot at another position and just using an UDFA to fill the RB roster in pre-season. DEFENCE DL - Round 1 (58%), Round 2 (26%), Round 3 (27%) Round 4 (37%) Rounds 5 (13%) Round 6 (13%) Round 7 (3%) It's hard to find a solid starting DL. Your best shot is in the first same as RB and WR but again, 58% is tied lowest rate for any position. If you're looking for your elite pass rusher you probably need to take the risk in the first because after that, they remain at the bottom in round 2 but have a slightly better percentile in round 3 and making them the 3rd safest pick. Then in round 4 they have better success than in the previous two rounds and become the safest pick. A gambler would look at the 4th round as the logical round to take a shot at landing a DL. Round 6 is also a decent bet. Round 4 - DL (37%), TE (33%), OL (29%), LB (16%), WR (12%), DB (11%), (RB 11%), QB (8%) Round 6 - TE (26%), OL (16%), DL (13%), WR (9%), DB (8%), RB (6%), LB (5%), QB (BACK UPS ONLY) LB - Round 1 (70%), Round 2 (55%), Round 3 (34%) Round 4 (16%) Rounds 5 (4%) Round 6 (5%) Round 7 (2%) LBs are great selections in both the 1st and 2nd rounds showing high success rates and finish the second safest pick in each of those two round. They then start to dip significantly but remain solid choices as the 3rd best in round 3.After that, you should probably avoid drafting them if you want to be a winning gambler. Round 1 - OL (83%), LB (70%), TE (67%), DB (64%), QB (63%), WR (58%), RB (58%), DL (58%) Round 2 - OL (70%), LB (55%), TE (50%), WR (49%), DB (46%), QB (27%), DL (26%), RB (25%) Round 3 - OL (40%), TE (39%), LB (34%), DL (27%), WR (25%), DB (24%), QB (17%), RB (16%) DB - Round 1 (64%), Round 2 (46%), Round 3 (24%) Round 4 (11%) Rounds 5 (17%) Round 6 (8%) Round 7 (11%) DBs are one of the more consistent positions throughout the draft. Second only to TEs. In rounds 1-3 they remain very closely similar to all positions from 3-5 for their odds. So they are mid risk picks in those rounds. But if you need a outside corner your best best is to take him in the 1st round as it's a vital position and hard to get later on in the draft. Then they alternate a little differently than most having the same value in the 5th as they have in the 7th. and more value in 5th than they do in the 4th. Also, at 11% they are the safest selection in that round. So, if you're not sure what to do with that last pick? Why not take a shot on a DB. A good gambler would. Here is a complete list of all rounds: 1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%) 2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%) 3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%) 4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%) 5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%) 6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%) 7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

I might consider it for Lance. I like the fact that everyone told him he couldn't play QB at the college level because he played at a small school and had no experience with real competition and wanted him to play WR or CB and he ignored them and went to a smaller school to play QB and in his first year proved them all wrong. That tells me he has a strong character, works hard and believes in himself. Now, people are saying he can't play QB at the NFL level for the same reasons. I just have a feeling he's going to prove everyone wrong again because he has a strong character, works hard and believes in himself.

Also, if the guy turns out to be at least serviceable, we may still need to look for a long term solution it's true, but it would allows us to move on from Teddy's cap hit for a player that costs very little. Sure we still need the long term solution but we have an extra 20+mil to make the rest of the roster better. That would be worth the pick, wouldn't it?

I'm slowly starting to think it may be worth a shot. I wouldn't want to trade back into the first for him and hope that wouldn't be necessary but I would consider drafting him. Chris Simms has him as his 4th best QB in the draft for what that's worth.

I've thought about this often and at different times during the off season and I've fluctuated up and down quite a bit. This off season has been like no other for me personally as it's really forced me to question many ideas and philosophies or opinions due to how strange it's all been. Since we hired Rhule I was all in on building up slowly through the draft ad being smart with draft picks, not reaching too much and also trying to accumulate lots of picks and just slowly building and improving the roster. Not overpaying our players to resign just because they were our best player at that position or if the positional value didn't justify it. Those were things we had always done and I was tired of it and felt that it always hurt us. So early on, I had thought about us maybe going for Darnold if the Jets did did go QB as I thought Lance would be a reach at 8 and likely the only option possible and I don't really believe in trading up very much unless a player just looks really great. I thought for a mid round pick, bring him in to compete with Teddy and see what happened. I was never a big Darnold fan but thought he could be a good NFL QB and I'm big on not giving up on these QBs that are forced into bad situations because it's not fair, Like Testeverde (spelling?) or Tannehill or Cousins. Then the Watson train took off and I got caught up in it like many others. The there was the Stafford trade almost happening, that got me more excited about a QB. Then I started really liking Lance when I read his story and was impressed by how far he had came from a small town QB no one wanted to play QB and so went to NDS and was amazing and I could imagine him becoming a cinderella story. Then the Watson mess happened followed by the possibility the Jets want to trade their pick, I watched Wilson's pro days and saw the 49ers jump to 3 and now I'm totally lost as to what I feel/want Carolina to do and at this point I have no idea other than I'll trust their judgement and see what happens. Which ironically has brought me back full circle to just yesterday wondering if maybe the Panthers should try to bring in Darnold to compete with Teddy and see what happens and use the picks to just improve our team overall. At pick 8 we should be able to get an LT and OL in the first round are statistically the safest picks every draft. I've also started checking out Simms' evaluations from this year and the last few. As with everyone he's not always right but he's been pretty good and especially recently. He definitely goes against the general opinions and has some interesting takes. He has evaluated Mond higher than Lance and Fields. I do find that interesting because when I watched him at the senior bowl and did think he showed signs and was by far the best QB who played. I would now say take what we have at 8 and then either trade for Darnold or Draft Mond and see what happens and concentrate on improving the overall team. Could Darnold be our Tannehill? Could Mond be our Wilson? I have no idea but would it hurt to much to maybe spend a 3rd on either to find out?

Is the possible Jets trade for number 2 out the window? I imagine it is but please break it to me gently. I only just started imagining Wilson in Carolina about 2 days ago. Today I feel like the kid praying for that super cool bike I want for Christmas.