Source: Panthers Open to Drafting Quarterback With No. 8 Pick

[AceBoogie]

2 hours ago, 45catfan said:

I agree, but in all seriousness what that tells me is the kid can't read exotic defenses.  Apparently the Patriots figured that out and disguised their looks really well.  So when defenders showed up where he wasn't expecting them, he was "seeing ghosts".  Again, the kid has talent, he just needs to be coached up and spend a poo-ton of time in the film room with Brady and even with Luke.  If anyone knows about what a defense can scheme up, it's Luke.  I'm not sue what year that game was, but hopefully it was his rookie season and has learned from that.

Getting back on topic, I'm still all about a QB not named Mac Jones at #8 and Lance is still that dude.

We should have moved up to 3 a long time ago. Put too much stock in the Deshaun train. After 38 starts I think Sam is who he is at this point. 

[45catfan]

1 minute ago, AceBoogie said:

We should have moved up to 3 a long time ago. Put too much stock in the Deshaun train. After 38 starts I think Sam is who he is at this point. 

I disagree with the first sentence, totally agree with the second and uncertain with the third one.

[bobcat91]

I would take Fields at 8, but not Lance now that we have Darnold. I love Pitts game, but if we are ever serious about being a championship team, we have to go OL at 8 and probably in the second as well. Only trade I would make is to swap places with Denver at nine if Lance falls and they have to have him and fear we will take him. We could still get our OL and a second round pic as well. 

[45catfan]

25 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

What defines success?

According to the source, being a starter more than half of that player's career.

Edited April 12, 2021 by 45catfan

[MHS831]

It helps the draft position if others think we will take a QB.   If you do not want a QB and you can convince teams like Denver or NE that you do, they may move up with the Lions and take a QB, leaving a player like Pitts or Chase sitting there.  

 

Still, a Mond or Mills or even a Trask later might make more sense, if you think you can develop them.

A first round, top 10 pick QB is going to start--you have not created a competition, you simply turned Darnold into a bridge.

Edited April 12, 2021 by MHS831

[NAS]

5 minutes ago, bobcat91 said:

I would take Fields at 8, but not Lance now that we have Darnold. I love Pitts game, but if we are ever serious about being a championship team, we have to go OL at 8 and probably in the second as well. Only trade I would make is to swap places with Denver at nine if Lance falls and they have to have him and fear we will take him. We could still get our OL and a second round pic as well. 

If they thought we wanted Lance, wouldn’t it be more logical they trade ahead of us?  If we accept the trade it’s basically pointless for Denver because then they know we weren’t going to take him anyway

[Soul Rebel]

I wonder if Seattle would have drafted Tannehill if they had the 8th pick that year after bringing in Whitehurst and Flynn. They passed on Weeden and Osweiler and waited to the 3rd round....a lot different than having the 8th overall and needing OL help with potentially two franchise cornerstone LTs sitting in your lap....and perhaps Kyle Pitts. 

I think it's a smokescreen to get someone like Denver or NE to trade up to 8 if a QB falls there. 

[45catfan]

1 minute ago, MHS831 said:

It helps the draft position if others think we will take a QB.  The Lions might get some trade offers as well.  Still, a Mond or Mills or even a Trask later might make more sense, if you think you can develop them.

A first round, top 10 pick QB is going to start--you have not created a competition, you simply turned Darnold into a bridge.

If Darnold has a competitive bone in his body, it certainly should create a competition and bring out the best in the rookie and Sam.

[MHS831]

2 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

If Darnold has a competitive bone in his body, it certainly should create a competition and bring out the best in the rookie and Sam.

I cannot think of a situation when the incumbent has not bowed out when a team drafts a top 10 talent.   Sooner or later, usually sooner--after the first bad game or so---the shiny new QB takes over.  I still think this is unlikely--maybe a bluff. 

If you are the coach, and Darnold throws 3 picks in a game or the team loses 3 games in a row, the pressure is there to pull the cord.  That is all it is about--when to pull the cord and make the switch, knowing that you cannot unswitch the switch....  Can you think of a time when a top 10 QB was drafted and the incumbent kept the job for a long period of time?  I can't.

[LinvilleGorge]

28 minutes ago, AceBoogie said:

We should have moved up to 3 a long time ago. Put too much stock in the Deshaun train. After 38 starts I think Sam is who he is at this point. 

I honestly don't have a problem with us not trading up to #3. I like Fields a lot. I'm not sure I like Fields enough to have outbid the Niners though. They went ALL in.

[45catfan]

6 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

I cannot think of a situation when the incumbent has not bowed out when a team drafts a top 10 talent.   Sooner or later, usually sooner--after the first bad game or so---the shiny new QB takes over.  I still think this is unlikely--maybe a bluff. 

If you are the coach, and Darnold throws 3 picks in a game or the team loses 3 games in a row, the pressure is there to pull the cord.  That is all it is about--when to pull the cord and make the switch, knowing that you cannot unswitch the switch....  Can you think of a time when a top 10 QB was drafted and the incumbent kept the job for a long period of time?  I can't.

Nope, not off the cuff, but at that point you have a legit #2 not named Grier or Walker.  Heck, I mean we a have a 3rd round pick tied up in Grier and he won't EVER be a starter in this League.  Darnold is a low-risk gamble with our draft capital, but we should not be foolish enough to hitch our wagon to him for the long term if we have an opportunity to draft a safety net.  Now, this is only if Lance or Fields falls to #8.  I am against using more draft capital to chase a QB by moving up.  If one/both are miraculously there, I would be VERY hard pressed to make that pass.

[45catfan]

The best I can compare it to is the Chargers with Brees and Rivers.  While Brees was not a perceived bust, he was marginal enough for them to draft Rivers. Brees stats finishing up his rookie contract:

In 59 games, he threw for 12,348 yards, 80 touchdowns to 53 interceptions and averaged just over 200 yards per game.  Source

They were in a no lose situation.  One could argue they should have kept Brees based on how he turned out with the Saints--but that's hindsight cherry picking, however, the Chargers really were in the fortunate situation of choosing between two starting caliber QBs.  We never stockpile QB talent and let the best man win, simply put all our eggs in one basket and keep our fingers crossed.   And people wonder why we've always been a mediocre franchise.

[Smittymoose]

1 hour ago, 45catfan said:

Point #1: It's essentially a 2nd and a 4th.  This year's 6th is very insignificant.  For a staring QB, that is peanuts.

Point #2: You are assuming neither work out and the pick was wasted by not drafting another position

Point #3:  Darold will NOT led us to a QB next year.  His awful will be just good enough to keep us out of range.

Point #4: Potential replacement.  You keep the better of the two and trade for a ransom.

Point #5: You really don't understand the value a QB in this League.  If Darnold pans out, that rookie in a couple years will still garner at least a first rounder and then some to a desperate QB needy team.

 

1. What we gave up is essentially the equivalent of a low second round pick for 2021 by pushing those picks into 2022 and giving up a sixth this year. It's cheap-ish for a starting QB, but it's not cheap from a total value standpoint. 

2. I'm not assuming that at all. It's just bad asset allocation to give up a high 1st and the equivalent of a low 2nd this year on a position where you can only play one guy, particularly when you can spend that high 1st round pick on another position of need.

3. This is complete speculation, and I honestly have no reason to trust your opinion on this point.

4. Can you provide some examples of when a rookie who sat on the bench for a year or more was traded for a "ransom?" If Darnold is worse than a rookie, then what makes you think a QB on an expiring $19M deal is going to fetch a "ransom?" We'll get less, probably substantially less, than what we gave up this year.

5. Actually, I understand it much better than you. What you are proposing is complete fantasy land. Can you point to a single example of someone drafting a QB, letting him ride the bench, then trading him for more than the value of the pick they used on him? Keep in mind that the 8th pick this year is worth more than the 8th pick two years from now in terms of present value. So even if they drafted your crush 8th overall and traded him two years later for the 8th overall pick, it's not a particularly efficient use of value. 

1 hour ago, 45catfan said:

The same would go for Matt Kalil.  Go fish.

I didn't argue starting half of the games in your career means you were successful. You did. Frankly, I think it's an idiotic way to judge success because some guys bust out so fast that they "start" half (or more) of the games in their career but are complete garbage and never even get another serious chance. 

[Mr. Scot]

57 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

According to the source, being a starter more than half of that player's career.

Thaaaat's not a good definition.