Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

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


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Ok, so you don't have a dog in the QB preference fight, you just don't want a QB at all.  Fair enough. 

I was merely pointing out that if we did draft Fields he's likely to sit anyhow (as you even stated) and one of the biggest knocks on Lance--he has to sit a year.  I could go on from there, but I'll leave it with that.

I will say I wanted a QB up until we traded for one. I think the team had a love/hate with every QB option we had in the sense of loving the QB, but hating how we would have to go about getting him. 

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ForJimmy said:

I mean yeah. Did we really think that next year’s second plus a couple late picks was the absolute cure for our QB position? If a talent falls you take him. If he and Darnold look good, trade one next year for a ransom. It’s too important of a position to simply roll the dice on QB who has struggled and assume we are good.

Bingo!  I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp?  QB is the MOST crucial position in football.  By having two first round QBs, here are the scenarios moving forward: both work out, only one works out or neither work out.  Right there you gave your organization 2-out-of-3 chances to succeed.  This shouldn't even be a discussion.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smittymoose said:

You told me that it was "objectively" untrue that QBs are a 50/50 proposition at best. That's 22 QBs. At best, you can say Stafford, Bradford, Newton, Luck, Goff, and maybe Wentz weren't busts with the teams that drafted them. Bradford and Wentz are stretches, and the Rams have already jettisoned Goff in search of an upgrade. 

And yet Goff is still much better than the QBs we've spent significant resources rolling the dice on the past two off-seasons.

We're shopping in the dumpster out back of Dollar General, but paying Target prices to harken back to Gettleman euphemisms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Smittymoose said:

You told me that it was "objectively" untrue that QBs are a 50/50 proposition at best. That's 22 QBs. At best, you can say Stafford, Bradford, Newton, Luck, Goff, and maybe Wentz weren't busts with the teams that drafted them. Bradford and Wentz are stretches, and the Rams have already jettisoned Goff in search of an upgrade. 

So you are saying teams should never draft a rookie QB early, it's smarter to keep dipping from the FA well?  FA QBs were rookies at one time too, so some team gave up on them as well.  I would also note this isn't he 1990's and teams are VERY impatient with rookie QBs.  If they aren't carrying the franchise by end of year two, typically teams are ready to cut bait.  Again, does that mean teams stop drafting QBs early?  No position has a 100% success rate or even close to it and if you are taking that gamble, it's with a franchise QB. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Bingo!  I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp?  QB is the MOST crucial position in football.  By having two first round QBs, here are the scenarios moving forward: both work out, only one works out or neither work out.  Right there you gave your organization 2-out-of-3 chances to succeed.  This shouldn't even be a discussion.

 

We'd actually have 3 first-round QB's on the roster...

...has this ever happened before?

 

 

 

Edited by SizzleBuzz
Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.385b10a6ab942f47cbbea2b1526a54e7.png

Source

QBs historically have a 63% success rate in the first round, so yes, better than 50/50.  You could say teams are less patient now and that number has dropped in recent years, but is that because QBs are worse or teams are just extremely impatient?  I'm going with the later.  Yes, OL is the safest in round one, but ditto for rounds 2 and 3.  This year is a VERY deep class so we have the luxury of waiting until round 2 if need be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

So you are saying teams should never draft a rookie QB early, it's smarter to keep dipping from the FA well?  FA QBs were rookies at one time too, so some team gave up on them as well.  I would also note this isn't he 1990's and teams are VERY impatient with rookie QBs.  If they aren't carrying the franchise by end of year two, typically teams are ready to cut bait.  Again, does that mean teams stop drafting QBs early?  No position has a 100% success rate or even close to it and if you are taking that gamble, it's with a franchise QB. 

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it makes no sense to draft a QB at #8 when you just gave up a not insignificant draft haul for one. It's not a choice between drafting a QB and not drafting a QB. It's a choice between drafting a QB and having invested either the 8th overall pick or a 2+4+6 in a backup or having a starting-caliber QB PLUS an impact player at another position.

If Darnold is awful, Carolina will be in a position to draft a QB next year. The smart choice is to give him at least a year and give him an impact player at #8 rather than drafting his replacement. It's unrealistic to say you'll just trade whichever QB for a haul down the road. If Darnold is good, how many first round rookies really sit on the bench and appreciate in value? I can't think of one that was traded for MORE than what he was drafted for without getting significant playing time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

image.png.385b10a6ab942f47cbbea2b1526a54e7.png

Source

QBs historically have a 63% success rate in the first round, so yes, better than 50/50.  You could say teams are less patient now and that number has dropped in recent years, but is that because QBs are worse or teams are just extremely impatient?  I'm going with the later.  Yes, OL is the safest in round one, but ditto for rounds 2 and 3.  This year is a VERY deep class so we have the luxury of waiting until round 2 if need be.

This is a foolish way of evaluating QB hit rate. Jamarcus Russell started more than half of his career. Would you consider him a hit? He's a "hit" rather than a "miss" under this metric. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smittymoose said:

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it makes no sense to draft a QB at #8 when you just gave up a not insignificant draft haul for one. It's not a choice between drafting a QB and not drafting a QB. It's a choice between drafting a QB and having invested either the 8th overall pick or a 2+4+6 in a backup or having a starting-caliber QB PLUS an impact player at another position.

If Darnold is awful, Carolina will be in a position to draft a QB next year. The smart choice is to give him at least a year and give him an impact player at #8 rather than drafting his replacement. It's unrealistic to say you'll just trade whichever QB for a haul down the road. If Darnold is good, how many first round rookies really sit on the bench and appreciate in value? I can't think of one that was traded for MORE than what he was drafted for without getting significant playing time. 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Smittymoose said:

This is a foolish way of evaluating QB hit rate. Jamarcus Russell started more than half of his career. Would you consider him a hit? He's a "hit" rather than a "miss" under this metric. 

The same would go for Matt Kalil.  Go fish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...