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!

     

Verge's 2021 Mock Draft


Verge
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

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 talked about passing on a quarterback who would have been good. That's not guaranteed."

No one can guarantee any rookie will work out. We also can't guarantee Darnold will out. Nothing with the Panthers QB situation right now is 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."

Any rookie has the chance for failure so you might or might not have solidified another starting position. Regardless, if Darnold turns out to be good, you haven't wasted the pick. A QB drafted in the top 10 will still have value in a year. Look what we gave for a QB who was (to be generous) not great his first three years. He still had value. Look at what the Cardinals got for Rosen a year after drafting him. He still had value. Whoever we picked at #8 would have value a year from now.

"If you take a first round quarterback and he's not good, you've screwed yourself out of two positions."

There's an opportunity cost involved with whoever we pick. If we had take a first round OT and he's not good, we've screwed ourselves out of two positions, too.

Thought exercise: If Pitts was there, should we pass because we signed Dan Arnold? 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheRumGone said:

Because he’s been jacking off to Sewell YouTube highlights and will cry if we pick fields over him

within the confines of this thread he’s already said that Fields and Darnold are both “essentially rookies” as if we should grade them along the same curve (hedging his bets) as if darnold hasn’t been the leagues literal worst QB over the last three seasons

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, trueblade said:

"You talked about passing on a quarterback who would have been good. That's not guaranteed."

No one can guarantee any rookie will work out. We also can't guarantee Darnold will out. Nothing with the Panthers QB situation right now is 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."

Any rookie has the chance for failure so you might or might not have solidified another starting position. Regardless, if Darnold turns out to be good, you haven't wasted the pick. A QB drafted in the top 10 will still have value in a year. Look what we gave for a QB who was (to be generous) not great his first three years. He still had value. Look at what the Cardinals got for Rosen a year after drafting him. He still had value. Whoever we picked at #8 would have value a year from now.

"If you take a first round quarterback and he's not good, you've screwed yourself out of two positions."

There's an opportunity cost involved with whoever we pick. If we had take a first round OT and he's not good, we've screwed ourselves out of two positions, too.

Thought exercise: If Pitts was there, should we pass because we signed Dan Arnold? 

Other positions aren't like quarterback.

We're a rebuilding team. Yes, they've signed free agents, but that doesn't mean we don't still have needs.

And again, you've already got what basically amounts to a rookie quarterback. Taking another one would be silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

For reasons I've already outlined.

You're suggesting the team go ahead and basically supplant the guy they just traded for without even seeing him in action, and this while also bypassing the chance to shore up another spot on a team that has a lot of needs.

I think that'd be a dumbass move.

he is suggesting you draft the best player on the board.   And if you have Sam....you aren't forced to throw your rookie QB to the wolves day 1 out of desperation/no other options.   

QB is our biggest need in terms of consistently winning football games and actually doing something.    We can draft a CB.  We ain't going to do anything without a legit QB. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fields is in on another level as a prospect then Sam darnold and that’s even if you take away sam’s horrific 3 years in the league. Whatever is happening to his draft stock makes absolutely no sense and reminds me of what happened to deshaun during his draft class.
 

the highest position of need we have is QB. Over any other position. So if fields fell to 8 we should be running to the podium to grab him. If somehow Sam turned out good/great. That’s draft capital. The biggest obstacles franchises have in becoming consistent is finding a franchise qb. I’d love to have Sewell. But not over someone like fields.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheRumGone said:

Fields is in on another level as a prospect then Sam darnold and that’s even if you take away sam’s horrific 3 years in the league. Whatever is happening to his draft stock makes absolutely no sense and reminds me of what happened to deshaun during his draft class.
 

the highest position of need we have is QB. Over any other position. So if fields fell to 8 we should be running to the podium to grab him. If somehow Sam turned out good/great. That’s draft capital. The biggest obstacles franchises have in becoming consistent is finding a franchise qb. I’d love to have Sewell. But not over someone like fields.

I like Fields and I don't understand the momentum against him but Darnold was a higher graded prospect coming out than anybody in this draft other than Lawrence.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

For reasons I've already outlined.

You're suggesting the team go ahead and basically supplant the guy they just traded for without even seeing him in action, and this while also bypassing the chance to shore up another spot on a team that has a lot of needs.

I think that'd be a dumbass move.

I disagree.  Look at your stance from a different lens:

What if Darnold ends up sucking and Fields or Lance were there for us to take and turn out great.  Well then, we just lost out on the most important position because we got cute to pick need over BPA.  Yay we have an LT, and yay, we still suck.

It wouldn't be a dumb move, it's the simple notion of taking the guy we covet if he's there at 8.  That may be a QB.

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moo Daeng said:

I like Fields and I don't understand the momentum against him but Darnold was a higher graded prospect coming out than anybody in this draft other than Lawrence.

Daniel Jeremiah and others inserted Darnold into this year's draft class and put him only behind Lawrence and Wilson.

  • The D 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

For reasons I've already outlined.

You're suggesting the team go ahead and basically supplant the guy they just traded for without even seeing him in action, and this while also bypassing the chance to shore up another spot on a team that has a lot of needs.

I think that'd be a dumbass move.

It's a sunk cost. If you bypass what you seem a better option due to the sunk cost of a trade that involved relative peanuts when considering the importance of the QB position, then I think that's peak dumbassery.

We had to strike out several times to arrive at Sam Darnold. We were hell-bent not to roll with Teddy. We did our homework and deemed that the QBs we valued at #8 wouldn't be there so we made what we deemed the best option available for us at the time. If it works out that we were wrong on how the draft board would fall and one of those QBs we did value at #8 is there, he should absolutely still be the pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

And again, you've already got what basically amounts to a rookie quarterback. Taking another one would be silly.

That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it (and have given logical reasons for it). I don't agree as we've discussed. 

The Panthers don't necessarily see things the way either of us do. We'll find out what they think Thursday night.🍻

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, davos said:

I disagree.  Look at your stance from a different lens:

What if Darnold ends up sucking and Fields or Lance were there for us to take and turn out great.  Well then, we just lost out on the most important position because we got cute to pick need over BPA.  Yay we have an LT, and yay, we still suck.

It wouldn't be a dumb move, it's the simple notion of taking the guy we covet if he's there at 8.  That may be a QB.

 

It may be the guy we take, but yes I still see that as a dumb move.

Darnold may not pan out, but whether he does or not I still think drafting a QB high right now is just a lousy idea.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Daniel Jeremiah and others inserted Darnold into this year's draft class and put him only behind Lawrence and Wilson.

Somebody's got to explain the Wilson love to me. I don't see it.

(Edit: I have a ton of respect for Jeremiah's evaluations.)

Edited by trueblade
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...