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!

     

In This Thread I Talk Rationally About Drafting A QB #1 Overall.

SmootsDaddy89

By SmootsDaddy89,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

nagai Newbie

nagai

Posted
Posted

Man, you guys sound like you want to take a QB just because they're a QB. This is scouting, how it works is a young guy shows you signs of playing well. You go 'hmmmmmm... this guy could be something special', then you think about taking him. These gambles that you're talking about don't even seem like justified ones. They are in their very nature, reaching for need. How about we actually look at the guys we do like first and foremost, the guys who shows signs of being successful and THEN look at their positions? I didn't want to be this blunt to get my point across, but just to say "if you don't swing you won't get a home run" is RIDICULOUS. No one's saying that we shouldn't gamble, but how about gambling smartly? You guys almost sound like a bunch of alcoholics stuck on slot machines. "Stop throwing my money away? You're just afraid to lose!", "If you don't even try, how can you win?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nagai Newbie

nagai

Posted
Posted

lol in just last year's draft you could've argued the Rams reached for Bradford and the Panthers got a steal at 47 with Jimmy Clausen

Pssh. How about those guys realised what Bradford had, showed the tools to be a franchise QB and so took him? This isn't the reasoning people are giving to pick a QB. I'm not necessarily buying into the ESPN big board, I'm saying that for you to make that gamble, you need to see signs that he will succeed! It's such a simple point, I'm not sure why I have to make it so many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frash.exe Apprentice

frash.exe

Posted
Posted

the bottom line is that only everybody else talks about everybody being a "reach" or a "value" pick

NFL scouts don't do that. They watch a player perform on game film and in person during the combine and pro days, determine his skill set, and go through a sequence of queries which include "does this guy have talent and potential?" "can he help us in an area of need?" "is he impressive enough given the evidence we have to invest in him?"

if they determine the answers to most of those questions are positive for any of the QBs, which btw hurney has stated as the no.1 need, we probably will draft a QB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nagai Newbie

nagai

Posted
Posted

the bottom line is that only everybody else talks about everybody being a "reach" or a "value" pick

NFL scouts don't do that. They watch a player perform on game film and in person during the combine and pro days, determine his skill set, and go through a sequence of queries which include "does this guy have talent and potential?" "can he help us in an area of need?" "is he impressive enough given the evidence we have to invest in him?"

if they determine the answers to most of those questions are positive for any of the QBs, which btw hurney has stated as the no.1 need, we probably will draft a QB

Ummm... I don't disagree with that. I am arguing against the misconception posters on these forums about gambling on draft day. Yes, of course that's what scouts should do, of course they should trust their read over whatever media hype that's out there. A lot of posters here (not you) just don't seem to understand that it's their read that's important and want to draft a QB when there really hasn't been that many positive signs that they will succeed. I have said repeatedly that I am fine with them taking a QB if they are convinced that they have a good chance being a franchise QB. What they shouldn't do is go "he's a Qb who Mel Kiper likes, let's take a chance on him".

Then again, you understand all this, so I don't understand why you made your previous post :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toker Smurf Experienced

Toker Smurf

Posted
Posted

I'm really torn on this but here is something to think about. I see 4 names that I think I would want with the # 1 pick that were taken later. It's obviously a gamble but just b/c it isn't obvious that there is a QB worth number one doesn't mean there isn't. (I know this is subjective and hindsight is 20/20 but just food for thought).

Yr Name Picked

2010 Colt McCoy 85th

2009 Josh Freeman 17th

2008 Joe Flacco 18th

2007 Kevin Kolb 36th

2006 Jay Cutler 11th

2005 Aaron Rodgers 24th

2004 Matt Schaub 90th

Link to comment
Share on other sites
teeray Rookie

teeray

Posted
Posted

Man, you guys sound like you want to take a QB just because they're a QB. This is scouting, how it works is a young guy shows you signs of playing well. You go 'hmmmmmm... this guy could be something special', then you think about taking him. These gambles that you're talking about don't even seem like justified ones. They are in their very nature, reaching for need. How about we actually look at the guys we do like first and foremost, the guys who shows signs of being successful and THEN look at their positions? I didn't want to be this blunt to get my point across, but just to say "if you don't swing you won't get a home run" is RIDICULOUS. No one's saying that we shouldn't gamble, but how about gambling smartly? You guys almost sound like a bunch of alcoholics stuck on slot machines. "Stop throwing my money away? You're just afraid to lose!", "If you don't even try, how can you win?".

I'm sure that we will do that. We aren't going to gamble for the sake of gambling but what if we really like AJ Green so we drafted him but because we have a midget that throws virtually side arm as are QB we can't get him the ball. The problem here is we have other pieces in place and but no QB to bring it all together. That is why when we have a chance to have you pick of the entire litter in regards to QB's you have to CONSIDER taking him. It may turn out that our scouts don't like any of the QB's and goes in a different direction. But if one of these guys begins to stand out and they think he is a guy who can become a franchise QB then you take him regardless of where the scouts rank him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
teeray Rookie

teeray

Posted
Posted

I'm really torn on this but here is something to think about. I see 4 names that I think I would want with the # 1 pick that were taken later. It's obviously a gamble but just b/c it isn't obvious that there is a QB worth number one doesn't mean there isn't. (I know this is subjective and hindsight is 20/20 but just food for thought).

Yr Name Picked

2010 Colt McCoy 85th

2009 Josh Freeman 17th

2008 Joe Flacco 18th

2007 Kevin Kolb 36th

2006 Jay Cutler 11th

2005 Aaron Rodgers 24th

2004 Matt Schaub 90th

An interesting thing about Freeman, the Bucs front office SWEARS that if they had the number one overall pick they STILL would have selected Josh Freeman. Despite what the scouts ranked him. They were that impressed with him. I think we might be of a similar mind frame this draft.

Again a QB has to prove to our brass that they are worthy of being picked number 1 overall. Not Mel Kiper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theyhateme45 Newbie

theyhateme45

Posted
Posted

I haven't seen what you're talking about.

What I do see is rational thoughts on why none of these QB's are worth the first pick. No one is saying they can't/won't succeed in time, but the Panthers need to get better now, not 2-3 years down the road.

Take someone like Fairley, Green, Peterson or Bowers and improve this year, or reach for a QB and hope they learn the NFL game in a couple seasons.

The Luck love is well deserved, he's shown that he can already do everything- no one else has.

Though I vary everyday on who we should draft, I don't agree with the section in bold.

If one of these guys can develop into a Top NFL QB in about 3 years I will take that over small meaningless improvement we can make the next few years. Yea we may become a better team, but our division is turning into one of the toughest in the NFL and we will need strong QB play to compete log term.

Yes it is a high risk, but if 3 years from now one of them is a pro bowl caliber QB, I would sign up for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theyhateme45 Newbie

theyhateme45

Posted
Posted

id rather wait until next year to draft a qb. luck, jones, and berkley are all better than the qbs in this draft

A lot of teams will still need a QB, and I don't see us drafting in the top 5 next year... where we would need too. Then if we don't get one of them next year we're stuck in QB mediocrity like most teams in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frash.exe Apprentice

frash.exe

Posted
Posted

Ummm... I don't disagree with that. I am arguing against the misconception posters on these forums about gambling on draft day. Yes, of course that's what scouts should do, of course they should trust their read over whatever media hype that's out there. A lot of posters here (not you) just don't seem to understand that it's their read that's important and want to draft a QB when there really hasn't been that many positive signs that they will succeed. I have said repeatedly that I am fine with them taking a QB if they are convinced that they have a good chance being a franchise QB. What they shouldn't do is go "he's a Qb who Mel Kiper likes, let's take a chance on him".

Then again, you understand all this, so I don't understand why you made your previous post :/

I know, but that's where my post originates and i guess from reading what you did that we're on the same page

whoever they draft i'll end up supporting

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pox 08 Newbie

Pox 08

Posted
Posted

I think most of the negativity is about Luck. If we can't get the next Elway/Peyton Manning, screw it, every other qb in the draft sucks and most aren't worthy of going in even the 1st round.

The prospect of ...Ryan, Bradford, Rivers, Rodgers, Eli, Freeman, Sanchez, Flacco all look horrible if compared to Luck. A franchise qb doesn't have to be a superstar that makes the pro bowl every year. I'd settle for someone, anyone that can make the throws and doesn't cost us games. If Gabbert, Newton, Locker or Mallet can be that guy, then pull the trigger on one. I could care less about pre-draft hype or a lack thereof.

Like most have already said in this thread, no matter who we pick, we're going to be "reaching" anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheRealDeal Newbie

TheRealDeal

Posted
Posted

I also doubt we sign a veteran QB we will likely give Clausen next year to prove he can be a starter in the NFL. Clausen deserves that chance also.

Why do you think Clausen deserves it? What did he do to deserve it?

He doesn't deserve anything. He hasn't earned that right. If we feel there is a player that can come in and be better than him, that player will play. This staff has nothing invested in Clausen and his contract isn't anything crazy that demands we play him to get a return on our investment.

This mindset baffles me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Proudiddy
      We joke about how the NFL has a script for the season. But maybe it's not a joke?

      By Proudiddy · Posted

      I had started typing my post hours ago and didn’t finish it and just came back to finish it, posted it, then saw yours and saw we were pretty much saying the same thing - even the games that stick out to us most.  I don’t think a lot of people remember that SF playoff game, but I felt like I had just got mugged in broad daylight.  I remember them calling Mitchell for unnecessary roughness, and then I remember watching Boldin take a super late cheap shot, dead in front of the ref and then showing him watching the whole thing in replay…  the refs let them have a fuging field day and didn’t do jack poo, but if we so much as breathed the wrong way it was fuging 15 yards.  Each team playing under two completely different sets of rules.  poo hurt.  I was enraged.  I’ve never went back to watch either that game or SB50 and never will.  fuging robbery.
    • Proudiddy
      We joke about how the NFL has a script for the season. But maybe it's not a joke?

      By Proudiddy · Posted

      I’ve said it a million times since, but it’s impossible to keep them from affecting the game.  In SB50, they literally took the game from us, and they did it early.  Cotchery’s no-catch?  The miraculous amount of times we converted for a first down only to have it suddenly called back make it a 3rd down and 15+ against the best defense in the league that specialized in rushing the passer and man coverage on the back end?  And you do that enough times, you kill the morale and confidence of the team you’re doing it against.  It’s telling the one team “you can do whatever with impunity” and the other “you can’t do whatever they’re allowed to do.”  It changes the aggression level.  It essentially neuters one team and allows the other to do whatever the fug they want.  Imagine you call the police for help and they get there and tell you to sit still while the other party beats the poo out of you and you can’t defend yourself.  That’s what the officials do.  There is no way to avoid them affecting the game.  And more often than not, it’s the most subjective calls they use to do so.  Even in SB50…  you saw the Broncos commit more egregious penalties than anything we did, and barely any of it was called.  Their OL was holding all fuging game and the refs did nothing.  We already had our work cut out for us against two future HOF edge rushers and the refs played to their advantage with that.  From what I remember, both Oher and Remmers were called for holding at various times and their hands were in the INSIDE of the defender.  It was garbage, but all by design. Also, if there is any video of it anywhere, go look at what the refs did against us back in 2013 against SF.  The fix was in there too.  They stepped in early and often and ensured we knew we were not allowed to play with the same aggression or intensity SF was.  It was disgusting as well. at this point, I hope Vince McMahon, errr, I mean Goodell just finally scripts us to win it, because this poo is not won via competition or off merit.
    • DaveThePanther2008
      We joke about how the NFL has a script for the season. But maybe it's not a joke?

      By DaveThePanther2008 · Posted

      You can go back to the New York Knicks somehow getting Patrick Ewing.  I saw a story where they place the New York Knick card in the freezer right before the drawing.  It was simple.  Show everyone the cards are undetectable to the human eye.  All they had to do was grab the coldest card. IMO ever since Goodell took over the NFL it has been fishy.  Patriots winning the SB after 9/11, New Orleans after Katrina and Peyton Manning's going away gift against us. The terrible calls during that game were blatantly one sided.  New England should have been stripped of their first 3 SB when they were caught spying on the other team in their SB wins.  I think the evidence against the Patriots was so damning Goodell felt it could ruin football and they brushed it under the table.   In the 2004 SB, How did we go from practically no yards in the first Quarter to setting a record in the 3rd Qtr.  Dan Henning changes the game plan.  IMO probably the greatest half time adjustment of all time.  
×
×
  • Create New...