Do we HAVE to take Newton?

[MHS831]

Bias is when you have strongly held ideas which persist in spite of facts to the contrary. He has a strong bias against Newton that hasn't changed despite evidence to the contrary. So you have to take everything he says about Newton with a grain of salt.

I think at this point in the game, bias applies to everyone's thinking.

[panthers55]

I see some of your points and I want to drink the Kool-Aid too. I just see the first pick as a golden opportunity and am not ready to put that chip on Newton, Gabbert. If I want a developmental QB with a strong arm and excellent mobility, I will take the smarter QB with no character concerns in the second round-Kaepernick. He has the same tools but has not been hyped. Not that I think he is the answer either. I am in favor of trading down to get a second rounder. Peterson in the first, DT in the second. Bring in a veteran (we have cap room) and be patient. After drafting 3 QBs last year, I think a new coaching staff needs to analyze what they have first before venturing out and making their first decision a mistake. Newton's success is a coin toss, which is why so many people argue about him. If we take him, I hope you were right. To me, being right is the least important thing. If I put my mortgage in the pot playing poker and won, I would not ridicule the person who advised against it.

You are not alone in making that analysis the same as many were last year cautioning that Bradford was a reach as well at number 1 as well.

I am of the mind set that if you would pick a Qb at number 10 and you have 1 pick between 1 and 65, you either trade down which is much harder to do that people think or you take your player at the pick you have.

As for smarter, you don't know that Newton isn't smarter than other guys like Kaepernick unless you have info to share I am not privvy too. As someone with a psychological background, you also know that IQ is often overrated. I would take a guy with average IQ who works hard and has a ton of intangibles over a smarter guy who is slack or feels entitled.

Given that franchise guys are rarely ever found in the second round moving down that far would be a total waste of a pick. No one in the second round is better than Clausen at this point.

As for last year we picked 1 quarterback who has a chance to play well in this league not 3 and the results are still up in the air.

Newton is not a coin toss at this point he is much better than a 50/50 chance he will succeed at this point.

It isn't mortgaging my house on a poker hand at all, that kind of dramatic license clouds the real issue. You are going to pick someone no matter what, the question is simply who that will be. A Qb who can give you a franchise guy at that position which is very difficult to get in free agency or through trade without a very prohibitive cost, or someone at another position who could be much more easily obtained by other means.

THe argument should be which quarterback not whether we go that way IMO. I hear the argument that no one is worthy of that pick but honestly I still think that is a Luck unresolved issue not necessarily reality.

[panthers55]

I think at this point in the game, bias applies to everyone's thinking.

For those who have already made up their minds, sure. But for others the process is still in flux. For example, if I had to pick someone today at number 1, I would be leaning to Newton. But if I found out he definitely had a hand in his father's play for money or he has a terrible pro day today or the Panthers interview him and feel he is not the one, I would be fine with going in a different direction. I look forward to finding out all we can before making the decision and have maintained that position throughout this process.

I just hope the Panthers are still keeping an open mind and doing their due diligence rather than deciding that they already know what to do. Fortunately Hurney seems to be keeping an open mind to what is going on. Unlike this message board which gets polarized by the day.

[teeray]

So picking QBs second overall is safe?

It feels safer when you have already used you first overall pick on something else.

But the larger point is incredible. I can't believe that the Bills have never in their history used their first pick in the draft on a QB. But people wonder why they are mired in perpetual mediocrity.

As far as the anecdote. It would depend on the investment in the property. You may want to reach for that property if after the renovations are made you could get a large return on that investment in profit on resale.

If it was priced to high that has nothing to do with the buyer. That just mean the sellers are idiots and have a bad broker.

If you are saying that you don't want to pay top price for a fixer upper. I guess where we would disagree is how much work actually has to be done. I don't think he is as far away as you do and that causes the big disconnect between what you see as value and what I do.

That is something that likely will never be rectified until after he has played some in the NFL.

[DaCityKats]

i just want the best qb @ #1.i still believe that it is Cam, but if the FO thinks its Gabbert then so be it.

MHS I really think you pop into every cam thread to spread your hate, and your addicted to it. even joat and trd slowed down on hating so much.........maybe just joat.

[pdandy1994]

im trying to remember when we were having multiple 2-14 seasons

oh wait..thats right

i dont see how we're perpetually doomed

[teeray]

im trying to remember when we were having multiple 2-14 seasons

oh wait..thats right

i dont see how we're perpetually doomed

Well, when was the last time we had multiple winning seasons??

[Mvp2014]

With no bonafide top 5 pick I'm leaning more and more towards Cam. Yea he's got the red flags but he could very well be in elite company in 3-4 years, all he does is win. Secondly, he would make big Jerr a killing and put a face on the franchise.

[DaCityKats]

im trying to remember when we were having multiple 2-14 seasons

oh wait..thats right

i dont see how we're perpetually doomed

content with being bad.

[MHS831]

Why do you continually insist that Newton is not smart and has no football knowledge?

Many athletes with his athleticism get by on it for so long, they don't have to work hard or learn--it comes naturally. Cam has been such a tremendous athlete and has been given the key to the city wherever he has been based on that athleticism, not his brain power. Just look at the Falcons. I watched Matt Ryan in college, and I said "There is a smart QB." When he started, Brett Favre was not a smart QB. He got by on his arm strength thru college. Mike Vick? Not smart in Atlanta, but was great in college. Was decent in Atlanta, but not as good as he could have been. His ignorance cost him more than a career. He adapted and is much smarter now. In both cases, the Falcons got rid of QBs with freakish athletic potential but who were not smart on and off the field. They learned from these mistakes and drafted Ryan--not a freakish athlete but a smart player. They both made it, so Cam can too, but do we want to give him that much time? Atlanta has learned the lessons of drafting the shiniest QB. We should learn from them.

Oh, and before you say, "They went on to be successful!" I ask you this: How much time do you really think we should give the #1 pick to become great? You gave a second rounder about 5 games as a rookie. SHould a first rounder get more or less time? A first overall pick?

[Marguide]

Many athletes with his athleticism get by on it for so long, they don't have to work hard or learn--it comes naturally. Cam has been such a tremendous athlete and has been given the key to the city wherever he has been based on that athleticism, not his brain power. Just look at the Falcons. I watched Matt Ryan in college, and I said "There is a smart QB." When he started, Brett Favre was not a smart QB. He got by on his arm strength thru college. Mike Vick? Not smart in Atlanta, but was great in college. Was decent in Atlanta, but not as good as he could have been. His ignorance cost him more than a career. He adapted and is much smarter now. In both cases, the Falcons got rid of QBs with freakish athletic potential but who were not smart on and off the field. They learned from these mistakes and drafted Ryan--not a freakish athlete but a smart player. They both made it, so Cam can too, but do we want to give him that much time? Atlanta has learned the lessons of drafting the shiniest QB. We should learn from them.

Oh, and before you say, "They went on to be successful!" I ask you this: How much time do you really think we should give the #1 pick to become great? You gave a second rounder about 5 games as a rookie. SHould a first rounder get more or less time? A first overall pick?

Good points, but yes, absolutely you take Favre or Vick (sans the dogfighting).

[panthers55]

Many athletes with his athleticism get by on it for so long, they don't have to work hard or learn--it comes naturally. Cam has been such a tremendous athlete and has been given the key to the city wherever he has been based on that athleticism, not his brain power. Just look at the Falcons. I watched Matt Ryan in college, and I said "There is a smart QB." When he started, Brett Favre was not a smart QB. He got by on his arm strength thru college. Mike Vick? Not smart in Atlanta, but was great in college. Was decent in Atlanta, but not as good as he could have been. His ignorance cost him more than a career. He adapted and is much smarter now. In both cases, the Falcons got rid of QBs with freakish athletic potential but who were not smart on and off the field. They learned from these mistakes and drafted Ryan--not a freakish athlete but a smart player. They both made it, so Cam can too, but do we want to give him that much time? Atlanta has learned the lessons of drafting the shiniest QB. We should learn from them.

Oh, and before you say, "They went on to be successful!" I ask you this: How much time do you really think we should give the #1 pick to become great? You gave a second rounder about 5 games as a rookie. SHould a first rounder get more or less time? A first overall pick?

Overgeneralizations and inaccuracies abound in this post.

Because some very athletic players rely on their athletiic talent more than their hard work and effort, then because Cam is very athletic he will do exactly he same.

Lets ignore that the facts totally negate this. Ignore that Auburn coaches said that when he came there from Binn, he was the guy pushing the receivers to go out and work out during the summer. He was the first one in practice, last one out and often got other players to work with him after practice. Ignore that he has hired a personal ccoach to work with him every day to improve his footwork, timing and other areas that he knows are an issue making the transition to the NFL.

So because Atlanta bailed on Brett Favre too soon and failed to develop Vick who until he went to prison admitted he took things for granted and didn't work hard, somehow that dooms Cam Newton to the same.

Lets ignore that Brett Favre and Cam Newton have little to nothing in common instead drawing comparisons to Ben Roethlisberger by the coach who has worked with them both. But we can't use that since Ben took the Steelers to a Super Bowl his rookie year with a great defense and solid running game much like the Panthers will have. (No I don't think we wil even make the playoffs but we wouldn't want to use a positive example). And lets ignore that Atlanta did little to develop Vick either which Philly has shown wasn't that hard to do.

We can't wait for a guy like Newton to develop.

Lets ignore that if we don't pick a guy this year we are already putting off the decision to 2012. And if that guy as a rookie needs a year to develop minimally, we are talking 2013. So lets not pick Newton because he might take 2 years to develop which would put up back to 2013 before he is starting quality. Ignore that we might not get a high draft pick next year and that a better Qb might not be available. One in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.

But lets ignore logic here...............

[teeray]

Many athletes with his athleticism get by on it for so long, they don't have to work hard or learn--it comes naturally. Cam has been such a tremendous athlete and has been given the key to the city wherever he has been based on that athleticism, not his brain power. Just look at the Falcons. I watched Matt Ryan in college, and I said "There is a smart QB." When he started, Brett Favre was not a smart QB. He got by on his arm strength thru college. Mike Vick? Not smart in Atlanta, but was great in college. Was decent in Atlanta, but not as good as he could have been. His ignorance cost him more than a career. He adapted and is much smarter now. In both cases, the Falcons got rid of QBs with freakish athletic potential but who were not smart on and off the field. They learned from these mistakes and drafted Ryan--not a freakish athlete but a smart player. They both made it, so Cam can too, but do we want to give him that much time? Atlanta has learned the lessons of drafting the shiniest QB. We should learn from them.

Oh, and before you say, "They went on to be successful!" I ask you this: How much time do you really think we should give the #1 pick to become great? You gave a second rounder about 5 games as a rookie. SHould a first rounder get more or less time? A first overall pick?

Atlanta didn't get rid of Vick because of his performance it was because he killed dogs and was going to prison for 2 or more years. People act like Vick was garbage in Atlanta but he was a three time pro bowler and a baller in Atlanta.

In 2003 there was a reason they went 2-10 without him when he got hurt but 3-1 when he played. In 2004 the went from 5-11 to 10-6 ONLY bc Mike Vick was healthy.

So if Cam stinks like Vick did in Atlanta and therefore he is making pro bowls and taking us to the playoffs while he is still "figuring it out" I say hell yeah we take that guy. It isn't even close.

Just have to hope he doen't have a dog fighting kennel. :p

[scarface]

Short answer: No