To Mr. Scot and those who share his view.

[teeray]

You can't see the future either.

I judge based on what I see. So do you. Our judgments are different.

So what?

Geez the "so what" wasn't necessary. I have been well behaved so far this morning. :D

And look I know what you guys are saying, but it doesn't make sense. Every one of you guys say he isn't worth the number one pick, however most GMs agree he won't make it past #3.

Now you guys may say "That is bc they are reaching" But they are only reaching by your standards. And those standards are not universal. And a lot of really smart people disagree with you.

Nearly every draft analyst has him in their top 20 overall. I may be dumb but if you put a prospect in your top 20 you have a very strong reason to believe he will likely be successful at the next level. Do you not agree with that?? If not shouldn't he be graded much lower than top 20??

So if he is so doggone bad and such a reach, why is he not rated lower by almost every single draft analyst??

[Cavscout]

Beats me.

I didn't think it was that tough to understand, though I did know someone would look at it and go "OMG YOU'RE SAYING CAM NEWTON IS LIKE HEATH SHULER" :lol:

OMG, You're saying Bryant Young is like Nick Fairley!

[antame]

I want to flip the script on you to see what your true opinion is.

Here is the scenario: Panthers have the number one pick. You all seem to be in agreement that Luck would be worth the #1 pick. Here is the twist. Luck is not the BPA. There is a better ranked DT, WR, and CB. Who do you draft and why.

Analyst are split saying we should take Luck #1 while others say we should take a different prospect. Everything about the Panthers and the NFL exist as it does this very minute. Also Cam Newton does not exist in this scenario so do not even bring his name up in this thread please.

Just asking...is this about race? I have no problem with that, but let's be clear.

Also, that is a very convoluted hypothetical you presented above.

[Mr. Scot]

Geez the so what wasn't necessary. I have been well behaved so far this morning. :D

And look I know what you guys are saying, but it doesn't make sense. Every one of you guys say he isn't worth the number one pick, however most GMs agree he won't make it past #3.

Now you guys may say "That is bc they are reaching" But they are only reaching by your standards. And those standards are not universal. And a lot of really smart people disagree with you.

Nearly every draft analyst has him in their top 20 overall. I may be dumb but if you put a prospect in your top 20 you have a very strong reason to believe he will likely be successful at the next level. Do you not agree with that?? If not shouldn't he be graded much lower than top 20??

So if he is so doggone bad and such a reach, why is he not rated lower by almost every single draft analyst??

"So what" wasn't meant to be antagonistic (sorry if it sounded that way). Just my way of saying it doesn't matter.

Loads of guys that turned out to be busts have been rated highly by good analysts prior to the draft. Heck, some guys thought Jeff George could be the greatest QB of all time.

And for the record, a lot of really smart people agree with us too :D

We'll all know who was right and who was wrong in a few years.

(it'll be by objective standards though; not majority opinion)

[carpanfan96]

Point being that's how many of us see this draft playing out, with the best quarterback turning out to be a bust and the best player at another position turning out to be pretty good.

It's not about bust rates. It's about how we view the prospects.

Oh, I understand that some people don't think the QB's are that good in this draft.... which btw is freaking silly.... Gabbert was a top 5 QB and a top 5 talent before Luck dropped out of the draft.....then on top of that Newton is widely considered to have the most upside in this draft at the QB spot and you can see how saying the top QB's are bad is silly and unfounded.

I'm basing this notion on the fact that so many people were in love with Luck as a Panther.

Newton might have more of a hill to climb to succeed in the NFL because of the offense he comes from, but he has just as much upside as Barkley, Jones or Luck do next year..... The question with QB's is always will they reach that potential.

[mav1234]

Geez the "so what" wasn't necessary. I have been well behaved so far this morning. :D

And look I know what you guys are saying, but it doesn't make sense. Every one of you guys say he isn't worth the number one pick, however most GMs agree he won't make it past #3.

Now you guys may say "That is bc they are reaching" But they are only reaching by your standards. And those standards are not universal. And a lot of really smart people disagree with you.

Nearly every draft analyst has him in their top 20 overall. I may be dumb but if you put a prospect in your top 20 you have a very strong reason to believe he will likely be successful at the next level. Do you not agree with that?? If not shouldn't he be graded much lower than top 20??

So if he is so doggone bad and such a reach, why is he not rated lower by almost every single draft analyst??

So if a prospect is anywhere in the top 20, do you think that's the same as being worth going #1 overall?

[Mr. Scot]

OMG, You're saying Bryant Young is like Nick Fairley!

Apparently :lol:

The top DT actually taken in that draft was Dan Wilkinson (yikes) :eek:

Actual best player available? Judgment call, but I'd say Marshall Faulk.

But again, obviously the point wasn't to compare specific players, though I knew someone would.

[carpanfan96]

It astounds me how you guys are getting so lost in Scot's analogy. Potential great QB doesn't mean anything, you still need to do your own scouting and see if you think that it's likely that the QB will transition well in the NFL. The anti QB crowd likes Luck, but doesn't like Cam. They have different skill sets and hence will transition differently. Why do I even need to make comments like these?

I know you have to do scouting and I mentioned that in my second post when I answered the topic of this thread. I was just saying that generally speaking for a team in need of a qb... that QB almost always trumps other positions.

[carpanfan96]

Apparently :lol:

The top DT actually taken in that draft was Dan Wilkinson (yikes) :eek:

Actual best player available? Judgment call, but I'd say Marshall Faulk.

But again, obviously the point wasn't to compare specific players, though I knew someone would.

Yep, Wilkinson was drafted by the Bengals first overall and played for them for three years I think... had around 55-56 career sacks and a poo ton of QB hurries.

[antame]

Ugh. Timing off as usual. Carry on.

[Mr. Scot]

Oh, I understand that some people don't think the QB's are that good in this draft.... which btw is freaking silly.... Gabbert was a top 5 QB and a top 5 talent before Luck dropped out of the draft.....then on top of that Newton is widely considered to have the most upside in this draft at the QB spot and you can see how saying the top QB's are bad is silly and unfounded.

I'm basing this notion on the fact that so many people were in love with Luck as a Panther.

Newton might have more of a hill to climb to succeed in the NFL because of the offense he comes from, but he has just as much upside as Barkley, Jones or Luck do next year..... The question with QB's is always will they reach that potential.

I'm not sold on Gabbert either.

And no, it's not silly. Loads of other quarterback that have busted were also considered top five talents prior to their drafts. Being highly thought of prior to the draft doesn't keep you from being a bust after.

Nobody comes with a guarantee. It's all a judgment call. My judgment is different than yours. Why anyone has an issue with that is beyond me.

Yep, Wilkinson was drafted by the Bengals first overall and played for them for three years I think... had around 55-56 career sacks and a poo ton of QB hurries.

It's the Bengals. I assume pretty much whatever they do is a mistake until evidence shows otherwise.

[teeray]

So if a prospect is anywhere in the top 20, you think that's the same as being worth going #1 overall?

First let me say that every draft is different and has different dynamics so I don't think there is a universal answer that is applicable to every single draft.

Having said that I do feel that at the QB position you can make the case that if they are ranked in the top 20 they are worthy of taking them #1.

However, this is a determination that would be made after hours and hours of film work, meetings, research, etc. And if a QB is rated #20 but you think he is your guy and can be a guy you can build your offense around; well not only do I think you can take him #1 I think it is imperative that you do take him #1.

I will say that QB is the only position I probably would agree with that on however.

[Mr. Scot]

First let me say that every draft is different and has different dynamics so I don't think there is a universal answer that is applicable to every single draft.

Having said that I do feel that at the QB position you can make the case that if they are ranked in the top 20 they are worthy of taking them #1.

However, this is a determination that would be made after hours and hours of film work, meetings, research, etc. And if a QB is rated #20 but you think he is your guy and can be a guy you can build your offense around; well not only do I think you can take him #1 I think it is imperative that you do take him #1.

I will say that QB is the only position I probably would agree with that on however.

Can't agree totally with your premise, but as a rule I have no issue with putting a high value on the QB spot. I just don't think this year's models are worth that value.

[teeray]

Can't agree totally with your premise, but as a rule I have no issue with putting a high value on the QB spot. I just don't think this year's models are worth that value.

And despite all my efforts it looks like I will not be able to convince you otherwise within the next week :D