top dawg

I don't have a problem giving Darnold a legit shot. I do have an issue with the second rounder. There was no reason to do that! That being said, it's not going to be some crippling move if Darnold busts yet again.

SMH! Can't help but feel, we got a little hosed...

Oh, I'm with you, I think. I wasn't too keen on trading multiple firsts either. I always said that we had to do a cost-value analysis and look at all the options. Go Darnold!

That's the only issue I have with this. But, we weren't privy to his market either. I don't like it, but I don't believe it will be particularly crippling either. It is what it is. Perhaps they've found a franchise QB. We'll see.

We need that electric take-it-to-the-house receiver in the slot. I'm all for O-line, but we've got to complete our WR corps at some point during the draft.

Shoot your shot and if the ball comes back to you, shoot it again! Makes sense to me.

Like the others don't do that. Gimme a break! You're just b-s-ing based upon conjecture!

We kinda already knew this! If the capital is right, whethet it's us or not, they'll deal. That being said, we must determine if it would even be worth it in light of other options. I would be loath to give up multiple firsts!

Well, he gets dinged on his processing speed. Lance seems to process the plays much faster, which kinda stands to reason because he read defenses and called his own protections, in a legit pro-style offense! I've seen both of them play. I don't think Fields is more athletic, and, perhaps more importantly, as explosive or as strong as Lance. Fields is certainly faster, but doesn't seem as smooth or as natural as Lance as a runner, or in the pocket, particularly as things begin to break down. Like I've said before, Lance played against "lesser competition", but he also had a lesser quality of weapons, so that kinda goes both ways. As I've heard many evaluators say before, it's about traits and projection. I don't think a small school gem is a compelling reason to desire any player, much less a QB. You must isolate those traits and envision how the person will do on the next level. And if you're a GM, coach or scout for a team, you must also consider whether or not the prospect in question would be a good fit for your system--what you're trying to do, because situations, theories, timelines and personalities do matter! The way that you develop a QB does matter! It matters a lot! All that being said, what the players did in college matters, but they're all beginning anew--in many respects--once they put that pro cap on. That's why traits, leadership, ability to listen and learn--teach-ability--matters! We're all just looking from the outside in, but the franchise has so much more to consider.

How is it that you can be sold on Wilson, but not Fields or Lance, especially Fields considering from a statistical perspective, he's really not that far off from the golden boy, and is the most accurate of the QBs by a wide margin?

Just an added bonus, also from my late mother-in-law: If you find a woman in the street, that's where you'll leave her.

Well, I said this last week somewhere (got it from my late mother-in-law): What you don't see makes a whole 'nother world.

His coaches relied on him to win, and that's exactly what he did! He threw all kinds of passes, even mid-range ones. He can make every throw, and he's an able runner. Level of competition is lower, but that goes both ways. Ask his coach if he's boom-or-bust? Without the proper coaching, they're all boom-or-bust prospects. Boom or bust is a generalized term that really means very little. And like any QB, Lance could turn out to be a flop or a legit NFL starter. Most evaluators try to isolate the traits and project whether or not a guy has what it takes to succeed in the NFL. Depending upon those traits, they then assign a grade to the prospect. For most analysts of note--not all--Lance gets a first round grade! That's just what it is! If we get Let, I'll feel good about it. If we draft Fields, I'll feel good about it. But I'm under no illusions that either one is just going to hit the ground running. They're going to have to develop. And, like it or not--admit it or not--no one knows who will be the better QB after all is said and done (and that includes Trevor Lawrence, Zach Wilson, and even Mac Jones, etc.).

Wow! Whoever that guy is, he had no form, no stance, was slow as hell, and was not a thinker (obviously) which speaks greatly to rather you win or lose.

If you're saying he barely threw each game--which he averaged 174 YPG, which isn't necessarily a lot, but he threw 17 times per game on average--why do you keep saying it? What are you insinuating? And don't give some illogical answer! I can not only read, but read between the lines... As far as your analysis, you have a right to your opinion--which is replete with the standard, if not simplistic, generalities--but I'd rather trust the guys that do this for a living.

Lance has the strongest arm in this class, ran a pro-style offense, and indeed ran read defenses and called his own plays. So what if he ran a lot. He also had 190+ completions and threw for nearly 2800 yards on the way to a FCS championship at a very good D-1 school. He obviously did what it took to win, and did it successfully. Confusing didn't throw with can't throw isn't the way to evaluate a prospective franchise QB. Come on, man.

No. If he's not a markedly different QB than Teddy B, I'd pass. But if Rhule, Brady and Fitterer decide Jones is on the menu, then I'll accept it (until I don't). BPA! BPA! BPA!

I don't know about that. Most QBs are accurate from clean pockets. Moreover, it hasn't been established that Mac has the highest football IQ of these guys, much less IQ in general. I know for sure that Lance read defenses and called his own plays. Fields ran somewhat advanced RPO concepts, and the golden boy was, well, the golden boy. So, hold your horses!

I can do without the RBs altogether, Palmer too, but Radunz and Meinherz seem like quality much-needed lineman. Wilson is interesting. I'm not saying I'd swap Little, but I'd consider it. I'd definitely swap Greg Little!

So are you saying that Haasan Reddick, Morgan Fox, Denzel Perryman and even Frankie Luvu aren't help? Not to mention that we're probably not done trying to upgrade. Not to mention that it's a little too early to be giving up on Troy Pride. Stanley Thomas-Oliver and especially Bravvion Roy are looking to be above average. Our defense is coming along, and the proof will be in the pudding. It could stand more help, but our offense needs help too--major help at certain positions.

I'm a Georgia alum and know several alums who are way more interested in Georgia football than I am (my interest has naturally waned over the years with too many disappointments) as you might imagine, and none us think that Fromm is starter's material. The Fields situation wasn't necessarily Smart's fault, but if he would've given Fields more legit opportunities from the beginning, then maybe Fields would have ascended to his rightful spot as the starting QB. Fromm is JAG!

Yeah, It would seem to me that you have to give the youngsters that we drafted last year more than a season to develop. If not, then what the hell are we doing here? Mind you, I'm not saying don't draft defense, but what I am saying is that if you have a middling CB or DT and a receiver like Shi Smith on the board, you just can't disregard him. You have to think about what you're doing and why you're doing it

A "young" CB is fine, as long as he's the BPA. We have youth on our DL, and we need a lot of things. I don't believe in drafting inferior players to the detriment of superior players at another position simply based upon a perceived need, or desire to get younger. Neither excellent teams or franchises are built in a day. It takes time! I'll happily draft vets of varying ages if it completes the team. There's always another season where other--possibly even better--options will arise. Mind you, I'm not saying that we shouldn't address defense and get younger, but that there's simply more things and players to consider, and their relative impact upon the team that season and beyond, as it relates to team building.

I don't put a whole lot of energy into mocks, but I do look at them occasionally during all the waiting before the actual draft! Tim Weaver and Panthers Wire's mock is as interesting as any other I guess, but I'm thinking that they could be on to something with this draft being all offense. https://pantherswire.usatoday.com/gallery/panthers-2021-nfl-mock-draft-all-offense-trey-lance/ The tea leaves will be what we do with the rest of free agency. If we can somehow sign, for example, Breshaud Breeland, Steven Nelson, Malik Hooker, DaQuan Jones or maybe even re-sign Short, I could see the tea leaves falling in favor of an all-offense draft. I just think that the thought is interesting considering what actually transpired last draft, even if I question some of their picks (not that I know a lot about them...other than Lance of course, and Shi Smith). What do you know about these guys? What do you think about an all-offense draft? What would you say about Lance AND Ehlinger? Trey Lance, QB NDSU Walker Little, OT Stanford Kendrick Green, OG Illinois Josh Palmer, WR Tennessee Khalil Herbert, RB Va Tech Shi Smith, WR South Carolina John Bates, TE Boise St Sam Ehlinger, QB Texas

Because the snake says so? Got it!