Mr. Scot

Since we've brought up the topic, what is it that's primarily bringing him down? Is it the poor performances that he had in a couple of games late last year, the perception that he might not be as pro ready as others or something else? I've seen different opinions, but there doesn't really seem to be a consensus.

I don't want us to draft a quarterback, but I actually agree regarding the notion that Fields is sliding. He was 1a with Lawrence forever. Granted, he had a couple of bad performances in big games and might be a tad inconsistent, but it's also true that nobody is a finished product right now. Hell, Lawrence had some lackluster performances too.

Or pick someone else...

I get the Wilson love. I just don't necessarily share it. His skill set is phenomenal. On the flipside though, the durability concerns about him scare the hell out of me. Part of me is glad that's not a decision we have to make.

I agree it's an unknown. Verge doesn't think we take a QB. Other analysts like Jeremy Fowler have said that a lot of the teams around the league don't believe we will either. I hope they're right, but again nobody knows.

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.

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

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.

Already said if we make a move I disagree with, I'll get on board and hope for the best. On the flipside, I'm pretty sure if Fields (or Lance) is available at pick 8 and we don't take them, a load of people are going to have meltdowns.

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.

And they might. I've never said they won't. What I've said is that it's a stupid decision if they do.

Tomlin's ducking the question. Per various sources, he's actually the guy who has final say now. For years it was Colbert, but the team has shifted to Tomlin over the past few years. It's been reported as one of the reasons why Colbert is only year to year now. As to Tepper, he said that he's not an evaluator and he's not going to try to be one, which is good because the last thing I want is the least football knowledgeable guy in the room being the one driving decisions.

You asked about top three picks. I answered.

And again, how you think it happened doesn't square with what the team says. Your response to that so far has been that if what's reported doesn't that's what you think happened, it must be a lie. I'm not ready to buy that.

Well if you don't want to count rings as an indicator, there was this guy named Collins that led his team to a Super Bowl (I forget who drafted him). If you do count rings, then there's a quarterback named Plunkett who was taken number one overall. He wound up getting two of them. Another guy named Dilfer got a ring with another team after not working out at his first stop too. Of course there's that Tannehill guy too. No rings yet, but you said that isn't the only indicator. And likewise, while they weren't all necessarily top three picks, there are plenty of guys who were considered "busts" who wound up being pretty good with their second team, or third or more in some cases. It's not like it's unprecedented.

That's the way you see it. As I've mentioned many times, the Panthers don't necessarily see things the way you do.

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 sure about that? Two of those got their rings without playing in the game.

So by that logic, we're not sold on DJ Moore either? Seriously, if we were as iffy on Sam Darnold as you seem to think we are, why the hell did we trade for him at all? (and no, he isn't a "just in case"; that whole notion is ridiculous)

So again, whatever quarterback we'd pick at number eight is guaranteed to be great?

Again, see above. I'd add that if you're looking at the Redskins for your example of how to do things, you might want to rethink.

Likewise, if Darnold actually turns out to be good. You should probably just refrain from talking about quarterback evaluations. For my part though, if Darnold doesn't pan out, he doesn't pan out. Either way, trying to develop him and a first round rookie at the same time (and ignoring other needs in the process) is a stupid idea.

But...but...but...we need to keep acquiring quarterbacks until we know we've got a good one. I mean, that worked for Jon Gruden, right? We can't take the time to develop them. We have to take somebody who's good right now. As to how we know that...well, we just know. I have it on the authority of several huddlers that Sam Darnold isn't good enough. Their opinion should count for something, shouldn't it? And heck, it can't be that hard to try and coach up essentially two rookies at once, can it? I mean, why not take another one later in the draft just to be sure?

The school of thought that you can try to successfully develop two young quarterbacks at the same time is a pretty silly one. Even the example you gave of someone who tried it failed at it. If you really think that's a practical option, look back at ladypanther's post above.

That too.