Sgt Schultz

I know you asked for 8, but here are 10. After #2 or #3 the order starts to twist in the winds of the day, IMO. 1. Lawrence 2. Sewell 3. Slater 4. Wilson 5. Fields 6. Pitts 7. Surtain 8. Chase 9. Waddle 10. Parsons

You are a rare commodity, sir. I'm sure you are happier for it. Then again, these days I find people being satisfied with anything to be a rare quality. As is happiness!

Trust me, the glitz and elation of winning one does not quench the thirst. It only changes one's perspective a bit. I have been a St. Louis Blues fan since 1969. We have suffered through good and bad seasons, been a pretty consistent playoff team, had teams that entered the playoffs as a team everyone had their eyes on, and sometimes got on a run that took us deep into the playoffs. In 1969-70 we were in the Cup Finals, but in those days the 1967 expansion teams were guaranteed a spot in the Finals against one of the old guard. We were the expansion division finalists for three years, with 69-70 being the last. It was our last appearance in the Cup finals until 2019. Then on June 12, 2019 we won game 7 in Boston to skate with the Stanley Cup for the first time. I still get a lump in my throat when I see the dying seconds of that game, when Doc Emrick (the announcer) says with 12+ seconds left "and the Blues at the bench realize they are going to be champions." I will always treasure that championship, and it brings a smile to my face to this day. I still wanted to win it again last year, and this year, and next year. I still have the usual ups and downs with the team's performance. The team winning it created at least two differences: 1) I don't carry around the thought that just once before I die, I want to see them win the Cup, and 2) I know what it feels like to watch them win it, and I want that feeling again. It is no longer an abstract concept.

This was one of the more impressive things that I read, and overall it was a study in two organizations acting like adults. A lot of good discussion on this thread, too. I had to check to make sure I was on the Huddle a few times. If it is me, I am zeroing in on Sewell or Slater at #8. I've said several times, if Fields is there, it gives me a pause. I would probably still take Sewell or Slater, but it would not be a sprint up to the podium as soon as we were put on the clock.

These are the kind of things that make me confident: https://sports.theonion.com/panthers-adopt-patchy-haired-shivering-rescue-qb-who-s-1846644313

I'm not sure I see a lot of cockiness or even confidence. But when the security staff led Hurney out the door with his stuff, some hope did develop. The problem we have now is we have people who react to things as if Hurney was still running things. The fact is we have no decision-makers from that era of relative futility. Let's allow this group to establish its own level of competence or futility before we saddle them with "more of the same." As for franchises stumbling into a few winning seasons despite themselves, that could honestly describe at least 20 NFL teams. The only ones I see that could not make that same case are the Pats, Steelers, Ravens, Packers, Saints, and maybe the Rams, Chiefs, and Seahawks. The rest fall between hopeful they have turned a finally corner (Bills, Dolphins) to mired in mediocrity to bumbling.

You don't get it. The usual misfits on the Huddle are much more in-tune with what is going on around the league and player evaluations than our FO. According to our gurus, Fit was in his office, on the phone with the Jets trying to make a deal for Darnold while Rhule was in his office, also on the phone with the Jets bidding against Fit, while Tepper was yelling "get the Jets on the phone, I will not be outbid." Or so some would have us believe.

That would be the only scenario in which I would consider passing on either Sewell or Slater, if they are still on the board. I'm not a Lance hater, and in the right situation he may turn out to be an amazing QB. We are just not the right situation at this point, especially with pick 8 and huge needs at OL (almost all of it), CB, LB, TE, DT, and potentially little depth at WR. I'm not whining about our roster situation. 12 months ago we basically had to gut the roster to exorcise the demons of the prior regime rewarding players (our own or FAs) based on what they did a couple of seasons earlier, not what they could do next year. Coming back from that takes time. I'm happy for the young talent we have, and hoping I feel just as good about the 2021 draft 9 months from now.

To me, they should be focusing on Sewell or Slater now with pick 8. If, somehow, Fields drops to 8 they really have to think long and hard about it. I doubt he is, but.... Our QB depth chart has been one layer deep for 2 or 3 seasons now. As of this second, we have Darnold and TB. Even if that sticks, TB is gone after this next season, if not sooner. Either way, it would give us the luxury of checking out Darnold for a while and if he is fool's gold, Fields comes in later in the season, after some time to acclimate. If Fields wins the job but Darnold did not stink up the joint, Darnold can be traded for something downstream, or simply left to find other opportunities when his rookie deal expires. Or maybe he sticks around as the backup. The move certainly gives us some options. But barring that, I am drafting the beef at #8. After that, I am looking at more beef on the interior OL, DT, CBs, maybe a TE, and WR depth, in the order that the available talent presents itself.

No, I read it right, I expressed my point poorly. I am agreeing with you completely. They were the better WR group on the field against a lot of teams, but not when the opponent was Auburn or Bama. They were perhaps as good as Fields had, but that is about as much credit as I can give them as a group. My belief on Lance's ceiling is that he is getting the same benefit of the doubt as any QB from a small, off-the-Radar school. People question the level of competition, and rightly so as it is a concern. His unknown is compounded because he has been even more invisible the past 12+ months. The idea of taking him at #8 worries the heck out of me. That high, I want somebody that can be on the field now, not in a year or two if we are lucky. Based on what the projections are for who will do what on draft day, that boils down to Sewell, Slater, or Fields (in no particular order). People can make the case for Pitts, but while TE is a position of need for us, I don't think it is as high on the list as those three. I'd probably make a better case for a CB, ala Surtain, but there may be some good ones available later.

Lance's upside is based on raw talent and the unknown. His ceiling and floor would be better defined if we had more of a body of work to look at, especially if some part of that was against tougher competition (or perceived tougher competition). Put him at Ole Miss or Wisconsin (for example) and both his ceiling and floor would be better known. Raw QB talent in the hands of a good offensive coaching staff (dear gawd, not "Quarterback whisperers") who has the luxury of patience can yield huge results. Trial by fire usually does not work in the NFL for raw prospects, unless the team is stacked. There is a reason some NFL teams are notorious for swinging and missing on high first round QB selections, and it is not all on who they selected. Most of the time, their development process is best defined as desperate. Had Tom Brady been drafted by the Bengals or Browns, it is quite possible he would be a footnote. As to your earlier post about the receivers each QB had available, I don't understand when Lawrence's receivers became among the upper crust of recent receiving corps, either. They were more than adequate, but when the money games came they were generally not head and shoulders above who was on the other side of the field and against Bama or LSU they were not at all above.

Neither of these things would surprise me one bit. Lance has the most potential, but is also the biggest risk. Put him on the Jest and the odds are it is an epic fail. Wilson looks good, but his durability worries me. Physically, Cam he is not. Lawrence's biggest concern is where he winds up. The Jacksonville stables are not known for grooming thoroughbreds. They are more known for turning thoroughbreds into plow horses. Not as efficient at it as the Jest for that, but still. If nothing else, Fields may have the best chance just because he is not immediately sentenced to a QB graveyard. I think he has the talent, and if he is brought along on a sane timetable, he can do well. Unfortunately, a lot of QBs drafted in the top 10, especially in the top 5, wind up in situations that the depth chart of Montana, Marino, and Brady would strike out.

Like all stats, in a vacuum it does not say a lot. That said, scoring well on it is certainly an asset and disproves the one-read concern for Fields. I've always been skeptical of OSU QBs (and some other big schools that are juggernauts in their conferences, or in Notre Dame's case, with no conference), but Fields has a different look to him than his predecessors. I didn't see a lot of him, but when I did he showed me more skills that I think translate to an NFL QB than those who preceded him and fell on their faces. This is an over-simplification, but he has shown to be more of a passer than a thrower. I think this stat tends to bear that out. At this point, I'm no more skeptical of his chances than I am any other first round QB, and maybe less so. IMO, if Fields, Sewell, and/or Slater are available when we pick, somebody has a tough decision to make. I'd be good with any one of them strapping on a Panthers' helmet. I am assuming Lawrence and Wilson are off the board by then, and those three would have me wringing my hands as each team above us makes their selection.

It could also be an offshoot of the knee injury. Brady's knee injury was clearly in his mind (based on his reactions to getting hit) for a long time, and he was playing every week after he recovered to come to terms with it. Imagine a worse injury and playing a handful of games over a few seasons afterwards. I really can't say what that would do to a player.

The problem is TB (our version) is risk averse. He is a game manager to an extreme. I saw Joe Gibbs in his second stint do that to Jason Campbell. Nobody will ever know what Campbell might have been, because his first few years Gibbs drilled into him some version of "whatever you do, just don't throw an interception." The guy never really got over that. Not sure how TB got to that point, but he certainly looks that way. It is also possible he is not averse to throwing interceptions as much as the clock in his head goes off early. With our OL, that was a pretty safe bet since we were mediocre at protecting him with a 2.5 second time to throw. It is not a matter of overvaluing game management in a QB, it is a QB that wanders from game management to risk avoidance, whether it be from interceptions of being hit at the 2.55 second mark.

That is about the best description I think there is.

But, we also miss the fallout: when the DB wins that fight or puts himself in better position to grab the pick without a fight. Mostly, I would prefer a QB that is more of a game manager at the NFL level. People tend to reduce this to whether we would rather have Teddy or Mahomes? That is not a valid comparison. It is much like asking whether you would rather have Montana or Jameis, the extremes in the other direction. I consider Brady (and Montana before him) game managers (if the classification is one or the other) because they let their head dictate what their arm will do, not just live or die on their arm. Mr.Scot just delineated another misconception. Game managers quickly assess risk vs. reward. Sometimes the risk is worth it. Gunslingers believe their arms will overcome any risk. They are right, until they are not.

Brady has been a game manager most of his career, he is just extremely good at it. His last two Super Bowls were 13-3 and 31-9. Our TB could win games if the defense held the opponent to 3 FGs, at worst, especially if the league decided to change what the officials. Brady picks his spots are winging it downfield and generally making "the right throw." What separates him is his judgement of when to wing it downfield. You generally will not Brady drop back and say "here goes nothing," which is why Arians needed to shut up and let Brady be Brady. By strict definition, Montana was a game manager. Elway started out as a gunslinger, but by the time they won two Super Bowls he was a game manager. Peyton Manning won two Super Bowls as a game manager during those games (one in a driving rainstorm and one watching his defense carry the load). Favre and Romo are the most prototypical gunslingers since Jim Kelly. Between the three of them they have one Super Bowl win and a number of blown chances. Rodgers is more or less a hybrid. That is probably the sweet spot. Gunslingers can get you back into or win games in the most phenomenal ways, they can also cost you games in the most head-scratching ways. Favre threw some of the most mind-boggling interceptions in playoff games I have ever seen. Romo was known for "choking" at critical times, sometimes maybe unfairly. Once playoff time rolls around, teams with better defenses bubble up and the defenses that don't classify as better defenses seem to elevate their games. Gunslingers are exciting to watch, but also frustrating as hell. They are more exciting than frustrating, the problem is they are often frustrating at the most critical times.

It is a minefield. If they opt to grab a QB, they are tying up a fortune in a lame duck or a guy sitting on the bench (Ryan). They are probably doing that either way, but it is more obvious if he is carrying a clipboard or looking over his shoulder. I may be oversimplifying it, but they may also be throwing in the towel while they have six cap-killing contracts in place. "We are going to suck, but we'll be expensive while we do it" doesn't play all that well. If they don't start the rebuilding process, they are delaying the inevitable. "One final push from the troops" usually fails. If they try a hybrid of the two, they are wasting part of the heir-apparent's rookie deal. Just my opinion, they would be better off waiting a year to look at Ryan's replacement, unless they like somebody after the first round. The sting doesn't feel as bad when it is not a top 15 pick watching from the bench. KC and Mahomes was the exception, but their team was on solid footing when they picked him. Like us, the Falcons are not without needs elsewhere. It looks to me like after their Super Bowl run (28-3 cough, cough) they pulled a "Hurney on steroids" and the present situation is a consequence. Kind of makes one glad Hurney was not here immediately after our 2015 run, or we might be a mirror image. We had enough ashes to sweep up as it was.

The Falcons put the screws to themselves on about a half dozen contracts, most notably Ryan. I think 2023 is the first year they can get out from under him without a $40M dead cap hit. In 2022 he costs them something like $48M to keep and $40M to unload. The cap equivalent of "choose the manner in which you will die, and old age is not an option." To me, that means that they signed up to run with Ryan and Julio for at least another year and probably two. If that is true, they aren't taking your next QB in the first round this year because he does you know good with your last ditch run. They need somebody that can step on the field now, especially on the defensive side of the ball. That could mean trading down a bit, if you can find somebody willing to pay the price. Of course, they could decide they are screwed one way or another, just lucky to be in the black right now (vs. the cap) and start the rebuilding process. Their problem after this year is not only that they are under water and have tied up a ton of cap in a few players, but they have very few in the total that puts them under water.

Keep in mind, our QB depth chart is one player deep right now. I know I've said this before, but it has been one player deep for going on three seasons. Everybody wants to focus on the #1 slot, but that may not be possible, and the roster overall is not good enough to sell a bunch of assets (be they young players or draft picks) to fix that slot. One real question on Darnold is whether the Jets have ruined him beyond any hope. In that respect, Mineshew is a safer bet (he has had one less season to be ruined). At a garage sale price, I'd be okay with either of them to see what happens.

But, but, but all nine of those guys (the 4 QBs and the 5 guys you mention) will be gone by the time we pick at #8. Plus a few others, too.

But, but, but we only need a franchise QB. If we have a franchise QB, we don't need no stinking OL. A franchise QB will win us a Super Bowl. You just don't get it. Or so says the same people who agree that we failed to give Cam any help or an OL that could protect an Abrams Tank, save for 2015 that just sort of happened on accident. Having an OL that can protect a QB for more than 2.5 seconds would be a novelty for us.

Things may not be as dire as some think. Well, thinks can't possibly be as dire as some think, because nobody has found an asteroid hurling toward earth and on target for a May strike, that will obliterate the planet. As has been talked about/around, there are upwards of 15 players available in this draft that are near-certain starters. Believe it or not, and sit down for this, not all are QBs. And not all will be gone if we stick to the #8 pick. While many believe this will be the case, trust me, it is a mathematical impossibility and I am hardly a mathematician. And given that we need help at almost every position on the field, barring stupidity, we are going to plug a hole. But, for the QB or else crowd who are about to end it all, it could come down to whether there is one or more of the Big Four we do not want, what the Jest and Falcons opt to do, and whether the rumors of the 49ers really liking Jones are based on anything other than gut feeling. The world, according to Schultz. Jacksonville - Foregone conclusion Lawrence is going there, no talk of them trading out of the pick. NY Jest - Taking Wilson, if the reports are to be believed. Putting Wilson in their current starting lineup is a disaster for him, but they are the Jest. Their roster is more devoid of talent than ours, so trading down is not out of the question, albeit for a king's ransom. Still, they have been rumored to be interested in a number of the likely starters at almost all positions. With good reason, since they need help at almost every position on the field. 49ers - Acquired this pick for a reason, and I guess that reason is Fields/Jones/Lance/Wilson (in alphabetical order since nobody knows). Falcons - Given their salary cap situation, they are either committed to one more run with Ryan and Julio or entering a very long rebuild. They have a lot of money tied up in a few players. Don't just look at the cap number in Spotrac/OTC, look at the number of players that are in that number. Drafting a QB does not fit this scenario yet. That is not to say they won't, or that they will not trade the pick, but a new QB does not help them circle the wagons for one more run. It does not even necessarily help them rebuild, since the QB will be a few years into his rookie deal before anything comes to fruition. They need defensive help, badly. Bengals - They are drafting Sewell if nobody above them has. If somebody has, they are drafting Slater. The odds that both of them are gone are almost nil. And given they just got their new QB murdered in his first season, I don't see them trading out of this pick more than maybe 8th (hint) Dolphins - Miami played musical chairs and stayed in the top 6 for a reason. Enter Chase, Smith, or Waddle. They could continue to play musical chairs with their pick, say, to #8 plus and another pick or player and still meet this need. Lions - Reportedly competing with the Dolphins for the WR pool. The Lions need a lot of things, and QB is not currently one of the top three or four.

Since Miami and Detroit both need WRs badly, it is very likely that if a QB of our liking is not around at #8, a good T almost has to be. You would almost have to write a script of trades or teams drafting in positions they don't really need for 4QBs (if we like all 4) and 2 or 3 Ts to be gone in the first 7 picks. And if you did that, a CB will be sitting there.