45catfan

According to the source, being a starter more than half of that player's career.

I disagree with the first sentence, totally agree with the second and uncertain with the third one.

The same would go for Matt Kalil. Go fish.

Point #1: It's essentially a 2nd and a 4th. This year's 6th is very insignificant. For a staring QB, that is peanuts. Point #2: You are assuming neither work out and the pick was wasted by not drafting another position Point #3: Darold will NOT led us to a QB next year. His awful will be just good enough to keep us out of range. Point #4: Potential replacement. You keep the better of the two and trade for a ransom. Point #5: You really don't understand the value a QB in this League. If Darnold pans out, that rookie in a couple years will still garner at least a first rounder and then some to a desperate QB needy team.

Source QBs historically have a 63% success rate in the first round, so yes, better than 50/50. You could say teams are less patient now and that number has dropped in recent years, but is that because QBs are worse or teams are just extremely impatient? I'm going with the later. Yes, OL is the safest in round one, but ditto for rounds 2 and 3. This year is a VERY deep class so we have the luxury of waiting until round 2 if need be.

So you are saying teams should never draft a rookie QB early, it's smarter to keep dipping from the FA well? FA QBs were rookies at one time too, so some team gave up on them as well. I would also note this isn't he 1990's and teams are VERY impatient with rookie QBs. If they aren't carrying the franchise by end of year two, typically teams are ready to cut bait. Again, does that mean teams stop drafting QBs early? No position has a 100% success rate or even close to it and if you are taking that gamble, it's with a franchise QB.

Bingo! I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp? QB is the MOST crucial position in football. By having two first round QBs, here are the scenarios moving forward: both work out, only one works out or neither work out. Right there you gave your organization 2-out-of-3 chances to succeed. This shouldn't even be a discussion.

I sometimes wonder when Varge puts out this stuff it's because information has been intentionally leaked to her source and it finds it's way to the Huddle. Not to say that her source is giving her bad info, but that the person the source is getting the info from in the Panthers organization is carefully tossing out these nuggets. I know, a bit conspiracy theory-ish, but it wouldn't surprise me either.

Ok, so you don't have a dog in the QB preference fight, you just don't want a QB at all. Fair enough. I was merely pointing out that if we did draft Fields he's likely to sit anyhow (as you even stated) and one of the biggest knocks on Lance--he has to sit a year. I could go on from there, but I'll leave it with that.

Does Fields unseat Darnold most or all of next season, yes or no? Simple answer.

So because they are not with their original team from 5-12 years ago, we should not take a QB if one is available? You may want to contact the GMs for the Jags, Jets and 49ers and tell them not to bother.

We will agree to disagree then.

I'm not opposed to Pitts either, just trading up for him and taking him over more premium position guys. A lot of dominoes have to fall for him to be my pick at #8, but if that scenario actually unfolded, I wouldn't be upset at all.

Actually, no it isn't if you take time to look at it objectively. But with the snide comment about Lance, that objectivity was never considered.

We didn't suck last year despite the record. Teddy 'two-gloves' and Joey Slye did more than their share to ensure those 5 wins. Had Teddy and Joey even hit 50% of those critical 4th quarter TD passes and game winning kicks, respectfully, we were a .500 team with a green defense and rookie head coach. CMC was sidelined most of the year too. There is zero reason to believe this team should be in the hunt for a top 10 pick next draft in a MUCH thinner QB class. In other words, if we opt to pass up a QB this year, we are riding with Darnold and potentially will be back in the same boat in two years looking to acquire a veteran QB if Sam isn't our franchise QB after all.

Perfect situation for Lance. He's not expected to be the 'GUY' in year one. If Fields comes here, over half of the Huddle would be want Darnold to take a backseat to the rookie right away. Oh, they will deny it now, but just wait if it comes to fruition. By the time Fields puts on a Panthers hat on draft night, Darnold becomes the backup right then and there in their mind. That's the reason Lance is the IDEAL QB for us at #8 assuming (BIG ASSUMPTION) he and Fields are both still available.

I was going for the max example at 10, I would have got called out for low-balling such an obvious weapon. However, Travis Kelce and Darren Waller lead the League tied with 9.1 catches a game average. They had 35 more catches than the #3 TE Logan Thomas who averaged about 7 catches a game. Besides Kelce and Waller, there was only one other TE that got more 20% of the passing targets and that was Evan Engram. Pitts would HAVE to be the focus for this offense to be worth the #8 pick. If people pour over the data, it shows that #8 overall pick is not the best used by drafting a TE. Tight End Stats (edit: Default is set to 'playoffs', toggle to regular season)

I agree, but in all seriousness what that tells me is the kid can't read exotic defenses. Apparently the Patriots figured that out and disguised their looks really well. So when defenders showed up where he wasn't expecting them, he was "seeing ghosts". Again, the kid has talent, he just needs to be coached up and spend a poo-ton of time in the film room with Brady and even with Luke. If anyone knows about what a defense can scheme up, it's Luke. I'm not sue what year that game was, but hopefully it was his rookie season and has learned from that. Getting back on topic, I'm still all about a QB not named Mac Jones at #8 and Lance is still that dude.

Hopefully Joe Brady can cure him of that.

Yes.

No, but the bust rate, especially for LTs goes WAY up.

I'm down with this. Dallas has two third rounders, one being a comp pick #99. That is spot on for the value of this trade. The first of their third rounders is much too pricey and they would balk. If the QBs and Sewell are gone, we trade back with Dallas pick up an extra third rounder and draft Slater at #10.

Value vs. expectation. The draft is deep on the OL, but we are looking for starters and while you can surely get some quality depth later in the draft, it is unrealistic to think they could turn into starters. Thus good value, but unrealistic expectation.

Ah, now I see why you have so few DTs. I still see 6-7 going before the end of round 3. I don't put such limiting parameters on them. I mean several guys are in the 290's. I don't think 10 pounds is going to limit their success in the League. Barmore, Onwuzurike (290), Nixon, McNeill, Wilson, Togiai and possbilby Tufele. There will be a run in rounds 4-to-5, that's where the value is this year. I agree this is not a top heavy DT class, but that's not to say there's still not some quality to be had in the meat of the draft. It would suck to be stuck in last year's boat looking for a 1st round DT because Barmore is the only one this year and he's bottom of the round. As much as people complained about taking Derrick Brown last year (saying too high for a DT), in hind sight it was the right move. FYI, I wanted Brown anyway.

I guess we got a trade partner if we want to trade back in the later rounds.