Smittymoose

1. What we gave up is essentially the equivalent of a low second round pick for 2021 by pushing those picks into 2022 and giving up a sixth this year. It's cheap-ish for a starting QB, but it's not cheap from a total value standpoint. 2. I'm not assuming that at all. It's just bad asset allocation to give up a high 1st and the equivalent of a low 2nd this year on a position where you can only play one guy, particularly when you can spend that high 1st round pick on another position of need. 3. This is complete speculation, and I honestly have no reason to trust your opinion on this point. 4. Can you provide some examples of when a rookie who sat on the bench for a year or more was traded for a "ransom?" If Darnold is worse than a rookie, then what makes you think a QB on an expiring $19M deal is going to fetch a "ransom?" We'll get less, probably substantially less, than what we gave up this year. 5. Actually, I understand it much better than you. What you are proposing is complete fantasy land. Can you point to a single example of someone drafting a QB, letting him ride the bench, then trading him for more than the value of the pick they used on him? Keep in mind that the 8th pick this year is worth more than the 8th pick two years from now in terms of present value. So even if they drafted your crush 8th overall and traded him two years later for the 8th overall pick, it's not a particularly efficient use of value. I didn't argue starting half of the games in your career means you were successful. You did. Frankly, I think it's an idiotic way to judge success because some guys bust out so fast that they "start" half (or more) of the games in their career but are complete garbage and never even get another serious chance.

This is a foolish way of evaluating QB hit rate. Jamarcus Russell started more than half of his career. Would you consider him a hit? He's a "hit" rather than a "miss" under this metric.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it makes no sense to draft a QB at #8 when you just gave up a not insignificant draft haul for one. It's not a choice between drafting a QB and not drafting a QB. It's a choice between drafting a QB and having invested either the 8th overall pick or a 2+4+6 in a backup or having a starting-caliber QB PLUS an impact player at another position. If Darnold is awful, Carolina will be in a position to draft a QB next year. The smart choice is to give him at least a year and give him an impact player at #8 rather than drafting his replacement. It's unrealistic to say you'll just trade whichever QB for a haul down the road. If Darnold is good, how many first round rookies really sit on the bench and appreciate in value? I can't think of one that was traded for MORE than what he was drafted for without getting significant playing time.

You told me that it was "objectively" untrue that QBs are a 50/50 proposition at best. That's 22 QBs. At best, you can say Stafford, Bradford, Newton, Luck, Goff, and maybe Wentz weren't busts with the teams that drafted them. Bradford and Wentz are stretches, and the Rams have already jettisoned Goff in search of an upgrade.

Sewell or Pitts, but if Chase is there with Slater at 8 and Sewell and Pitts are both gone, that's a tough choice.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/02/18/no-qbs-drafted-from-2009-16-are-set-to-be-with-team-that-drafted-them/ And if you look at it "objectively," the truth is, 50/50 is probably generous.

You're right, it's probably worse than 50/50 with Lance. He's a huge project that attempted about 18 passes per game as a one-year starter in a second-tier division of college football.

hmmm...add a top 5 non-QB talent in the entire draft, or draft a QB that must sit at least one year and is a 50/50 shot at absolute best to be any good? tough choice.

What he means is the Panthers will continue to pretend they’re interested in drafting a QB at 8 to drive up the value of the pick or to encourage other teams to trade ahead of them to take a QB.

Dumb either way. If only we’d gotten five good years out of Revis instead of four out of Beason plus a decade-ish from Kalil!

Poultry, huh? lmao

Gotta take him if there because it means Sewell and probably Chase are off the board, but trading up would be horrendous.

Ehh, by then, the Panthers knew what they had with Morgan. Great talent, but the best ability in the NFL is availability, and he was constantly hurt. Six years into his career, and he hadn't played more than 75% of regular season games in any year.

Sure, if you ignore that Carolina also got a decade-long fixture at center out of the trade as well.

It’s on the table as in, Carolina will pretend it might take a QB to drive up the price of the 8th pick and/or inspire teams to trade ahead of them to take QBs and push talent down the board, but you can take it to the bank that Carolina is not drafting any of the QBs that can or will realistically fall to #8. Not happening.

Y'all have to quit this silly poo. Carolina isn't drafting a QB at 8.

If you can't land a day one starter in the teens, then you ain't going to make it very far as an NFL exec. You should be nailing starter picks in the 1st and 2nd rounds almost every year.

Love trading down if Sewell and Pitts are off the board. New England and our friends in Washington should be two target teams to trade up.

I like the concept, but too early for Hill, I think.

I will say this for Darnold, Mike Lombardi was on VSIN this morning and said he liked the deal better for Carolina. Just one guy’s opinion, but he said Darnold’s passer rating while playing from behind was 20+ points worse, basically suggesting that he was forcing the issue too much in New York.

You act like the class is devoid of WR talent. Probably 15-ish of the top 100 players in this draft are WRs. It is much easier to evaluate and develop a WR than OL today with the limited contact practices. They aren't better off with Chase and Leatherwood. Why is it a waste to play Jonah Williams at guard and then move him when Reiff moves on? Or just play Reiff at guard? That makes no sense if you're advocating they do the same with Leatherwood.

This is the way fans think, but it’s not the way smart teams think. I like Chase a lot. Think he’ll be a great pro. I wouldn’t be pissed if Carolina drafted him so long as they aren’t passing up Sewell to do so. But for Cincinnati, you don’t turn down a chance to add a 15-year fixture at LT because you signed a 32-year old who is an average starter. They’ve got two good starters in Higgins and Boyd. They could stand to add a third guy, but only so many targets to go around. They’d be much better served taking a WR in the middle rounds if they feel like they need one. But hey, I hope you’re right, because I’d much rather see them make the bad decision at 5.

Williams played all over the OL at Alabama. Reiff has suggested in the past he’d play guard if asked. The Bengals would be insane to pass on upgrading their OL, but I sure hope they do.

It’s not happening. It’s a bad idea anyways. Drafting a QB at 8 with the idea that you might dump him the next year if Darnold actually looks good is an awful, awful plan.

They saw a year of Teddy and decided they didn’t like what they saw. That’s entirely different from replacing a guy you gave up a notable haul for before he ever plays a snap. The Panthers aren’t drafting a QB at 8. Move on.