MHS831

Can I cite you as a source? This just feels credible.

Folks, you can't discount this list by cherry picking previous mistakes. Attack his points for each and then compare the points to points he made about a Rosen or Haskins. You can't say, "He sucked when he predicted Haskins at #2, so he must suck now." I have not read the entire thread, but I am surprised nobody is jumping on the "I want to be a GM" comment. Oh well, its early March. Enjoy--we all know this will be forgotten by April 29.

This had me laughing. Nice work

20 pages of quality Panther discussion.

Mr Scot--it is time to admit it.

I see Chicago.

New Orleans has to have some punky little obnoxious gooberhead at QB--makes sense to me.

Nevermind. I see no way they pull this off unless seattle takes a ton of big salaries.

We really got our $$$ worth out of our free agents last year.

I am going to be "that guy" for a minute.... We have all been reading about players based on stats and programs etc. and we all have read the millions of people who are not really qualified to evaluate players in depth but we believe them, and there is a general consensus that seems to change (with QBs a lot) right before the draft. And the draft rarely goes the way any of us think it might, and that baffles us, because we are very informed with recycled, uninformed perspectives circulated by people trying to get you to click on their names. And steeped in this propagandized pot of misinformation, some of us have the gall to criticize a person with venom and unsubstantiated allegations because what he says does not equate to your "research" and understanding. There are so many variables--college program, support staff, coaches, players, etc. that we really do not know--nobody does. So what Simms does is he cuts through all that and offers a perspective based on his understanding of what makes an NFL QB successful. You can see what he values, and a son of an NFL QB who played QB in the NFL who has been working as an NFL analysis and QB talent evaluator for 20 years---who the hell is he to tell David Newton or Shithead Jones about NFL QB play? This is not about clicks, race, or anything else--it is an expert's opinion and he gives reasons for each opinion that none of us are able to attack--so we just attack him in general and try to dismiss him. I personally think he makes strong points and since so much depends of support staff, coaches, players etc. at the next level, the player is rarely the one who busts--the organization did not provide a realistic opportunity to succeed. Some GMs see the QB as the messiah, hoping he will solve all problems. Nope. He is 1 of 11.

Very similar to Turner.

We can afford Gabe, but he was injured and has not played well. However, he is 29-in his prime for a G>

It does seem, however, that there is a lot more talk of five QBs in early round 1, instead of 4. If the Panthers are open to all 5, it could mean they sit at 8.

I think Mond is better--but it is hard to say--Wake?

I think we can afford it, but signing him might mean we are drafting a QB--instead of trading for a veteran.

I do not want Fields. I have gone from him being my favorite to my least favorite. I am now focused on Mac and think it could be the pick--but a lot can change.

My problem was I bought into the Trevor #1 notion early on, and really focused on the battle for #2 (Fields, Lance, Wilson). Wilson came on late--so I never even compared them.

If the draft goes: 1. Trevor 2. Wilson 3. Sewell 4. Chase 5. Sewell 6. Fields 7. Lance Do you take Jones? I think he likes a certain style (pocket presence) and was raised learning to play QB that way--so I am sure there is bias there, but it is not overtly racial. Based on what he says, I can say that I would put Lance before Fields because he expressed some serious concerns about Fields--while he did not say much negative about Lance--except it was a play option, one read offense. College coaches have systems that does not require a lot of reading for the QB; the coaches do not like giving that much autonomy to the 20-year old player. It is hard to invest in a top draft pick if they have no tape or film of going through the progressions--Clemson (Watson, Lawrence) gives the QB the responsibility of going through progressions. They will continue to put QBs in the NFL---the mind is a lot faster than legs, so the ability to process is very much valued in the NFL, and only players who have tape from systems that gave them that opportunity. So the bias, then, might be on the college level more than the NFL scouting level. If Watson and Lawrence have 3 years of processing through check downs, etc, they are certainly going to be ahead of the current batch of college programs that do not require it. Having said that, if your college qb runs a play action, one read, and the read is covered, he needs to be a runner, so a lot of the highly recruited qbs have running ability---and Simms does not seem to see that as an asset. I am speculating, but that is how it seems to me.

I wonder if all the inconsistent interpretations will result in the Panthers sitting still at #8 and making a move then and forget all this "3 first round picks, 2 defensive studs, and a CMC in a pear tree" talk.

That has been their MOs. Hard to argue against that.

They may get some interest, but part of me wonders if this is going to be like ice fly fishing.

I do not take you literally or seriously. You amuse me.

You be careful or MOM (upside down) will come back at you with the lesser of two evils and attack you with his rapping wit.