CBS Sports Mock Draft. Panthers pass on Lance for an OL guy. 49ers take Lance the next pick.

[Mage]

Lance is super overhyped.  I wouldn’t even take him in the 2nd round.  

[nctarheelreincarnated]

22 minutes ago, Mage said:

Lance is super overhyped.  I wouldn’t even take him in the 2nd round.  

Na man, he's hyped for the right reasons. You go a whole season without throwing a pick? Yeah, that's a deal there. 

[Mage]

34 minutes ago, nctarheelreincarnated said:

Na man, he's hyped for the right reasons. You go a whole season without throwing a pick? Yeah, that's a deal there. 

Relatively speaking, he barely threw the ball.  Only eclipsed 30 pass attempts one time.  The last time he threw more than 20 completions in a game was October 19th.  He went 9 straight games with less than 20 completions, 8 of those 15 or less.  He played in a protected offense that mainly asked him to run the ball.  Nothing wrong with that, but it makes you wanna see more.  With that said the 0 INTs are nice.

If we're being honest, he looked flat-out terrible in his only game this year.  That isn't the be all, end all, but his accuracy was bad.  His tape from last year is better, but you still saw some of the same flaws.  

He's got great physical tools.  I agree with Linville in that if we took him in the 1st (depending on where we are picking - I am not taking him over a top ranked OT/DE/CB) I wouldn't be upset.  But I'd be very nervous.  I really wish he could have played this year to see how he progressed.  

I've seen people compare him to Cam.  Which makes sense.  But it also doesn't.  Yes, Cam went stretches where he didn't have to pass the ball much, but Cam also DOMINATED the SEC on an Auburn team that compared to Alabama, LSU, and Arkansas at the time was far less talented (sans QB - Auburn had a 3-5 record in the SEC in 2009).  And for as athletic as Lance is, he's not on Cam's level in that department.  

Lance reminds me of a more athletic Dak Prescott.  If he pans out as well as Dak has, then he's definitely worth a 1st.  But Dak wasn't taken until the 4th round.  I wouldn't let Lance fall that far, but I also don't think he's a 1st round prospect.  He'd be one of the weaker QBs taken in the 1st round in the last 5 or so years IMO.

[theinstrumental]

I'm gonna say once again that you can never have too much talent at quarterback and that even if you're not "sure" (whatever that means w/r/t projecting QBs) on a prospect, you should still take him. If they don't play, they retain some trade value, you always need a backup, and there's always the chance that he's a franchise guy or something approaching it. Let's not end up like Washington. 

That said, Pitts would be a lot of fun here, too. Get out of here with your first-round guard.

[nctarheelreincarnated]

10 minutes ago, Mage said:

Relatively speaking, he barely threw the ball.  Only eclipsed 30 pass attempts one time.  The last time he threw more than 20 completions in a game was October 19th.  He went 9 straight games with less than 20 completions, 8 of those 15 or less.  He played in a protected offense that mainly asked him to run the ball.  Nothing wrong with that, but it makes you wanna see more.  With that said the 0 INTs are nice.

If we're being honest, he looked flat-out terrible in his only game this year.  That isn't the be all, end all, but his accuracy was bad.  His tape from last year is better, but you still saw some of the same flaws.  

He's got great physical tools.  I agree with Linville in that if we took him in the 1st (depending on where we are picking - I am not taking him over a top ranked OT/DE/CB) I wouldn't be upset.  But I'd be very nervous.  I really wish he could have played this year to see how he progressed.  

I've seen people compare him to Cam.  Which makes sense.  But it also doesn't.  Yes, Cam went stretches where he didn't have to pass the ball much, but Cam also DOMINATED the SEC on an Auburn team that compared to Alabama, LSU, and Arkansas at the time was far less talented (sans QB - Auburn had a 3-5 record in the SEC in 2009).  And for as athletic as Lance is, he's not on Cam's level in that department.  

Lance reminds me of a more athletic Dak Prescott.  If he pans out as well as Dak has, then he's definitely worth a 1st.  But Dak wasn't taken until the 4th round.  I wouldn't let Lance fall that far, but I also don't think he's a 1st round prospect.  He'd be one of the weaker QBs taken in the 1st round in the last 5 or so years IMO.

To be fair, he would sit for at least a year here. So, I wouldn't complain. I think having him sit for a year would help with those issues especially under Bridgewater. 

[Mage]

18 minutes ago, theinstrumental said:

I'm gonna say once again that you can never have too much talent at quarterback and that even if you're not "sure" (whatever that means w/r/t projecting QBs) on a prospect, you should still take him. If they don't play, they retain some trade value, you always need a backup, and there's always the chance that he's a franchise guy or something approaching it. Let's not end up like Washington. 

That said, Pitts would be a lot of fun here, too. Get out of here with your first-round guard.

That's a terrible strategy.  You can't just take QBs just because.  If you don't think a guy is gonna work out, don't take him. 

And it's funny you say "let's not end up like Washington."  Washington drafted RG3 and Cousins, then traded picks for Alex Smith, then drafted Dwayne Haskins.  It isn't like they have ignored the QB position.  And where's that gotten them?  

You have to make good evaluations.  Not just taking QBs because of the position they play.  If your goal is to look for a back-up, then wait until the 2nd-4th rounds.

[nctarheelreincarnated]

3 minutes ago, Mage said:

That's a terrible strategy.  You can't just take QBs just because.  If you don't think a guy is gonna work out, don't take him. 

And it's funny you say "let's not end up like Washington."  Washington drafted RG3 and Cousins, then traded picks for Alex Smith, then drafted Dwayne Haskins.  It isn't like they have ignored the QB position.  And where's that gotten them?  

You have to make good evaluations.  Not just taking QBs because of the position they play.  If your goal is to look for a back-up, then wait until the 2nd-4th rounds.

To be fair, Cousins would've worked out if the Washington Football team wasn't cheap. RG3 is just a bust. Haskins sucks. They also didn't let them sit, because Washington's coaches are like Rivera in a sense because they care about their jobs more than the actual football teams future. Which makes sense, I suppose. 

[mrcompletely11]

1 hour ago, Mage said:

Lance is super overhyped.  I wouldn’t even take him in the 2nd round.  

hot take

[Mage]

1 minute ago, nctarheelreincarnated said:

To be fair, Cousins would've worked out if the Washington Football team wasn't cheap. RG3 is just a bust. Haskins sucks. They also didn't let them sit, because Washington's coaches are like Rivera in a sense because they care about their jobs more than the actual football teams future. Which makes sense, I suppose. 

My point is it isn't just about taking QB QB QB QB until you find one.  It's about making sound decisions, good evaluations, and building a good roster.

The person I was quoting seemed to be implying that Washington neglected the QB position.  They didn't.  Their issue was they have built an unbalanced team and have chosen bad coaches.  Look at the Colts too.  They had Andrew Luck, who got them into the playoffs for a nice 3 year stretch, but they could never do anything because they built a bad team.

It starts at the top and the sooner the team realizes this (and I think that they are), the better we will be.  

Yes, if the Panthers come to the conclusion that Lance is worth it, then take him.  But if they aren't sure, then no, they shouldn't take him "just because."  That's what bad football teams do.  That is what Washington likely did with Haskins.  Actually, we know they did, because Jay Gruden didn't even want him.  

Panthers have good coaches in place.  I trust Matt Rhule.  This team needs to focus first and foremost on building a team that can win.  And if that includes a QB in 2021, then so be it.  But don't force it.  Because regardless of how you feel about Lance... he ain't that special.  

[SetfreexX]

17 hours ago, TLGPanthersFan said:

If Lance is available you take him. 

This, Teddy will be 28, and in year two of three on his deal, this would be the perfect transition, let him sit a year, or two and not be rushed along, we can sign a LB, and quality OL in FA as we will have considerable cap space as we move forward. As we've seen, OL isn't the issue with competent QB play / offensive play-calling to limit any potential weakness.

If you have a shot at a future long term QB, you take it. I like Teddy, but in 3-5 years from now is that who you want at QB still?

[Mage]

5 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

hot take

We've seen equal or better prospects fall to the 2nd before.  

Strictly talking about the film, Derek Carr was more impressive at Fresno than Lance at NDSU.  And Carr fell to the 2nd.  I mentioned Prescott earlier.  Russell Wilson fell in the draft and again, he was almost certainly a superior player on film than Lance.

I don't think it's a hot take at all, personally.  Maybe not something that isn't shared by the majority.  But I don't think it's a stretch.

[Mage]

1 minute ago, SetfreexX said:

This, Teddy will be 28, and in year two of three on his deal, this would be the perfect transition, let him sit a year, or two and not be rushed along, we can sign a LB, and quality OL in FA as we will have considerable cap space as we move forward. As we've seen, OL isn't the issue with competent QB play / offensive play-calling to limit any potential weakness.

If you have a shot at a future long term QB, you take it. I like Teddy, but in 3-5 years from now is that who you want at QB still?

*Only* if you truly think he can be a franchise QB.  You can't take QBs just because.  It sets your team back when you miss, unless you luck out and get a top 5 pick the next year.

And if we're talking 3-5 years, that is plenty of time to find another QB.  You have to be patient.

And trust me, I am far from a Teddy fan.  I don't think he's the answer long-term either.  But I don't think you just take a QB just because.

[mrcompletely11]

3 minutes ago, Mage said:

*Only* if you truly think he can be a franchise QB.  You can't take QBs just because.  It sets your team back when you miss, unless you luck out and get a top 5 pick the next year.

And if we're talking 3-5 years, that is plenty of time to find another QB.  You have to be patient.

And trust me, I am far from a Teddy fan.  I don't think he's the answer long-term either.  But I don't think you just take a QB just because.

Nobody is saying that.   If Brady and co evaluate Lance (or whoever) and deem him an asset for the future then you pick him and go down the road.  You are just arguing Lance isnt going to be all that good and should be picked in the 2nd. 

[SetfreexX]

4 minutes ago, Mage said:

*Only* if you truly think he can be a franchise QB.  You can't take QBs just because.  It sets your team back when you miss, unless you luck out and get a top 5 pick the next year.

And if we're talking 3-5 years, that is plenty of time to find another QB.  You have to be patient.

And trust me, I am far from a Teddy fan.  I don't think he's the answer long-term either.  But I don't think you just take a QB just because.

Is it really? If there is a prospect you think fits the bill you take him, let TB's contract fall off, and build up around a talented young arm as we will have guys to pay like Moore, Moton, and Burns moving forward. 

This allows you to put the best possible team around a young, inexpensive, but talented option at QB. I like Teddy, but I do not think he is the long term option. 

Now I will add this, I do not know if Lance is a system fit, but we could have said the same about Mahomes going into Reid's passing system when it was dink / dunk under Alex Smith.