For all you tankers out there...we are now sitting at #5

[kungfoodude]

11 minutes ago, NYPantherFan said:

Micah Parsons come on down!!!

Do you hate us?

[BrianS]

1 hour ago, WarPanthers89 said:

I honestly don’t believe we need to stay at 5 to get our QB. If we get any of the top 4 I’ll be happy, and one of them will be available in the top 10 picks 

Yea, we kinda do.

Our need for a QB is not exactly a secret.  If we trade backwards, say to 9, it's that many more opportunities for someone else to trade up and grab "our guy".  There are easily four teams in that scenario who could legitimately take a QB.  Honestly, even Dallas isn't a guarantee not to take a QB.  They have a guy playing on a tag who had a catastrophic injury.  Jerry is the GM there, despite what titles may say.

Of teams currently in the top 10 Jets, Jags, Panthers, Falcons and Eagles are all legit in need of a QB.  Cowboys and Giants are a wildcard.

 

[stbugs]

1 hour ago, WarPanthers89 said:

I honestly don’t believe we need to stay at 5 to get our QB. If we get any of the top 4 I’ll be happy, and one of them will be available in the top 10 picks 

You are probably right. QBs won’t go 1-2-3. I’d rather just get the 4 spot so we can basically evaluate the 4 QBs, Sewell and maybe 1 more. Decide if you want to:

1 - Trade up

2 - Take Sewell or the other player at 4 over Wilson/Lance

3 - Take the 3rd QB because you think they can be as good as the top 2 QBs with the extra draft capital you don’t use to trade up 

The 4 spot with Cincy at 3 makes our first pick a simple decision and we can focus all of our off-season time on it to hopefully get it right.

[kungfoodude]

6 minutes ago, BrianS said:

Yea, we kinda do.

Our need for a QB is not exactly a secret.  If we trade backwards, say to 9, it's that many more opportunities for someone else to trade up and grab "our guy".  There are easily four teams in that scenario who could legitimately take a QB.  Honestly, even Dallas isn't a guarantee not to take a QB.  They have a guy playing on a tag who had a catastrophic injury.  Jerry is the GM there, despite what titles may say.

Of teams currently in the top 10 Jets, Jags, Panthers, Falcons and Eagles are all legit in need of a QB.  Cowboys and Giants are a wildcard.

 

The choice to trade down has to be if our next guy on the board is a sure thing at our next pick or if there is a big drop off from out top targets to our second tier targets. Admittedly, it would be nice to get some more 2nd or 3rd round picks. We really just simply need more players on the depth chart.

[OneBadCat]

Dallas might take a QB though 

[Monty83]

If we can’t land our QB this year, I wouldn’t be opposed to trading back and see what it would take to get a 1st rounder next year and have trade assets to trade up the following year.
 

More than anything, I want the guy at QB we legitimately see as the franchise guy. If he isn’t there, punt and do it again next year.

[BrianS]

18 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

The choice to trade down has to be if our next guy on the board is a sure thing at our next pick or if there is a big drop off from out top targets to our second tier targets. Admittedly, it would be nice to get some more 2nd or 3rd round picks. We really just simply need more players on the depth chart.

Sure, I agree.  It all comes down to our evaluation of the players available when our pick comes up.

A lot of people say it gets easier to move up the closer you are to the top of the draft.  I disagree with that.  I think it gets harder.  If you're sitting at 5 and want to move to 2 (for example), it's likely to cost you something like a second rounder this year and a second rounder next year (if not a first).  If you are that high up the board, you can't do that deal.  Giving up two players for one isn't great when what you really need is just plain *more* players.

On the other hand if you're in the bottom half of the round, moving up might make more sense.  You've already shown that your team is competitive, so maybe giving up two first round picks isn't as big a deal for you.

I dunno, I just never liked the idea of giving up two picks for one.  I'd rather take my chances with what I've got, or have someone else hand ME two picks for one.

[stirs]

My top targets if I were at 4 would be:

Lawrence

Sewell

I have a feeling that Fields might drop a little and he and Wilson will be rated around 5th and 7th on boards.  Smoke and mirror season starts soon and I am seeing Sewell at 2 w Jacksonville which leaves the Bengals to grab a WR.  Jacksonville might be willing to drop to 4 if they know they can still get a QB there.  Doubt there is any way in the world we can get Lawrence

 

Lawrence and Sewell are 10 year guys with little questions.

[BrianS]

Just now, stirs said:

I have a feeling that Fields might drop a little and he and Wilson will be rated around 5th and 7th on boards.  Smoke and mirror season starts soon and I am seeing Sewell at 2 w Jacksonville which leaves the Bengals to grab a WR.  Jacksonville might be willing to drop to 4 if they know they can still get a QB there.  Doubt there is any way in the world we can get Lawrence

 

You are nuts if you think the Jags won't take a QB.  They can't decide between Gardner Minshew and Mike Glennon.  If that doesn't scream "WE NEED A QB" I don't know what does.

That doesn't mean their evaluation of their roster is correct, it just means that looking objectively at their behavior this year tells me they don't have a guy they believe in on the roster.  When that is the case, and a guy who you believe could be the guy is available at your pick slot, you take that guy.

[AU-panther]

1 hour ago, MHS831 said:

Maybe I am over-analyzing Jones and maybe he is simply blessed with a stud OL and a stable full of thoroughbred WRs, but If we could somehow get Sewell (Let's say a team trades up to get a QB and Cincy moves back) and take Jones in Round 2, I think we'd say we had a successful draft in 3 or 4 years.  I think I would rather have a combination of Sewell/Jones than Lance/Walker Little, for example.  I am higher on Jones than most because his accuracy and timing have been excellent.  I think if we take Jones, we better build the best OL in the NFL--he will need a pocket.

Understand that I want a first round QB too---but not a Rosen or a Darnold.  I would hate to take a bust knowing the best OT since Joe Thomas was on the board....I think a LT is that important.

If OT was that important Cleveland would have been so much better all of those years. 
Patriots let good lineman walk.

I’m not saying a LT isn’t important, and I would love to find a franchise LT that can play here for the next 15 years, but a QB is an entirely different league of importance.

I would prefer to go 1/3 picking QBs in the first round the next 3 years then going 3/3 with any other positions.
 

Also why are people willing to take a chance on a lower ranked QB but not a lower ranked OT?  I feel better about finding an OT in the second round then I do a QB.

 

[LinvilleGorge]

12 minutes ago, BrianS said:

Sure, I agree.  It all comes down to our evaluation of the players available when our pick comes up.

A lot of people say it gets easier to move up the closer you are to the top of the draft.  I disagree with that.  I think it gets harder.  If you're sitting at 5 and want to move to 2 (for example), it's likely to cost you something like a second rounder this year and a second rounder next year (if not a first).  If you are that high up the board, you can't do that deal.  Giving up two players for one isn't great when what you really need is just plain *more* players.

On the other hand if you're in the bottom half of the round, moving up might make more sense.  You've already shown that your team is competitive, so maybe giving up two first round picks isn't as big a deal for you.

I dunno, I just never liked the idea of giving up two picks for one.  I'd rather take my chances with what I've got, or have someone else hand ME two picks for one.

It's definitely not easier to move up from further back. Future picks may be valued equally or roughly equally, but there's a big gap in the value of that current pick. Plus, the team considering trading down may not want to move THAT far back depending on the player(s) they're targeting.

[stirs]

3 minutes ago, BrianS said:

You are nuts if you think the Jags won't take a QB.  They can't decide between Gardner Minshew and Mike Glennon.  If that doesn't scream "WE NEED A QB" I don't know what does.

That doesn't mean their evaluation of their roster is correct, it just means that looking objectively at their behavior this year tells me they don't have a guy they believe in on the roster.  When that is the case, and a guy who you believe could be the guy is available at your pick slot, you take that guy.

Hang on Sparky

When I say "I am seeing", I mean on mock drafts.  AND, I agree they need a QB, but the whole premise was they might be able to get Fields at 4 instead of 2.  That for them, would not be NUTS

[LinvilleGorge]

It'll be shocking if the Jags don't draft a QB, but shocking developments do happen in the NFL draft.

[BrianS]

4 minutes ago, stirs said:

Hang on Sparky

When I say "I am seeing", I mean on mock drafts.  AND, I agree they need a QB, but the whole premise was they might be able to get Fields at 4 instead of 2.  That for them, would not be NUTS

I guess my question would be the motivation for "someone" to get to #2 if not to get Fields?  I know the draft can be bat (*&@ crazy, but if you're Jacksonville sitting at 2 and someone calls you wanting that slot the question becomes how far are you willing to go back?  They know they need a QB . . . and so does everyone else.  Of all the teams currently in the top 10 of the draft, only Cincy and the Chargers really strike me was "completely out" on a QB.  Maybe Miami, but early returns on Tua haven't been great so maybe they aren't sold.

If for some reason the Panthers are sitting at four or five, and by the grace of God or some alignment of the planets Fields somehow drops that low, I couldn't get to the podium fast enough to turn in that card.