What the Duck?

[MHS831]

Some of you (and you know who you are, dammit!) are saying, "Why talk about it?  Cincinnati will take Sewell.  Let's move on...." 

New England decides that Cam is not the answer and decides to move up to get a QB.  The Lions move on from Stafford.  The Broncos decide to upgrade.  The Falcons are at #6 and they love Wilson.  So do we--

The Bengals' phone rings.  It is Bill from Boston.  He says, "He Bengal guy. I will give you our first and second rounders in 2021 and 2022 to move up from #14. Bengal guy goes "Hmmmmm."  He decides that Cosmi or Leatherwood would be OK at LT,  and we can use the other three picks to build a dynasty.  Bengal guy says, "OK" and Bill from Boston says, "We want Wilson."

The Panthers are on the clock.  A Duck on the west coast--a person everyone feels is the next 10-year all pro--is wearing a polyester suit in the green room.  Are you going with a QB from North Dakota State or are you taking the LT?

In fact, I doubt Bill from Boston would trade up for Wilson and leave Sewell on the board.  Just me.

[Snake]

3 hours ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Without a decent QB a great LT is pointless.  When you have a chance at a high pick and you need a QB, QB is the pick. 

Without a great QB a sorry LT is pointless also. You have to take the better of the two. 

[Growl]

"QBs can bust, yes, OTs can bust too but that doesn't matter because this is who I want and it's really wise and disciplined and intelligent"

 

OPs entire argument

[MHS831]

2 minutes ago, Snake said:

Without a great QB a sorry LT is pointless also. You have to take the better of the two. 

Yes--you do.  A LT makes the QB better.  A QB is unlikely to make the LT better.

[AU-panther]

1 hour ago, stirs said:

Same page

After Lawrence, I'd rather have Sewell and pick up a QB in the second.

Great Olines make average QBs look great, and terrible Olines make great QB's look average, or out of the league in short time.

Such as? Joe Thomas and the Browns? 

[MHS831]

2 minutes ago, Growl said:

"QBs can bust, yes, OTs can bust too but that doesn't matter because this is who I want and it's really wise and disciplined and intelligent"

 

OPs entire argument

Nope-- I want a QB, but if it comes down to Sewell vs. Lance---is there really a choice? My argument should not be simplified to fit your purpose.  You take the best player, and the difference between the two is not close.  Frankly, I think Sewell will be gone--and then I take a top 4 QB.  But if you think the football history gods will shine favorably on you for taking Lance over Sewell in 10 years---you are probably in the minority.  That is the OPs point.

[Shotgun]

2 hours ago, WarHeel said:

That philosophy worked out great for Cam’s tenure here. Let’s give it another go.

I agree, got us to 15-1 and the best chance we ever had to win it all.  

[AU-panther]

4 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Yes--you do.  A LT makes the QB better.  A QB is unlikely to make the LT better.

Wrong

Actually a lot more goes into pass protection than just the quality of your O-line.

Having a QB that can call the correct protection  helps

Having a QB that can get the ball out quick helps

Having a WR as the first read that can get open helps, how many times does it sack happen because a QB's first 2 reads are covered.

Also an O-line is an unit.  Having 5 pretty good guys can result in a better O-line than having one elite tackle and the rest bad.

Also people tend to think in binary terms when talking about LTs, a bad LT allows a pressure every snap, a great one never allows a pressure.  It doesn't work that way.  They all win more than they lose, the great ones just lose less.  

Don't get me wrong, I would love for us to find one.  I would have considered one last year, it was a really good class for them, we could have traded down and still got one, which I suggested at the time.  

Also I do believe they are one of the more important positions, and at some point we need to spend a really high pick on one of them, but a QB is more important and this looks like a good QB group.  So yes the QB is riskier but the reward is so much higher.

 

 

 

[Growl]

15 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Nope-- I want a QB, but if it comes down to Sewell vs. Lance---is there really a choice? My argument should not be simplified to fit your purpose.  You take the best player, and the difference between the two is not close.  Frankly, I think Sewell will be gone--and then I take a top 4 QB.  But if you think the football history gods will shine favorably on you for taking Lance over Sewell in 10 years---you are probably in the minority.  That is the OPs point.

yes, there is an argument

a) huddle draftbro's opinion of Trey lance doesn't really carry much weight

And 

2) if Trey lance is the 10th best QB in the league, and Sewell is the greatest player to ever play the game of football-player 1 wins the panthers more games and better positions them to win super bowls

D) quality OT man reliably found elsewhere contributes to just as many wins as this draft's "guaranteed can't miss no bad very good definitely not Greg Robinson" guy by virtue of being the position that it is

 

 

[MHS831]

It is like choosing between the practical, smart mini van because you have 2 kids and #3 on the way, or that shiny red muscle car in the showroom.  Sometimes the right thing to do is very difficult.  You have to look down the road and not get caught up in the moment. 

Radical thought time:

Every team has a plan B.  Detroit is talking about walking away from Stafford.  Could a 32-year old Stafford with a stud LT/OL, WRs Moore and Anderson, a better TE,  and CMC win a Super Bowl?  I would say, "Absolutely."  Can we afford it?   Cut KK, Thompson--that is nearly 30m.  Rework some contracts.  Trade or cut Bridgewater for 2022---backload and guarantee Stafford's deal.  I think we could make that work.  Heck, Okung has been costing us nearly a million per game--Keeping Moton is going to be hard, but if we want it bad enough....

 

[onmyown]

Think you guys are completely missing the point. Just because you need a qb doesn’t mean you reach for one and take whatever as if we’re playing madden.

I’d rather have Sewell than Wilson or Lance too.

3 hours ago, WarHeel said:

That philosophy worked out great for Cam’s tenure here. Let’s give it another go.

And for Luck’s and look how he’s doing. Er, was doing.

Also how about Burrow over there in Cinci who the Bengals completely forgot about his entire line. Hoping he recovers,

[Growl]

6 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

It is like choosing between the practical, smart mini van because you have 2 kids and #3 on the way, or that shiny red muscle car in the showroom.  Sometimes the right thing to do is very difficult.  You have to look down the road and not get caught up in the moment. 

Radical thought time:

Every team has a plan B.  Detroit is talking about walking away from Stafford.  Could a 32-year old Stafford with a stud LT/OL, WRs Moore and Anderson, a better TE,  and CMC win a Super Bowl?  I would say, "Absolutely."  Can we afford it?   Cut KK, Thompson--that is nearly 30m.  Rework some contracts.  Trade or cut Bridgewater for 2022---backload and guarantee Stafford's deal.  I think we could make that work.  Heck, Okung has been costing us nearly a million per game--Keeping Moton is going to be hard, but if we want it bad enough....

 

And this is the core of the issue we've all been waiting for you to inevitably fall into

 

Despite being presented with a series of logical counters in this thread and others, this is, at its root, about your cliche ridden belief system rooted in pappy's advice for team building, and thus you rationalize any presented counter as just a dog whistle from low info Madden players who don't know any better

 

It's frankly pretty insulting, and insults aren't allowed here, maybe you should be banned?

[Growl]

Just now, onmyown said:

Think you guys are completely missing the point. Just because you need a qb doesn’t mean you reach for one and take whatever as if we’re playing madden.

I’d rather have Sewell than Wilson or Lance too.

And for Luck’s and look how he’s doing. Er, was doing.

Also how about Burrow over there in Cinci who the Bengals completely forgot about his entire line. Hoping he recovers,

oh look there it is

 

[MHS831]

4 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Wrong

Actually a lot more goes into pass protection than just the quality of your O-line.

Having a QB that can call the correct protection  helps

Having a QB that can get the ball out quick helps

Having a WR as the first read that can get open helps, how many times does it sack happen because a QB's first 2 reads are covered.

Also an O-line is an unit.  Having 5 pretty good guys can result in a better O-line than having one elite tackle and the rest bad.

Also people tend to think in binary terms when talking about LTs, a bad LT allows a pressure every snap, a great one never allows a pressure.  It doesn't work that way.  They all win more than they lose, the great ones just lose less.  

Don't get me wrong, I would love for us to find one.  I would have considered one last year, it was a really good class for them, we could have traded down and still got one, which I suggested at the time.  

Also I do believe they are one of the more important positions, and at some point we need to spend a really high pick on one of them, but a QB is more important and this looks like a good QB group.  So yes the QB is riskier but the reward is so much higher.

 

 

 

First, you are not right because you type "Wrong" about an opposing view.  That is just disrespectful, antagonizing, and usually reflects a need to be combative to make a point--to be more convincing as you prepare to make an erroneous, one-sided statement.

Yes, a LT makes a QB better.  A QB in the pocket is much more accurate than one moved off his mark.  A QB worried about his blind side is not focused on downfield.  Their internal clocks give them less time before their feet start moving and they rush through their check downs faster. 

Your points are inaccurate and slanted, but you lost me about being wrong.  My reaction?  This guy does not understand football if he does not get the understood, simple fact that blindside protection is essential to a QB's success.

There are other points of view--and I see your points--but they do not disprove mine.  You never proved your initial statement/inference--but you think you did and feel tough about it.

I dont have time for your BS today--if you think Lance is the choice over Sewell and the LT does not make a QB better, then bless your heart.