At 9, The Carolina Panthers Will Select

[1of10Charnatives]

13 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

I seem to remember luke being great in coverage. Everyone keeps saying this but all the elite defenses have great MLBs

Luke was great in coverage, but the degree to which a MLB's coverage skills impact the game pale in comparison to the impact of a QB, OT, DE or CB. It does take a great MLB to have an elite defense, but elite defenses aren't the only path or even the most common one to SB rings. The NFL wants high scoring offenses because this is what attracts the casual fan. Hence the rules have been and are increasingly tilted in this direction. Elite defenses are harder and harder to come by as time goes on.

[OldhamA]

7 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

If someone told me I could have a guaranteed HOF MLB , OR I could have a guaranteed HOF QB, LT, DE or CB I would take any of the others over the guaranteed MLB.

Adding a hypothetical guarantee to one side of an argument doesn't make that side of the argument stronger, it just artificially tilts the argument.

It was your argument - you said a HoF MLB wasn't worth a Top 10 pick.

[1of10Charnatives]

Just now, OldhamA said:

It was your argument - you said a HoF MLB wasn't worth a Top 10 pick.

No. 

I said a MLB wasn't worth a top ten pick no matter how good a prospect he looks like.

YOU added the guaranteed HOF qualifier to artificially strengthen the other side of the argument and attempt to make my position look less reasonable. We both know that there is no such thing as guaranteed HOFer when drafting, so I added the HOF guarantee back in to the other side to even out the argument and show the artificial nature of your change. This isn't hard to understand unless you're being deliberately obtuse.

[OldhamA]

2 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

No. 

I said a MLB wasn't worth a top ten pick no matter how good a prospect he looks like.

YOU added the guaranteed HOF qualifier to artificially strengthen the other side of the argument and attempt to make my position look less reasonable. We both know that there is no such thing as guaranteed HOFer when drafting, so I added the HOF guarantee back in to the other side to even out the argument and show the artificial nature of your change. This isn't hard to understand unless you're being deliberately obtuse.

"Nothing against Parsons, who seems to be a heck of a player, but even the second coming of Luke isn't worth it as a top ten pick."

[1of10Charnatives]

Just now, OldhamA said:

"Nothing against Parsons, who seems to be a heck of a player, but even the second coming of Luke isn't worth it as a top ten pick."

Yes. I stand by that statement. If you want to guarantee a MLB is the second coming of Luke, then I get to guarantee the QB, LT or DE I'd pick instead would be the second coming of Mahomes, Orlando Pace, LT etc. 

Look at Luke's actual career as well as the careers of other top MLB's lately. They play great, retire early due to health issues, and tend not to win SB's.

[unicar15]

5 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Yes. I stand by that statement. If you want to guarantee a MLB is the second coming of Luke, then I get to guarantee the QB, LT or DE I'd pick instead would be the second coming of Mahomes, Orlando Pace, LT etc. 

Look at Luke's actual career as well as the careers of other top MLB's lately. They play great, retire early due to health issues, and tend not to win SB's.

I wouldn’t avoid drafting an elite player bc they don’t play for more than 10 years? Your windows (unless you have Brady, Mahomes, Brees) for winning a super bowl is like 5 years anyway. Also...Lavonte David, Jamie Collins, Bobby Wagner...all have long successful careers and don’t seem to be thinking about retirement. 
 

If Parsons is the second coming of Wagner or Keuchly...he’s definitely worth a top 10 pick. 

[MadHatter]

On 12/29/2020 at 11:57 PM, jfra78 said:

He was the second QB taken in the draft.  If Fields is available at 9 I will be all for it

This.

if Lawrence, Fields, or Wilson are there then you grab them.

no way I would take Trask, Jones, etc at 9....

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, MadHatter said:

This.

if Lawrence, Fields, or Wilson are there then you grab them.

no way I would take Trask, Jones, etc at 9....

Trask will be there in the 3rd perhaps even later.  His arm is lol funny

[MadHatter]

2 hours ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Trask will be there in the 3rd perhaps even later.  His arm is lol funny

I don’t think he lasts that long although he prob should.  Some qb needy team will fall in love with his reg season stats and majorly reach.

Mac Jones also makes me nervous.  He was good...but was that him or the ridiculous offense he plays on.  They had a  great OL....Harris in the backfield...and the best WR’s in college football. That makes me nervous.

[1of10Charnatives]

5 hours ago, unicar15 said:

I wouldn’t avoid drafting an elite player bc they don’t play for more than 10 years? Your windows (unless you have Brady, Mahomes, Brees) for winning a super bowl is like 5 years anyway. Also...Lavonte David, Jamie Collins, Bobby Wagner...all have long successful careers and don’t seem to be thinking about retirement. 
 

If Parsons is the second coming of Wagner or Keuchly...he’s definitely worth a top 10 pick. 

If the players you pass on to draft him are the second coming of Mahomes, Bruce Smith, Orlando Pace or Darelle Revis?

My argument has been misunderstood from the beginning. It was never that I'd knowingly pass on a great player. That's a vast oversimplification. My argument was more nuanced and consisted of multiple parts:

A) No prospect is a sure thing no matter how good they look.

B) MLB has become the least important position on the defensive side of the ball in a pass wacky NFL.

C) The difference in potential between the very best MLB prospect and the solid one you can get in later rounds is typically much less than the difference in potential between the top prospects at the positions I mentioned and the ones available in later rounds. Drafting these top prospects at the top of the first typically yields a much greater bang for the buck in terms of increased talent/potential over later round prospects.

therefore

D) I prefer to draft the previously mentioned positions with top 10 picks because at the end of the day the draft is to some degree a crapshoot no matter what. If you're rolling the dice and your first round pick is the dice roll with your best odds, make sure you're rolling for a position where premium talent is hard to come by and makes a big difference.

[JARROD]

On 12/29/2020 at 10:14 PM, GoPanthers123 said:

If it’s top 10 pick it’s a QB.  That is the number one need.

Matthew Stafford

[imminent rogaine]

Just did a mock that still had us at 9. Traded back w Buffalo for an additional first next year. I think I’d take this right now  if offered. Start Teddy next year, and plan on trading up to get Rattler or whomever. 

 

 

[mrcompletely11]

13 minutes ago, imminent rogaine said:

Just did a mock that still had us at 9. Traded back w Buffalo for an additional first next year. I think I’d take this right now  if offered. Start Teddy next year, and plan on trading up to get Rattler or whomever.