Source: Panthers Open to Drafting Quarterback With No. 8 Pick

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, Smittymoose said:

You told me that it was "objectively" untrue that QBs are a 50/50 proposition at best. That's 22 QBs. At best, you can say Stafford, Bradford, Newton, Luck, Goff, and maybe Wentz weren't busts with the teams that drafted them. Bradford and Wentz are stretches, and the Rams have already jettisoned Goff in search of an upgrade. 

And yet Goff is still much better than the QBs we've spent significant resources rolling the dice on the past two off-seasons.

We're shopping in the dumpster out back of Dollar General, but paying Target prices to harken back to Gettleman euphemisms.

[cookinbrak]

2 hours ago, AceBoogie said:

Don’t matter how good the line is when your QB sees ghosts. 

Doesn't matter how good your QB is when your line are ghosts.

[45catfan]

5 minutes ago, Smittymoose said:

You told me that it was "objectively" untrue that QBs are a 50/50 proposition at best. That's 22 QBs. At best, you can say Stafford, Bradford, Newton, Luck, Goff, and maybe Wentz weren't busts with the teams that drafted them. Bradford and Wentz are stretches, and the Rams have already jettisoned Goff in search of an upgrade. 

So you are saying teams should never draft a rookie QB early, it's smarter to keep dipping from the FA well?  FA QBs were rookies at one time too, so some team gave up on them as well.  I would also note this isn't he 1990's and teams are VERY impatient with rookie QBs.  If they aren't carrying the franchise by end of year two, typically teams are ready to cut bait.  Again, does that mean teams stop drafting QBs early?  No position has a 100% success rate or even close to it and if you are taking that gamble, it's with a franchise QB. 

[SizzleBuzz]

15 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Bingo!  I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp?  QB is the MOST crucial position in football.  By having two first round QBs, here are the scenarios moving forward: both work out, only one works out or neither work out.  Right there you gave your organization 2-out-of-3 chances to succeed.  This shouldn't even be a discussion.

 

We'd actually have 3 first-round QB's on the roster...

...has this ever happened before?

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2021 by SizzleBuzz

[SizzleBuzz]

Question for the group...

...which 2 or 3 mock-drafts are considered to be the most legitimate?

[bythenbrs]

2 hours ago, AceBoogie said:

Don’t matter how good the line is when your QB sees ghosts. 

Perhaps he sees ghosts because he is forever picking sod out of his face mask and ear hole?

[45catfan]

Source

QBs historically have a 63% success rate in the first round, so yes, better than 50/50.  You could say teams are less patient now and that number has dropped in recent years, but is that because QBs are worse or teams are just extremely impatient?  I'm going with the later.  Yes, OL is the safest in round one, but ditto for rounds 2 and 3.  This year is a VERY deep class so we have the luxury of waiting until round 2 if need be.

[Moo Daeng]

Fitterer said this directly to us.

[Smittymoose]

13 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

So you are saying teams should never draft a rookie QB early, it's smarter to keep dipping from the FA well?  FA QBs were rookies at one time too, so some team gave up on them as well.  I would also note this isn't he 1990's and teams are VERY impatient with rookie QBs.  If they aren't carrying the franchise by end of year two, typically teams are ready to cut bait.  Again, does that mean teams stop drafting QBs early?  No position has a 100% success rate or even close to it and if you are taking that gamble, it's with a franchise QB. 

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it makes no sense to draft a QB at #8 when you just gave up a not insignificant draft haul for one. It's not a choice between drafting a QB and not drafting a QB. It's a choice between drafting a QB and having invested either the 8th overall pick or a 2+4+6 in a backup or having a starting-caliber QB PLUS an impact player at another position.

If Darnold is awful, Carolina will be in a position to draft a QB next year. The smart choice is to give him at least a year and give him an impact player at #8 rather than drafting his replacement. It's unrealistic to say you'll just trade whichever QB for a haul down the road. If Darnold is good, how many first round rookies really sit on the bench and appreciate in value? I can't think of one that was traded for MORE than what he was drafted for without getting significant playing time. 

[Smittymoose]

3 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Source

QBs historically have a 63% success rate in the first round, so yes, better than 50/50.  You could say teams are less patient now and that number has dropped in recent years, but is that because QBs are worse or teams are just extremely impatient?  I'm going with the later.  Yes, OL is the safest in round one, but ditto for rounds 2 and 3.  This year is a VERY deep class so we have the luxury of waiting until round 2 if need be.

This is a foolish way of evaluating QB hit rate. Jamarcus Russell started more than half of his career. Would you consider him a hit? He's a "hit" rather than a "miss" under this metric. 

[45catfan]

1 minute ago, Smittymoose said:

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it makes no sense to draft a QB at #8 when you just gave up a not insignificant draft haul for one. It's not a choice between drafting a QB and not drafting a QB. It's a choice between drafting a QB and having invested either the 8th overall pick or a 2+4+6 in a backup or having a starting-caliber QB PLUS an impact player at another position.

If Darnold is awful, Carolina will be in a position to draft a QB next year. The smart choice is to give him at least a year and give him an impact player at #8 rather than drafting his replacement. It's unrealistic to say you'll just trade whichever QB for a haul down the road. If Darnold is good, how many first round rookies really sit on the bench and appreciate in value? I can't think of one that was traded for MORE than what he was drafted for without getting significant playing time. 

Point #1: It's essentially a 2nd and a 4th.  This year's 6th is very insignificant.  For a staring QB, that is peanuts.

Point #2: You are assuming neither work out and the pick was wasted by not drafting another position

Point #3:  Darold will NOT led us to a QB next year.  His awful will be just good enough to keep us out of range.

Point #4: Potential replacement.  You keep the better of the two and trade for a ransom.

Point #5: You really don't understand the value a QB in this League.  If Darnold pans out, that rookie in a couple years will still garner at least a first rounder and then some to a desperate QB needy team.

[45catfan]

8 minutes ago, Smittymoose said:

This is a foolish way of evaluating QB hit rate. Jamarcus Russell started more than half of his career. Would you consider him a hit? He's a "hit" rather than a "miss" under this metric. 

The same would go for Matt Kalil.  Go fish.

[Peppers90 NC]

Getting Darnold was in case Fields or Lance were not there. I hope Jones is not in consideration.

[mrcompletely11]

20 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Source

QBs historically have a 63% success rate in the first round, so yes, better than 50/50.  You could say teams are less patient now and that number has dropped in recent years, but is that because QBs are worse or teams are just extremely impatient?  I'm going with the later.  Yes, OL is the safest in round one, but ditto for rounds 2 and 3.  This year is a VERY deep class so we have the luxury of waiting until round 2 if need be.

What defines success?