Some good roster analysis from Gantt

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, Jon Snow said:

That's not mortgaging anything.  Passing on Fields or Jones is not mortgaging the future. It amounts to using that pick plus a 2nd next year at most for a QB and a CB.  It does not prevent them from taking either going forward. Let's not make this into something it's not.  SF mortgaged their future.  We took a flyer. 

We took a flyer last year too. We chose to once again go with a medium sized QB investment hoping to cash in big on long odds. 

Even as bad as the Panthers have been historically, top 10 picks are still a relative rarity. When you forego the opportunity to add a QB with one when you need a QB, you're mortgaging your future on that opportunity cost. We're doubtful to have one next year. Even if Darnold is bad, an improving young D and healthy CMC will likely be enough to keep us out of the top 10.

In a couple of years, if Fields is a legit QB and we're still floundering at QB, we'll look back on this decision as the one that ultimately derailed the Rhule Era.

[Moo Daeng]

4 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

That's not mortgaging anything.  Passing on Fields or Jones is not mortgaging the future. It amounts to using that pick plus a 2nd next year at most for a QB and a CB.  It does not prevent them from taking either going forward. Let's not make this into something it's not.  SF mortgaged their future.  We took a flyer. 

Boy did they ever. 

[ForJimmy]

Just now, amcoolio said:

I doubt that. If Darnold is bad then we are in prime position for a top 5 pick. And every year there are QB's that come out of nowhere. I mean we had pick #3 in our grasp before winning a meaningless game against WFT.

 

As far as "banking on Darnold"....I think it was more that the Panthers didn't want to take the 4th or 5th best QB with the 8th overall pick, which is absurd and I'm glad they didn't do that

Pick 3 was the 3rd QB we had the 4th fall to us. Also the 4th in this draft was the 2 behind Lawrence just last year. That WFT win should matter to you because you didn’t want us taking a QB anyway. With a healthy CMC and our better defense we may not be in the top 5 even with him playing bad. He even got some late season wins on that terrible Jets team last year,

Having Darnold as our uncontested starting QB was a gamble. Go around and talk to neutral fans and tell them we passed on Fields because we have Darnold and watch their expressions. It was a bold move and hopefully our staff was right. After Teddy they are 0-1 minus $40 million on QBs right now.

[Jon Snow]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

We took a flyer last year too. We chose to once again go with a medium sized QB investment hoping to cash in big on long odds. 

Even as bad as the Panthers have been historically, top 10 picks are still a relative rarity. When you forego the opportunity to add a QB with one when you need a QB, you're mortgaging your future on that opportunity cost. We're doubtful to have one next year. Even if Darnold is bad, an improving young D and healthy CMC will likely be enough to keep us out of the top 10.

In a couple of years, if Fields is a legit QB and we're still floundering at QB, we'll look back on this decision as the one that ultimately derailed the Rhule Era.

And when Fields is just a jag and Darnold has this team in the playoffs will you still be as critical?

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, Jon Snow said:

And when Fields is just a jag and Darnold has this team in the playoffs will you still be as critical?

We'll see. Fields may turn out to be a JAG but that's the beauty of the rookie wage scale. It lets you take chances on elite talent without crippling your cap. I was all about taking Cam #1 overall in large part due to the new at the time rookie wage scale. Had we been facing paying him like Sam Bradford was paid as a rookie I would've been a LOT more hesitant.

[SCO96]

20 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Good reasonable response. I'd disagree on the draft capitol though. Trade values at the top of the draft have skewed big time over the years since the rookie wage scale was implemented. Those picks have become a lot more valuable now that they also don't come with massive contract that pays a rookie like an automatic future HOFer. Those picks allow you to make a bet on elite talent without the contract that type of elite talent normally requires.

 

I know draft slots are practically meaningless with Scott "the mad trader" moving draft choices like chess pieces. But, I think we have all of our choices next season except the #2. We got back the 2022 #4 we lost to NY from the Houston deal this year, so we should go into the off season with 6 draft picks. Teams rarely give up #1 and # 2 choices in the same year. If we had a strong option for QB next year, we should be able to package something "reasonable " to move up and take a shot (ex: 1,3 in 2022, and #2, #4 2023) depending on where we were on the draft board. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by SCO96

[ForJimmy]

Anyway hopefully Darnold plays great and Horn turns into a shutdown CB and we won’t be having this conversation next year!

[Jon Snow]

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

We'll see. Fields may turn out to be a JAG but that's the beauty of the rookie wage scale. It lets you take chances on elite talent without crippling your cap. I was all about taking Cam #1 overall in large part due to the new at the time rookie wage scale. Had we been facing paying him like Sam Bradford was paid as a rookie I would've been a LOT more hesitant.

It's clear that the Panthers are more concerned about getting the right qb than what they may have to pay him.  Yes it would be nice to hit on one with a rookie salary.  They decided that there was juice left for the squeezing in Darnold so I'm not going to second guess that.  What truly gives me hope is that they will cut bait as soon as they see there's nothing there to salvage.

It's all good brother we want the same thing in the end.  

Edited May 5, 2021 by Jon Snow

[Floppin]

Mortgaging the future would imply that if Darnold is bad then the panthers are stuck with him for the foreseeable future because they have no realistic way to replace him. That's simply not the case. They would immediately be in a position to replace him next year if things don't work out. They haven't "mortgaged" anything. They've simply chosen him over the options presented this year. That's hardly "mortgaging the future".

[pantherclaw]

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Opportunity cost is very real. If Darnold continues to suck (honestly fairly likely based on NFL history) and Fields and/or Jones is legit (unknown, but probably pretty decent at least one of them works out based on NFL history of top 15 QB picks) then this decision is not gonna look good in the rearview unless Darnold turns out to be Clausen level bad netting us a top pick who becomes an NFL MVP (definitely the slimmest of odds discussed in this post).

I just simply don't agree. The franchise made their decision. It's no different than drafting a kid, except Darnold has 3 years in the grinder known as New York. 

Whether you think he continues to suck or not is on you.  I certainly don't feel Fields could have came in and done well this year.  Jones was the more polished of the 2, but inremember ya didn't want his ass either when he was being hotly debated. 

So now your saying your rather have that, than Sam.  

When it comes to Sam,  I don't have to look at much of his film to see a lot that I like. 

His issues that he had in NY can be over come and a part of his past. 

The team made the decision to build around Sam. 

It's the right decision, even if you are bloody right, and he doesn't work out. As we will have a team to plug in another QB. 

I'm excited about our offense with Sam. More so than if we had Fields for sure. 

[jtm]

I'm not convinced we have a starting LT on the roster for 2021.  Christensen has potential, but it would not be ideal to start him in year 1.  This is a big concern and hopefully the front office goes shopping before the season starts. 

[LinvilleGorge]

8 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

I just simply don't agree. The franchise made their decision. It's no different than drafting a kid, except Darnold has 3 years in the grinder known as New York. 

Whether you think he continues to suck or not is on you.  I certainly don't feel Fields could have came in and done well this year.  Jones was the more polished of the 2, but inremember ya didn't want his ass either when he was being hotly debated. 

So now your saying your rather have that, than Sam.  

When it comes to Sam,  I don't have to look at much of his film to see a lot that I like. 

His issues that he had in NY can be over come and a part of his past. 

The team made the decision to build around Sam. 

It's the right decision, even if you are bloody right, and he doesn't work out. As we will have a team to plug in another QB. 

I'm excited about our offense with Sam. More so than if we had Fields for sure. 

It's not about just what I think. It's a reality that 1st round bust reclamation projects are rare. We're keenly aware of the success rate of 1st round QBs but we seem to be heavily downplaying the success rate of former busts (Darnold) and second rate vets (Teddy). We're trying to hit the jackpot on long shot bets.

[grimesgoat]

57 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It does. Rhule is keenly aware of the bust rate of 1st round QB while seemingly oblivious to the reality that historically 1st round bust reclamation projects fare considerably worse. 

I get it, he's hesitant to bet big on a QB because he doesn't want to lose big but ultimately, if he doesn't find a franchise QB he'll lose his job. They're a requirement in today's NFL and Tepper knows it, hence why he preaches coach, GM, QB. Everything else is a want. Those are the three must have pieces.

Dude.  I always read and appreciate your posts.  But you have to get off this whole Darnold is a bust/reclamation project.  He's been in the league 3 years.  QB is a tough job. that takes more than 3 years to become really good at it.

I took a look at several QBs' first 3 year stats and compared them to Darnold.  I limited the comparison to first round picks that played right away, won championships and became franchise QBs, many HOFs.  These are some of the greatest QBs to ever play.  This does leave some all-time greats out, such as Rogers, Young, Staubach and Kelly - who all got to watch a few years before they were thrown into the fire, plus Marino who never won anything.  I included Brees despite the fact he did get to sit and watch his rookie year.  Other than Peyton Manning, the numbers are extraordinary similar to Darnold's.  No one would say these guys are busts.

QB	Dft. #	Age	Games	Comp	Att	%	Yds	Yds/Game	td	int	sk
Namath	1st	22	36	654	1,302	50%	9,606	267	63	70	-
Griese	4th	22	34	473	938	50%	6,173	182	46	50	-
Bradshaw	1st	22	41	433	899	48%	5,556	136	31	58	87
Elway	1st	23	40	664	1,244	53%	8,152	204	47	52	90
Aikman	1st	23	38	618	1,055	59%	7,082	186	31	46	90
P Manning	1st	22	48	1,014	1,679	60%	12,287	256	85	58	56
Roethlisburger	11th	22	41	644	1,032	62%	8,519	208	52	43	99
Brees	3rd	22	28	540	909	59%	5,807	207	29	31	47
E Manning	1st	23	41	690	1,276	54%	8,049	196	54	44	66
Darnold	3rd	21	38	729	1,219	60%	8,097	213	45	39	98
Average	3rd	22	39	646	1,155	56%	7,933	205	48	49	79

Although Darnold's numbers are consistent with the averages of these great QBs, a couple of other things jumped out at me:

1. He was the youngest starting out.

2. He was sacked more than anyone, suggesting his OL sucked.

3. His completion % was actually much higher than the overall average.

4. All of these guys (including Peyton) threw more INTs than games played (Darnold was right at 1 per game).

Look - we know he was under the microscope in NY and had a shortage of help from his coaching and supporting cast.  His numbers are consistent with a guy picked early by a team bad enough to pick early.  The next 2 years will show how good he can be.  Its just waaaaay to early to call him a bust or reclamation project.  He has just as good of a chance to become a franchise QB as Fields or anyone else.

 

 

[LinvilleGorge]

5 minutes ago, jtm said:

I'm not convinced we have a starting LT on the roster for 2021.  Christensen has potential, but it would not be ideal to start him in year 1.  This is a big concern and hopefully the front office goes shopping before the season starts. 

We did. Like it or not, we came back with Cam Erving.