Draft Analysis: "A massive value-destroying error"?

[panthers55]

This article might make sense if we hadn't picked up Darnold. But we found our first round QB and he has NFL experience. Darnold and Horne combined are worth way more than Fields alone. And that was the choice. 

[LinvilleGorge]

Ultimately it depends on how Darnold and Fields/Jones pan out. If Darnold flops while Fields and/or Jones become franchise QBs then we fuged up. If Darnold pans out then it doesn't matter that we passed on QBs. Even if Darnold flops it doesn't matter if Fields and Jones both bust too.

[Shotgun]

43 minutes ago, CRA said:

that chart is all about positional value to a team.  It's why the list is all LBs, DBs, RBs, and the right side of the OL.   That isn't how you go about building a team in the NFL.   Those positions are largely complimentary to team with the key ingredients.... that have a QB, OL that slants left, WRs, and a DL.  

Of course the 2 weakest positions on our roster. lol 

[jayboogieman]

2 minutes ago, CRA said:

Nothing to disagree with.  I didn't say you draft Cam Newton #1 and just give him one year to be great or draft another QB.

Bears were right to draft Fields.  After Trubisky had the opportunity and time show he wasn't the answer.   They shouldn't of drafted one in Trubisky's 2nd year. 

But we don't have a QB right now.  The rest of the world isn't going to view Sam Darnold as a first round draft pick and pretend like his 3 years starting at QB don't exist. 

 

 

What if Cam didn't play well though? Should Carolina have drafted another QB Cam's second year or should Ron and Co have given him more time? If Lawrence plays poorly, should the Jags draft another QB next year or should they continue to surround him with better players? From what you stated teams that need a QB should be spending their first round picks on QBs until they find their guy so by that logic the answer is yes, both teams should keep drafting QBs instead of giving those guys another chance.

Trubisky is going into his fourth year and the Bears' braintrust are wanting to hang on to their jobs, so of course, they drafted another QB to buy more time. And if Fields plays poorly does Chicago draft another QB next year? Again, your logic about using first round picks on QBs says they should.

You are assuming the Panthers don't view Darnold as their guy because you don't view him that way. They seem to think Darnold is their guy and that Fields wasn't worth the pick.

[CRA]

25 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

This article might make sense if we hadn't picked up Darnold. But we found our first round QB and he has NFL experience. Darnold and Horne combined are worth way more than Fields alone. And that was the choice. 

That gets pretty weird though....

The Bears and Steelers didn't land a comparable QBs this offseason.  Dwayne Haskins can't be viewed as a first round QB prospect in 2021.    

 

 

[CRA]

22 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

What if Cam didn't play well though? Should Carolina have drafted another QB Cam's second year or should Ron and Co have given him more time? If Lawrence plays poorly, should the Jags draft another QB next year or should they continue to surround him with better players? From what you stated teams that need a QB should be spending their first round picks on QBs until they find their guy so by that logic the answer is yes, both teams should keep drafting QBs instead of giving those guys another chance.

Trubisky is going into his fourth year and the Bears' braintrust are wanting to hang on to their jobs, so of course, they drafted another QB to buy more time. And if Fields plays poorly does Chicago draft another QB next year? Again, your logic about using first round picks on QBs says they should.

You are assuming the Panthers don't view Darnold as their guy because you don't view him that way. They seem to think Darnold is their guy and that Fields wasn't worth the pick.

Depends what not playing well means.  Does Cam show promise and tremendous talent?  Then yeah, you roll with Cam.  You drafted someone you believe can be your franchise QB.   Playing well for a rookie QB isn't measured in wins or losses or even stats IMO. 

If he is Clausen level bad? Then yeah, you acknowledge the bust after year one and go back to attempting to solve the QB problem.   The Cardinals did the right thing by acknowledging Rosen was trash and went back to the draft immediately when the opportunity was there. 

 

 

[Toomers]

16 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Ultimately it depends on how Darnold and Fields/Jones pan out. If Darnold flops while Fields and/or Jones become franchise QBs then we fuged up. If Darnold pans out then it doesn't matter that we passed on QBs. Even if Darnold flops it doesn't matter if Fields and Jones both bust too.

Even if Darnold “pans out”, he’s going to cost 19M in 2022 and about 90M for the next 3. That’s 109M for the next 4 years. Fields will cost about 20M total. That’s where the “drop in value” comes in. This guy just presents it so poorly. With equal play level, you either get Horn/Darnold. Or Fields and 20M+ each year. 

[PanthersATL]

4 minutes ago, CRA said:

you acknowledge the bust after year one and go back to attempting to solve the QB problem.   

Some would say that would be the Bridgewater Effect.

[CarolinaLivin]

2 minutes ago, PanthersATL said:

Some would say that would be the Bridgewater Effect.

Better known as the Clausen effect

[jayboogieman]

5 minutes ago, CRA said:

Depends what not playing well means.  Does Cam show promise and tremendous talent?  Then yeah, you roll with Cam.  You drafted someone you believe can be your franchise QB.   Playing well for a rookie QB isn't measured in wins or losses or even stats IMO. 

If he is Clausen level bad? Then yeah, you acknowledge the bust after year one and go back to attempting to solve the QB problem.   The Cardinals did the right thing by acknowledging Rosen was trash and went back to the draft immediately when the opportunity was there. 

 

 

And what if the QB plays like most other rookie QBs have? Not good or bad enough for you to tell one way or the other? Should they still take another QB the next year?

[CRA]

Just now, jayboogieman said:

And what if the QB plays like most other rookie QBs have? Not good or bad enough for you to tell one way or the other? Should they still take another QB the next year?

I think you are trying over complicate this.

If you draft a QB high.....you give him a real shot.  No one expecting the bar to be Cam Newton blowing the doors off out of the gate or you go back to the draft.   You give a Mitch Trubisky legit time.  Which he got.  Then they moved on.  

Teams that don't have a QB should be looking to solve that as their first priority in today's NFL. 

adding Dwayne Haskins, Sam Darnold, etc in 2021 can't be viewed on par with going to the NFL draft and acquiring a top 10 QB. 

[Tr3ach]

1 hour ago, CRA said:

Teams that have a hole at QB should.  I mean, that is what the discussion is centered around.   Not having a QB.

If you draft Cam Newton.....obviously you don't keep drafting QBs. 

 

But if there is not a QB your coaches and scouts dont believe in you cant just keep taking them over and over in the first round hoping one will work out.  Sometimes it's best if you dont believe your guy is there to work on filling out the rest of the roster instead of just taking a qb to take one.  That way when you do potentially draft your qb they arent walking on to a roster totally devoid of talent because you only took qbs in the first round every year against the front offices feelings about that player. 

[CarolinaLivin]

If you need a QB you get your guy whether that's FA or draft.

You KEEP your QB if he either shows either "Right Now Talent" or "Potential"

Edited May 13, 2021 by CarolinaLivin

[Aussie Tank]

But we haven’t passed on a first round QB