Please don’t screw this up

[DaveThePanther2008]

10 hours ago, rayzor said:

How many were taken with the top pick vs later on? 

If you don't get the top pick, it doesn't se lem to matter where you get your QB in the first.

And then compare that list with the total number of QBs picked with that first overall pick and also all picked anywhere in the first round. 

There is no guarantee that you'll get that franchise guy with the first overall or at any point in the first.

Basically it doesn't matter where you get the QB in the first round. It's going to be a crapshoot. Just be ready for it.

And in no way am I saying that we shouldn't get a QB in the first. We should. But I think if we don't get that first overall pick, draft BPA and then trade back into the first and get your QB. 

It's a risk, but hell...just drafting a QB anywhere in the first is a gamble.

What gets me is that this class isn't backing up the hype it had at the end of last season.  Stroud and Young were supposed to be "Franchise QBs".  From what I've seen, and I'm not a scout, these guys may or may not have lengthy careers. They could become superstars or they could be career back ups but the main point nothing is clear about them, like the Mannings' were. 

What I have noticed is there are several QBs that may fall to the 2nd round that have the potential to be something special.  Someone brought up Penix the other day, the transfer QB from Indiania.   I noticed him last year and thought he was going to be an interesting prospect.  I haven't seen Richardson play much but many say he's got elite tools.   

Mainly, we need to get through the hype and thoroughly vet these guys.   I could care less if the media thinks we got it wrong.  IF and BIG IF, we draft a QB, I want talent, not a NAME. 

[Mr. Scot]

2 hours ago, BrisbanePanther said:

How often to 5 and 6-win teams eventually win the Super Bowl? And how long do they take? Seems like worst-to-first happens a lot more often. 5- and 6-win teams seem to think that they're *this* close, and then they spend stupidly on free agents and make weird trades that cost them later...only to still win 5 or 6 games...maybe 7 or 8. 

To be clear, when I say "a shot", I mean a thousand yard shot on a moving target through a high crosswind using a rifle whose scope needs recalibrated

[Jackie Lee]

1 minute ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

What gets me is that this class isn't backing up the hype it had at the end of last season.  Stroud and Young were supposed to be "Franchise QBs".  From what I've seen, and I'm not a scout, these guys may or may not have lengthy careers. They could become superstars or they could be career back ups but the main point nothing is clear about them, like the Mannings' were. 

What I have noticed is there are several QBs that may fall to the 2nd round that have the potential to be something special.  Someone brought up Penix the other day, the transfer QB from Indiania.   I noticed him last year and thought he was going to be an interesting prospect.  I haven't seen Richardson play much but many say he's got elite tools.   

Mainly, we need to get through the hype and thoroughly vet these guys.   I could care less if the media thinks we got it wrong.  IF and BIG IF, we draft a QB, I want talent, not a NAME. 

Same. I'm higher on Richardson's ceiling than Bryce or Strouds stock being high because they're on the best teams. Bryce looks the most pro ready but he's so small, Stroud looks like a 50% version of Justin Fields which half this board thinks is a bust, Cam Ward could be Jalen Hurts or could be a bust. Weird class

[Aussie Tank]

9 minutes ago, Jackie Lee said:

Same. I'm higher on Richardson's ceiling than Bryce or Strouds stock being high because they're on the best teams. Bryce looks the most pro ready but he's so small, Stroud looks like a 50% version of Justin Fields which half this board thinks is a bust, Cam Ward could be Jalen Hurts or could be a bust. Weird class

We could draft the next Josh Allen but it won’t matter unless we nail our next HC 

[Aussie Tank]

3 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

We still have a shot at the playoffs...

 

Those picks from the Rams looking better and better. 

[CPantherKing]

6 hours ago, Tbe said:

Ok, let’s keep Brady and the Manning’s in.

In the past 12 years 17 different QBs have played in the SB

11 were first rounders.

The non 1st rounders were Brady, Brees, Foles, Wilson, Kapernic, Garapollo.

Ive said this a million times. There is no magic formula. It’s all luck to some extent. Many ways to win. BUT, in a QB driven league where defenses are being neutered, If you need a QB your odds are best in the 1st round.

And only 4 of these 11 first rounders won the SB for the team that drafted them.

Now, 3 of the 6 non-first rounders have won for the team that drafted them.

Also, 2 of 6 have gone to multiple SBs with the same team over this period of time while 2 of 11 first rounders have gone to multiple SBs with the same team over this period of time.

You are guaranteed to waste draft capital on 1st round QBs. You can find just as many QBs outside of the 1st round that can win the SB for your team. You emphasized how these 1st round QBs keep coming up short for the team that drafts them.

And there is a formula to find them consistently. It does not emphasize measurables or top collegiate QBs with power programs ranked by traditional college scouting and the combine.

[CPantherKing]

7 hours ago, WUnderhill said:

You don’t really know how to look at stats. The success rate is higher for QBs selected in t10. Let’s make up some imaginary numbers so you can understand.

Lets say out of 10 Super Bowls, 5 winning QBs were selected in t10 and 5 came from everywhere else.

Additionally, let’s say of those 10 years there were a total of 20 QBs drafted in the t10. That’s 5/20, or 1/4 of the t10 QBs got a super bowl. Now let’s say there were 100 other QBs that came into the league from everywhere else: other rounds of the draft, undrafted, NFL Europe, Arena Football, Canada, whatever. That’s 5/100, or 1/20.

Now do you like a 1 in 4 chance for a super bowl better or 1 in 20?

So you want to weight the QBs who never get an opportunity against all the 1st rounders who do get an opportunity. Try using snaps/starts. Use win%. Use GWD. Use any stat where you only weigh the QBs who have been given an opportunity to showcase.

Are you going to tell me that all the QBs who never got an opportunity for various reasons would have never thrown a single completion or TD. Would they have never thrown an INT or got sacked for a safety? You know they all would produce something. What logic tells you they are a big fat 0? Because they never got a shot? So, if the opportunity did not fall in place for Warner or Delhomme, they would have never been capable of success in the NFL? They obviously were always capable and had to wait for the opportunity.

The baseline is QBs who have received opportunities. Counting the QBs who have never gotten an opportunity would be skewing the data when the aim is the production of QBs in the NFL. You must remove all QBs who never receive an opportunity or make sure you reference you are counting all QBs who never stepped on an NFL field during a game. You may as well toss in all the QBs from college that tryout for teams and never get talked about eventhough you know that the NFL misses and there is a percentage of those QBs that would be successful in the NFL. You don't believe not a single one of those no names would never have success in the NFL. They just never got their opportunity since opportunities are limited.

There are more Warners and Bradys out there. I guarantee it.

You are wrong in tossing in all the QBs drafted/undrafted and never given a snap. I could take all the resumes/interviews in HR that get thrown out without ever considering them, and find that a large percentage of the resumes tossed found success with other companies. You would just count them as a 0 and use it to prove how your choice of employees are so much better than the resumes you tossed out. Look at all QBs given starts in the NFL, then get back to me.

 

[Aussie Tank]

17 minutes ago, CPantherKing said:

And only 4 of these 11 first rounders won the SB for the team that drafted them.

Now, 3 of the 6 non-first rounders have won for the team that drafted them.

Also, 2 of 6 have gone to multiple SBs with the same team over this period of time while 2 of 11 first rounders have gone to multiple SBs with the same team over this period of time.

You are guaranteed to waste draft capital on 1st round QBs. You can find just as many QBs outside of the 1st round that can win the SB for your team. You emphasized how these 1st round QBs keep coming up short for the team that drafts them.

And there is a formula to find them consistently. It does not emphasize measurables or top collegiate QBs with power programs ranked by traditional college scouting and the combine.

Oh your magic formula every team should be using it 

[cookinbrak]

Here's some logic for the Huddle intel-

 

We've had 3 QBs that were drafted #1.

[KatsAzz]

14 hours ago, rayzor said:

I do think that we are set up nicely for a QB to succeed. The OL is the biggest issue....aside from coaching anyways. 

We've got a WR corps that is young and has a lot of potential (imo). We've got a workhorse RB if we can keep him another year or two for cheap. But the OL is what I think we needed most personnel-wise. Lock up Bozeman. Get a good TE from draft and/or FA (we should have two good receiving TEs).  And then we're set. Defense is set up for some success, but it would be great to get a good powerful answer opposite Burns and/or a big beefy powerful DT beside Brown. 

And again, I don't think it's ultimately really going to matter where in the first we get our QB in the first as long as we get one with a legit first round grade.

Meaning more that we shouldn't stress out if we're in danger of missing out on Young or Stroud. They'll still be a couple good options available, imo. 

The #1 thing we need, though, is a good HC who can find a QB that fits what he wants to do or, better yet, take the best available QB and make it work with him.

If we get a good HC, I think everything else will fall into place.... whether or not we draft Stroud or Young or any QB with a top 5 pick.

This.

[Snake]

18 hours ago, TLGPanthersFan said:

Yep. While I will continue to argue that winning this season is meaningless. 
I have pretty much come to team that the team sucks and sucking. 
We will likely be drafting out of the top 5 and other than Stroud or Young no other QB is worth a 1st round pick, or at least not a high one. 
So get read for another JAG QB next year or we better hope Corral plays above his 3rd round status. 
But I don’t have much hope for this. 

That's why beating the Falcons was so disastrous. This team has half hearted tanked twice now. That's why we don't have a QB and a lack of talent. 

[saX man]

4 hours ago, CPantherKing said:

So you want to weight the QBs who never get an opportunity against all the 1st rounders who do get an opportunity. Try using snaps/starts. Use win%. Use GWD. Use any stat where you only weigh the QBs who have been given an opportunity to showcase.

Are you going to tell me that all the QBs who never got an opportunity for various reasons would have never thrown a single completion or TD. Would they have never thrown an INT or got sacked for a safety? You know they all would produce something. What logic tells you they are a big fat 0? Because they never got a shot? So, if the opportunity did not fall in place for Warner or Delhomme, they would have never been capable of success in the NFL? They obviously were always capable and had to wait for the opportunity.

The baseline is QBs who have received opportunities. Counting the QBs who have never gotten an opportunity would be skewing the data when the aim is the production of QBs in the NFL. You must remove all QBs who never receive an opportunity or make sure you reference you are counting all QBs who never stepped on an NFL field during a game. You may as well toss in all the QBs from college that tryout for teams and never get talked about eventhough you know that the NFL misses and there is a percentage of those QBs that would be successful in the NFL. You don't believe not a single one of those no names would never have success in the NFL. They just never got their opportunity since opportunities are limited.

There are more Warners and Bradys out there. I guarantee it.

You are wrong in tossing in all the QBs drafted/undrafted and never given a snap. I could take all the resumes/interviews in HR that get thrown out without ever considering them, and find that a large percentage of the resumes tossed found success with other companies. You would just count them as a 0 and use it to prove how your choice of employees are so much better than the resumes you tossed out. Look at all QBs given starts in the NFL, then get back to me.

 

Tell me more CP, tell me more

[Sir Purr]

Damn, y'all draft nerds never stop.

[frankw]

The Seahawks are really playoff bound with Geno Smith less than a year after moving on from their last franchise QB. Meanwhile the Panthers have been in poverty mode four years now.