Should the Panthers pick a second QB?

[SOJA]

We have a veteran in Dalton and a young guy who we have invested a not insignificant amount of draft capital in. We also have a ton of depth and holes elsewhere. 

In short, no. 

[csx]

No

[rebelrouser]

1 hour ago, hepcat said:

Let’s say all the rumors and pundits are right, and Bryce Young is drafted by the Panthers tonight. All signs point to the diminutive yet heady QB being the first overall pick.

Should the Panthers pull a 2012 Redskins, (who traded up to draft Robert Griffin III 2nd overall, and later drafted Kirk Cousins in the 4th round), and draft another QB?

Honestly I am not against it. Maybe later than the 4th round, but I don’t see it being a bad idea. Based on the QBs on the roster, there could be a spot for a later round QB. Andy Dalton is the backup and veteran mentor. But after that there’s Matt Corral, who wasn’t drafted by this staff and was said to be available via trade “for a ham sandwich” earlier this off-season, probably won’t even make the roster as it stands now. Jacob Eason is another practice squad level QB who is most likely just a training camp body. 

I could definitely see this playing out if the Panthers trade down from one of their other picks. If a player they like doesn’t fall to 39, maybe they trade down a bit and get some later round picks. Who knows. Either way, given Bryce Young’s small size while playing one of the most violent sports on earth, I don’t think hedging the bet is a bad idea.

Hellllll no. I'm very nervous about not addressing edge, lb, cb, te, wr with only 6 picks. No way we waste one of those on a qb.  

[OldhamA]

34 minutes ago, The Natural said:

We traded up to take a QB just last season. There's no reason to not give him a shot.

We've traded 5 premium players for the #1 overall pick.

Corral isn't going to get a chance.

[hepcat]

37 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

We've traded 5 premium players for the #1 overall pick.

Corral isn't going to get a chance.

Literally this. The coaching staff has no interest in keeping Corral. Eason is probably going to be QB3 if they don’t draft someone, and honestly they might just roll with Bryce and Dalton on the active roster. 

Everyone thought the Redskins were nuts drafting Kirk Cousins after they went up to draft RGIII. Well Cousins is still in the NFL 11 years later and RGIII is a color commentator. Even if Bryce turns out to be a pro bowl QB out the gate I wouldn’t fault this staff for shooting their shot on another QB. As we’ve seen since Cam left, being in QB purgatory sucks. Never miss an opportunity to draft a quality QB prospect. Everything on the roster is secondary after you have your QB.

[JawnyBlaze]

Nah. Corral is that shot in the dark backup. Didn’t play last year and it’s a new system anyway so same blank slate as a second QB in this draft. 

[TNPanther]

Could be the homer in me but I say grab Hooker if he's there past the 3rd round (which he likely won't).

[Sgt Schultz]

Before we traded up I was a proponent of picking two QBs.  That was also before we signed Dalton, but I assumed we would sign somebody of that ilk.  We had one QB on the roster at that point, and for all intents and purposes it was a guy we had not seen (thanks to The Process).

At that point, we were looking at Richardson or Levis at #9 (or maybe only one of them), and I would have liked to add Hooker to that mix.  It was sort of throwing the dung against the wall to see what sticks. 

Picking at #1 (or even 2 or 3) changed that equation, and now the answer is no.  The expectation is our QB pick will start, if not immediately, sooner rather than later.  That is a lot different than seeing what sticks. 

If we had an abundance of lower round picks, I wouldn't be as hard-over on no.  But, we need other positions, too.

 

[panther4life]

21 minutes ago, TNPanther said:

Could be the homer in me but I say grab Hooker if he's there past the 3rd round (which he likely won't).

I’d take him at 39!

[Donald LaFell]

I wouldn’t be mad but I think the goal for this team is pretty much “win now” mode. They need to support their #1 qb as much as possible and show that we are heading in the right direction. Also it won’t hurt if we can get those future picks we traded into the 20s, it doesn’t really matter but it will make the trade look “smart”. 

[rayzor]

no.

[Stumpy]

You can never have too many QBs. Draft at least 1 every single year. I'd do it.

[Jon Snow]

1 hour ago, Sgt Schultz said:

Before we traded up I was a proponent of picking two QBs.  That was also before we signed Dalton, but I assumed we would sign somebody of that ilk.  We had one QB on the roster at that point, and for all intents and purposes it was a guy we had not seen (thanks to The Process).

At that point, we were looking at Richardson or Levis at #9 (or maybe only one of them), and I would have liked to add Hooker to that mix.  It was sort of throwing the dung against the wall to see what sticks. 

Picking at #1 (or even 2 or 3) changed that equation, and now the answer is no.  The expectation is our QB pick will start, if not immediately, sooner rather than later.  That is a lot different than seeing what sticks. 

If we had an abundance of lower round picks, I wouldn't be as hard-over on no.  But, we need other positions, too.

 

[rebelrouser]

2 hours ago, OldhamA said:

We've traded 5 premium players for the #1 overall pick.

Corral isn't going to get a chance.

This would also hold true for any qb we take later in this draft. We traded down for Corral; lets at least see what he can do before we dump him and use precious draft capital on someone equally as unproven.