With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

[CRA]

15 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

1996 was the last time a WR went #1.

 

I'm fine taking Tmac at #2. My only thing is don't take any position other than QB if we are staying at #1. If we want Tmac or Hunter just trade back a few spots. There are only 2 QBs who teams will be fighting over and that's Sanders and Ward. If they want a QB more than us then they will have to give us a good deal.

and given we are us...

teams probably start reflecting on what a bad general idea it has been to give up a lot to move up for a QB.  Almost every young QB is disappointing and some teams have extra burned for giving up a haul.  Maybe the Joe Flaccos of the world get more callers and teams opt to stay. 

I mean, you know nothing is going to work out for us lol 

[tukafan21]

1 hour ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

It's been a passing league for a decade now and still no WR has gone #1.

 

QB/DE are the main positions that are worthy of the highest pick. Every once and a while a LT will get lucky and go #1.

 

And no I never said take Hunter #1. I said anything outside of #1 is fair game just like I said for Tmac.

 

We would be fools to take either Tmac or Hunter #1 overall. Use that #1 pick as leverage trade back and still get either Hunter or Tmac.

You say this as if trading back would be no problem at all 

But if we’re at #1 and there isn’t an obvious QB for us to take ourselves, the. It’s going to be difficult to trade back.

As even just signaling we want to trade back will tell teams we’re not taking a QB, and if that’s the case, if a team sitting at 2-5 in the draft wants a QB, they have no motivation to trade with us since they’d know we weren't taking said QB.  They’d either just stay put or trade into #2 for cheaper to get the QB since we’d clearly be taking someone else.

So yes, trading back would be ideal, but it’s easier said than done since there probably it won’t be another team out there as dumb as we were last year to make a bad trade.

Of all the players projected to go in that Top 10 area, T-Mac literally might be the best fit for us, so just take him if we can’t trade back, don’t force a pick in the end just because it’s the #1 pick 

T-Mac, Legette, Brooks, Sanders would be a dangerous young group of weapons for any QB we can replace Bryce with

Edited October 31 by tukafan21

[tukafan21]

1 hour ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

It's been a passing league for a decade now and still no WR has gone #1.

 

QB/DE are the main positions that are worthy of the highest pick. Every once and a while a LT will get lucky and go #1.

 

And no I never said take Hunter #1. I said anything outside of #1 is fair game just like I said for Tmac.

 

We would be fools to take either Tmac or Hunter #1 overall. Use that #1 pick as leverage trade back and still get either Hunter or Tmac.

Oh and btw, the last time a non QB, DE, or OT has gone #1 overall, it was when Keyshawn went first.

So again, basing our selection (assuming we can’t trade back) on recent history of positions of other #1 draft picks just makes no sense.

You take the best player for your needs, which for us and with who is likely Top 10 picks, I very strongly believe to be T-Mac.  It’s how you build a roster in today’s NFL, get the impact skill position players in place, then find your QB so they have those weapons from their first snap, not the other way around like we tried with Bryce

[tukafan21]

1 hour ago, CRA said:

WRs have been taken #1 before.  And #2.  And #3. 

I think the decline in WRs being taken so high.....is the passing rules in today's NFL makes playing the position easier.  So there are a lot of WRs that are going to be successful today vs years ago.  

I think the decline is more just the need for QB’s and DE’s, but there really just won’t be a blue chip prospect at those positions in this draft.

T-Mac will be a Top 10 WR within a few years and a very real chance of being a Top 5 WR by his 2nd contract, don’t over think it, take the true outside #1 WR game changer and call it a day.

[CamWhoaaCam]

20 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

You say this as if trading back would be no problem at all 

But if we’re at #1 and there isn’t an obvious QB for us to take ourselves, the. It’s going to be difficult to trade back.

As even just signaling we want to trade back will tell teams we’re not taking a QB, and if that’s the case, if a team sitting at 2-5 in the draft wants a QB, they have no motivation to trade with us since they’d know we weren't taking said QB.  They’d either just stay put or trade into #2 for cheaper to get the QB since we’d clearly be taking someone else.

So yes, trading back would be ideal, but it’s easier said than done since there probably it won’t be another team out there as dumb as we were last year to make a bad trade.

Of all the players projected to go in that Top 10 area, T-Mac literally might be the best fit for us, so just take him if we can’t trade back, don’t force a pick in the end just because it’s the #1 pick 

T-Mac, Legette, Brooks, Sanders would be a dangerous young group of weapons for any QB we can replace Bryce with

You don't think teams like NY/Las Vegas/Cleveland won't be in the market for a QB?

 

If we hold the #1 pick we can put out signals we are going with a QB unless someone offers us a legit trade up package.

 

Sanders and Ward will be wanted by multiple teams trust me. I'm confident we could trade back if need be.

 

Now if we get the #2 pick then just stay there and draft Tmac or Hunter.

 

The #1 pick is our leverage. That's all I'm saying use it to our advantage if we can. It's possible we could still end up with Tmac in a trade back depending on the team we trade with.

[tukafan21]

22 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

You don't think teams like NY/Las Vegas/Cleveland won't be in the market for a QB?

 

If we hold the #1 pick we can put out signals we are going with a QB unless someone offers us a legit trade up package.

 

Sanders and Ward will be wanted by multiple teams trust me. I'm confident we could trade back if need be.

 

Now if we get the #2 pick then just stay there and draft Tmac or Hunter.

 

The #1 pick is our leverage. That's all I'm saying use it to our advantage if we can. It's possible we could still end up with Tmac in a trade back depending on the team we trade with.

This is a perfect post... to show how you can't seem to stop viewing things from a Madden GM viewpoint.  Just because teams are in the market for a QB, doesn't mean they are going to make dumb trades to move up to #1 to take one in a draft where none of them are worthy of doing so.

The first issue is you point out how teams will be in the market for a QB, but seem to forget that we literally have the worst QB situation in the entire league right now.  So you can't bluff taking a QB at #1 while trying to trade the pick.  

This isn't a Bears/Fields situation where there is a legitimate argument to him still being able to be a franchise QB if you gave him weapons and that you're open to trading the pick to give him another season.  If we're trying to trade the pick, every team will know we have no interest in taking a QB at #1, and thus nobody is going to make a trade with us to take the QB, if they wanted a QB that badly, they'd target the #2 pick knowing we're taking a non-QB.

Beyond all that, the real issue is that this draft is much closer to 2022 than 2023... That was a draft where some mocks had guys like Pickett or Willis going in the Top 10 because teams needed QBs and they tend to overdraft them so people predicted it happening, even though almost every draft expert admitted they don't have 1st round grades.  And in the end, teams weren't stupid and the first QB taken was late in the 1st round, unlike in 2023 when teams reached for players that nobody actually graded that high.

And what's the result of that as of right now?  the 2023 #1 and #4 picks have already been benched for geriatric backups and the current narrative is that teams need to stop taking QB projects high in the draft. 

Your example is basically like playing poker, showing that your hand is a pair of 2's and bluffing by going all in, your bluff is going to get called because they know your hand.

Sure, some of these QB's could end up panning out as great NFL players, but none of them have shown to be worthy of taking with the #1 pick yet, let alone making a trade to move up there to take them.  We literally are showing the league right now how horrible that idea is, to think a team is going to then make that type of trade with us is just asinine.

If we hadn't made that trade in 2023 and showing the league right now how bad a trade like that is to make, then maybe a trade would be more feasible, but we're unfortunately showing the other 31 teams how dumb of an idea that is in a draft with QB prospects who don't grade out that high in the draft.

Then you say you're good with taking these guys at #2, if that's the case, then you just take them at #1 instead of forcing a QB or DE pick that isn't the right decision.  Making a pick based on the history of who gets drafted at #1 is just beyond dumb.

Realistically the only way I think we can trade back because someone wants a QB is if they are as dumb as we were 2 years ago (seems unlikely) or we get lucky and the teams at #2 and #3 fall in love with only 1 QB and are willing to overdraft them, so we're able to convince one of them to swap picks to take them before the other team.  Which yes, if that happens, you do it, but talking about that situation is pretty much pointless as it seems unlikely to happen in a year without a clear cut #1 QB, let alone that QB being worth trading up to the #1 pick to take them... because again, the key point to all of this, is if there was a QB like that, we would just take them ourselves.

It's basically the 2023 draft all over again, except we're not the Bears with a QB who still could pan out, so we have no leverage in trying to trade the pick.

I'd say best case scenario of a trade would be moving back a couple picks and picking up like a 3rd rounder to do so, I don't think any QB in this draft will garner another 1st or 2nd round pick to move back a few slots.  Which if that's the case, I'd rather just take our #1 guy on our board than risk them getting taken before us if we move back to the 3-6 range to pick up an extra mid round pick.

[tukafan21]

Just now, tukafan21 said:

This is a perfect post... to show how you can't seem to stop viewing things from a Madden GM viewpoint.  Just because teams are in the market for a QB, doesn't mean they are going to make dumb trades to move up to #1 to take one in a draft where none of them are worthy of doing so.

The first issue is you point out how teams will be in the market for a QB, but seem to forget that we literally have the worst QB situation in the entire league right now.  So you can't bluff taking a QB at #1 while trying to trade the pick.  

This isn't a Bears/Fields situation where there is a legitimate argument to him still being able to be a franchise QB if you gave him weapons and that you're open to trading the pick to give him another season.  If we're trying to trade the pick, every team will know we have no interest in taking a QB at #1, and thus nobody is going to make a trade with us to take the QB, if they wanted a QB that badly, they'd target the #2 pick knowing we're taking a non-QB.

Beyond all that, the real issue is that this draft is much closer to 2022 than 2023... That was a draft where some mocks had guys like Pickett or Willis going in the Top 10 because teams needed QBs and they tend to overdraft them so people predicted it happening, even though almost every draft expert admitted they don't have 1st round grades.  And in the end, teams weren't stupid and the first QB taken was late in the 1st round, unlike in 2023 when teams reached for players that nobody actually graded that high.

And what's the result of that as of right now?  the 2023 #1 and #4 picks have already been benched for geriatric backups and the current narrative is that teams need to stop taking QB projects high in the draft. 

Your example is basically like playing poker, showing that your hand is a pair of 2's and bluffing by going all in, your bluff is going to get called because they know your hand.

Sure, some of these QB's could end up panning out as great NFL players, but none of them have shown to be worthy of taking with the #1 pick yet, let alone making a trade to move up there to take them.  We literally are showing the league right now how horrible that idea is, to think a team is going to then make that type of trade with us is just asinine.

If we hadn't made that trade in 2023 and showing the league right now how bad a trade like that is to make, then maybe a trade would be more feasible, but we're unfortunately showing the other 31 teams how dumb of an idea that is in a draft with QB prospects who don't grade out that high in the draft.

Then you say you're good with taking these guys at #2, if that's the case, then you just take them at #1 instead of forcing a QB or DE pick that isn't the right decision.  Making a pick based on the history of who gets drafted at #1 is just beyond dumb.

Realistically the only way I think we can trade back because someone wants a QB is if they are as dumb as we were 2 years ago (seems unlikely) or we get lucky and the teams at #2 and #3 fall in love with only 1 QB and are willing to overdraft them, so we're able to convince one of them to swap picks to take them before the other team.  Which yes, if that happens, you do it, but talking about that situation is pretty much pointless as it seems unlikely to happen in a year without a clear cut #1 QB, let alone that QB being worth trading up to the #1 pick to take them... because again, the key point to all of this, is if there was a QB like that, we would just take them ourselves.

It's basically the 2023 draft all over again, except we're not the Bears with a QB who still could pan out, so we have no leverage in trying to trade the pick.

I'd say best case scenario of a trade would be moving back a couple picks and picking up like a 3rd rounder to do so, I don't think any QB in this draft will garner another 1st or 2nd round pick to move back a few slots.  Which if that's the case, I'd rather just take our #1 guy on our board than risk them getting taken before us if we move back to the 3-6 range to pick up an extra mid round pick.

the very long didn't read version of this is.......

If there is a QB worth trading up for at #1, we would take them ourselves

If there isn't a QB worth taking at #1, then we can't bluff that we're taking one as nobody will be dumb enough to think we're passing on said QB because we have the worst QB situation in the league.

Just because you want to do something doesn't mean other teams will want to get fleeced, there's only one Panthers team out there, and we can't fleece ourselves unfortunately.

[CamWhoaaCam]

2 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

This is a perfect post... to show how you can't seem to stop viewing things from a Madden GM viewpoint.  Just because teams are in the market for a QB, doesn't mean they are going to make dumb trades to move up to #1 to take one in a draft where none of them are worthy of doing so.

The first issue is you point out how teams will be in the market for a QB, but seem to forget that we literally have the worst QB situation in the entire league right now.  So you can't bluff taking a QB at #1 while trying to trade the pick.  

This isn't a Bears/Fields situation where there is a legitimate argument to him still being able to be a franchise QB if you gave him weapons and that you're open to trading the pick to give him another season.  If we're trying to trade the pick, every team will know we have no interest in taking a QB at #1, and thus nobody is going to make a trade with us to take the QB, if they wanted a QB that badly, they'd target the #2 pick knowing we're taking a non-QB.

Beyond all that, the real issue is that this draft is much closer to 2022 than 2023... That was a draft where some mocks had guys like Pickett or Willis going in the Top 10 because teams needed QBs and they tend to overdraft them so people predicted it happening, even though almost every draft expert admitted they don't have 1st round grades.  And in the end, teams weren't stupid and the first QB taken was late in the 1st round, unlike in 2023 when teams reached for players that nobody actually graded that high.

And what's the result of that as of right now?  the 2023 #1 and #4 picks have already been benched for geriatric backups and the current narrative is that teams need to stop taking QB projects high in the draft. 

Your example is basically like playing poker, showing that your hand is a pair of 2's and bluffing by going all in, your bluff is going to get called because they know your hand.

Sure, some of these QB's could end up panning out as great NFL players, but none of them have shown to be worthy of taking with the #1 pick yet, let alone making a trade to move up there to take them.  We literally are showing the league right now how horrible that idea is, to think a team is going to then make that type of trade with us is just asinine.

If we hadn't made that trade in 2023 and showing the league right now how bad a trade like that is to make, then maybe a trade would be more feasible, but we're unfortunately showing the other 31 teams how dumb of an idea that is in a draft with QB prospects who don't grade out that high in the draft.

Then you say you're good with taking these guys at #2, if that's the case, then you just take them at #1 instead of forcing a QB or DE pick that isn't the right decision.  Making a pick based on the history of who gets drafted at #1 is just beyond dumb.

Realistically the only way I think we can trade back because someone wants a QB is if they are as dumb as we were 2 years ago (seems unlikely) or we get lucky and the teams at #2 and #3 fall in love with only 1 QB and are willing to overdraft them, so we're able to convince one of them to swap picks to take them before the other team.  Which yes, if that happens, you do it, but talking about that situation is pretty much pointless as it seems unlikely to happen in a year without a clear cut #1 QB, let alone that QB being worth trading up to the #1 pick to take them... because again, the key point to all of this, is if there was a QB like that, we would just take them ourselves.

It's basically the 2023 draft all over again, except we're not the Bears with a QB who still could pan out, so we have no leverage in trying to trade the pick.

I'd say best case scenario of a trade would be moving back a couple picks and picking up like a 3rd rounder to do so, I don't think any QB in this draft will garner another 1st or 2nd round pick to move back a few slots.  Which if that's the case, I'd rather just take our #1 guy on our board than risk them getting taken before us if we move back to the 3-6 range to pick up an extra mid round pick.

Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.

 

This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.

 

I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.

[CamWhoaaCam]

4 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

the very long didn't read version of this is.......

If there is a QB worth trading up for at #1, we would take them ourselves

If there isn't a QB worth taking at #1, then we can't bluff that we're taking one as nobody will be dumb enough to think we're passing on said QB because we have the worst QB situation in the league.

Just because you want to do something doesn't mean other teams will want to get fleeced, there's only one Panthers team out there, and we can't fleece ourselves unfortunately.

Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.

 

It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.

 

I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?

[tukafan21]

22 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.

 

This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.

 

I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.

 

18 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.

 

It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.

 

I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?

Oh good lord

Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum.

It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB.

Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one).

Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here.

If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick.

The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see.

You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them.

But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.

Edited October 31 by tukafan21

[CamWhoaaCam]

6 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

 

Oh good lord

Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum.

It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB.

Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one).

Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here.

If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick.

The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see.

You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them.

But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.

Have you seen the mock drafts lately?

 

Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.

 

If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.

 

Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 

[tukafan21]

10 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Have you seen the mock drafts lately?

 

Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.

 

If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.

 

Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 

LOL... Yet again proving you can't look below anything than what you see on the surface

Mock drafts ARE NOT draft grades

They are what people think will happen.  They are mocking teams taking QB's in the top 5 of the draft because that's just historically how drafts go regardless of the grades on the QBs.  Almost every draft expert, even those mocking QB's going high, have said time and time again that none of these QB's actually grade out as those type of picks.

This is again, where I say you don't like to actually read what I have to say, because I already explained it.

2022 the exact same thing happened, mock drafts had guys like Pickett and Willis going in the Top 5 because that's just what teams usually do, but GM's listened to their prospect grades and knew they weren't worth taking that high, so they didn't.

It's not to say QB's won't go that high this year, but it's to say that they aren't graded out as elite QB prospects.  

And yes, I've never said I'm not a T-Mac homer.

But me being that doesn't change that he will be the highest graded offensive player in this year's draft, at a position we haven't been able to solve since we lost Smitty.  Taking him makes all the sense in the world, my bias aside.

As even without my Arizona connection, he's 100% who I'd still want to draft.  We are a roster void of talent and he has the chance to be a very rare type of WR in this league with his size, speed, and hands.  There is a reason PFF has him as their #1 offensive player in the draft, and it's because guys like him are unicorns in this league.

Edited October 31 by tukafan21

[tukafan21]

This draft is 2023 all over again, it's not hard to see.

QB's who don't grade out as high first round prospects while at the same time, the following draft class looks to be loaded with elite QB prospects.

Drafting a QB just because you need one (or making a bad trade to make said draft pick), when there isn't one worthy of that draft pick, is how you ruin franchises, just look at us right now.  

[strato]

There actually was one, if you believe the value of all those picks is worth it. 

I think someone will bite on the top QB. I see why Vegas is mentioned but I wonder if Brady is going to have some influence there. And he just recently went negative on the college system not preparing their QBs.