Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

In This Thread I Talk Rationally About Drafting A QB #1 Overall.

SmootsDaddy89

By SmootsDaddy89,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

SmootsDaddy89 Enthusiast

SmootsDaddy89

Posted
Posted

The main purpose of this thread is to dispel one of the more commonly-held beliefs about this year's draft class:

"There are no quarterbacks worth the #1 overall pick in the draft."

Well, if you mean that there are about 20 players who would be drafted before the best QB in the draft this year, you're just completely and totally wrong. Guys like Gabbert and Newton may not be Luck, but they both have the tools and potential to be as good or better than him, and some team will take one or both in the top 10.

The only other possible meaning is you believe that there's AT LEAST one player better than him, and we should draft whoever that person is because he's BPA!!!! Also I don't like any of the other QBs in this draft because Luck stomped on my erection, so I'm gonna be irrational!!!11

Well, this is probably true, but I don't think people understand what BPA actually entails, they just assume Hurney and Rivera will rank every single prospect 1-400 and take whoever is highest on their list whenever they pick.

In case you didn't know already, this is complete horsepoo. The better acronym for what the Panthers do is BPAWFAN - Best Player Available Who Fits A Need.

Unless there's a guy available when you pick who is head and shoulders above everyone else, you choose from about 5-10 similarly-ranked players, and pick the one who best fills an immediate or near future need. (This is why we took Kalil a year after we paid Hartwig to sit on IR for us, because we knew he was a useless sack of John Fox.) Unfortunately for us, the only guy who would be way above all other players in this draft decided to go back to school because he couldn't abandon his WoW guild yet.

This is why if, among a pool of seven players, we liked Harry Johnson, MLB from Florida State slightly more, we probably still would take someone else, because drafting another MLB would be completely asinine, even if we don't re-sign Davis. Unless you believe that JR is not going to re-sign Beason because he's evil and will never give big contracts to any of our players again so he can roll around in his hardees speedo in all the money he saves. (btw I know we drafted Connor in the 3rd round in 2008, but again, it was the 3rd round, and he WAS head and shoulders above everyone else left on the board. Same with Pike last year. Well actually he sucks but anyway we thought he didn't so there.)

We probably already have an idea of who will be in our small group of considered players, and like it or not, there's at LEAST one QB there, Because Hurney has flat-out stated that QB is still a huge need, even if we haven't given up on Clausen yet. AJ Green PROBABLY doesn't get drafted, because there are bigger needs on the team. Same for Bowers. I think it will come down to Fairley, Peterson, and unnamed QB, whomever they like more between Gabbert and Newton. And even Peterson could get bumped depending on how big of a man crush Rivera gets for Capn'/we sign Marshall.

So basically what I'm saying is, depending on how Rivera feels about Clausen, don't be surprised if we announce a QB as our 1st pick in April. Reminder that no one thought we were going to draft a QB with our first pick last year, and that was when we actually thought Matt Moore had an iota of talent. This year, it's pretty clear that QB is still a need. I'll get into why taking Newton #1 overall isn't necessarily a horrible thing UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmootsDaddy89 Enthusiast

SmootsDaddy89

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'd feel a lot better about QB if we could drop down a few slots and grab a couple good picks before making that move.

I think everyone would, but going back to Raging Bull's thread, I don't see it happening. I'll be ecstatic if it does though. Even trading down one spot would net us Denver's 2nd rounder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevin Greene Newbie

Kevin Greene

Posted
Posted

I think everyone would, but going back to Raging Bull's thread, I don't see it happening. I'll be ecstatic if it does though. Even trading down one spot would net us Denver's 2nd rounder.

I know, I know. But if we made the QB move and he goes bust, we're screwed for eons.

Well not really, next year we'd just go Andrew Luck. :lol:

But a more of a sure bet player might be our best play if we can't trade down.

Trading down and more picks gives us the luxury of taking a QB, trading away our second for Armanti Edwards and being #1 overall doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mav1234 Grand Master

mav1234

Posted
Posted

I don't know why people would "feel better" about taking a QB below #1 and not #1. Unless you're talking about trading way back, like into the mid-end of the first, you're better off taking who you think is the best QB in the draft if that is your intention... because chances are unless you think it's Ricky Stanzi or something, they'll be gone by the time you pick again.

If you're sold on a QB enough to take him in the first, i think you really ahve to consider taking him #1... especially if there's a payscale, which I think there will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...