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

[JawnyBlaze]

In my opinion, none of these QBs are worth a top half of the 1st round consideration. There ARE 20 or more players better than all of them...in my opinion. One of them probably will be picked in the top half of round 1, but that doesn't make it a good move.

[KillerKat]

I agree with Smoot. I would add that drafting Green would depend on if the CBA is in place before the draft. Because if it is, they could see how many picks Smith would get on draft day before taking Green.

[Snake]

1st pick value=No one in 2011.

Allow me to insert and Abridge.

[Jangler]

yea, i can't wait until April either, its taking too long.

Right now isn't the March date more important?

[monstercat]

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.

Exactly, we either take the best QB on the board at #1, or we wait yet another year to get a franchise QB, and there may not be a worthy QB when we pick then either. For all we know Luck will have a bad season and his stock will drop just like Locker's did. Although, I don't really understand how Locker was ever considered the best QB in the first place. I guess scouts are stupid sometimes.

[JawnyBlaze]

Um, keep Smitty, draft Green. Two good WRs can coexist on the same team...

I agree with Smoot. I would add that drafting Green would depend on if the CBA is in place before the draft. Because if it is, they could see how many picks Smith would get on draft day before taking Green.

[mav1234]

There's virtually no way scouts could get any higher on Luck and plenty of ways they could no longer be quite so hot on him, so it's possible his stock could drop. Maybe from being, you know, worth every first round pick for the next decade to just being worth one next year.

As a note about Locker, not sure how many scouts WERE that high on him. He got a 2nd round grade from the draft advisory dudes.

[KillerKat]

Um, keep Smitty, draft Green. Two good WRs can coexist on the same team...

Already have Lafell and Gettis too. Not going to cut their production and stump their growth by moving them down the depth chart. And we could use the extra picks to strengthen other areas.

[TNPanthersFan]

Best Player available period. Especially if he is a mean stout DT. Otherwise, a mean stout OL or 2 would not be bad either. Great Pass blocking and run blockers = Good Offense

Maybe a Richard Marshall replacement.

[Skew]

...

waits for KT to slap down this thread with racism

[Dpantherman]

Right now isn't the March date more important?

true

[Jackofalltrades]

Not sure if it's been said yet, but there's no QB worth the first pick in the draft.



[KJDaniel31]

I was reading....though disagreeing....but all was lost at the implication of Newton at #1...as a QB.

Asinine.

[nagai]

Good basis for a discussion. Here are a few points I'd like to make:

1. If there is a franchise QB in the draft, he is worthy of the BPA pick, that simple. I don't think anyone is disputing this though.

2. How the panthers draft historically is exactly what you said, BPA in an area of need. However, something they have not done historically is reach for our biggest need, rather than draft BPA for a smaller need, capice? So say they have Fairley and Peterson both ranked above Gabbert. Qb is the bigger need, do they go with Gabbert? No they don't, that's simply not what the MO of the Panthers are on draft day for the last decade or so.

3. There is a degree of safety that comes with each draft pick. Some draft picks, because of their skillset, because of their strong desire to succeed, because of their work ethic, simply have a greater chance of making it in the NFL. I cringe every time someone says something like "the draft is a gamble anyways, we might as well pick up Cam Newton". I cringe not because it's necessarily false, but because it is fuzzy logic that cuts out a lot of the risks and rewards associated with it.

Imagine if you went to Vegas with a million dollars as a poker pro. You realise that the amount you can earn in craps far outshines what you can earn in poker. Should you then spend all your money in craps because "it's a gamble anyway"? No you shouldn't, because the chances of success in one still outshines the other. I believe this analogy holds true on draft day. It's all a gamble, yes, but some prospects are a lot safer than others. This year, all the QB's available are big projects, big gambles.