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

[nagai]

Man, you guys sound like you want to take a QB just because they're a QB. This is scouting, how it works is a young guy shows you signs of playing well. You go 'hmmmmmm... this guy could be something special', then you think about taking him. These gambles that you're talking about don't even seem like justified ones. They are in their very nature, reaching for need. How about we actually look at the guys we do like first and foremost, the guys who shows signs of being successful and THEN look at their positions? I didn't want to be this blunt to get my point across, but just to say "if you don't swing you won't get a home run" is RIDICULOUS. No one's saying that we shouldn't gamble, but how about gambling smartly? You guys almost sound like a bunch of alcoholics stuck on slot machines. "Stop throwing my money away? You're just afraid to lose!", "If you don't even try, how can you win?".

[frash.exe]

lol in just last year's draft you could've argued the Rams reached for Bradford and the Panthers got a steal at 47 with Jimmy Clausen

[nagai]

lol in just last year's draft you could've argued the Rams reached for Bradford and the Panthers got a steal at 47 with Jimmy Clausen

Pssh. How about those guys realised what Bradford had, showed the tools to be a franchise QB and so took him? This isn't the reasoning people are giving to pick a QB. I'm not necessarily buying into the ESPN big board, I'm saying that for you to make that gamble, you need to see signs that he will succeed! It's such a simple point, I'm not sure why I have to make it so many times.

[frash.exe]

the bottom line is that only everybody else talks about everybody being a "reach" or a "value" pick

NFL scouts don't do that. They watch a player perform on game film and in person during the combine and pro days, determine his skill set, and go through a sequence of queries which include "does this guy have talent and potential?" "can he help us in an area of need?" "is he impressive enough given the evidence we have to invest in him?"

if they determine the answers to most of those questions are positive for any of the QBs, which btw hurney has stated as the no.1 need, we probably will draft a QB

[nagai]

the bottom line is that only everybody else talks about everybody being a "reach" or a "value" pick

NFL scouts don't do that. They watch a player perform on game film and in person during the combine and pro days, determine his skill set, and go through a sequence of queries which include "does this guy have talent and potential?" "can he help us in an area of need?" "is he impressive enough given the evidence we have to invest in him?"

if they determine the answers to most of those questions are positive for any of the QBs, which btw hurney has stated as the no.1 need, we probably will draft a QB

Ummm... I don't disagree with that. I am arguing against the misconception posters on these forums about gambling on draft day. Yes, of course that's what scouts should do, of course they should trust their read over whatever media hype that's out there. A lot of posters here (not you) just don't seem to understand that it's their read that's important and want to draft a QB when there really hasn't been that many positive signs that they will succeed. I have said repeatedly that I am fine with them taking a QB if they are convinced that they have a good chance being a franchise QB. What they shouldn't do is go "he's a Qb who Mel Kiper likes, let's take a chance on him".

Then again, you understand all this, so I don't understand why you made your previous post :/

[Grammer]

id rather wait until next year to draft a qb. luck, jones, and berkley are all better than the qbs in this draft

[Toker Smurf]

I'm really torn on this but here is something to think about. I see 4 names that I think I would want with the # 1 pick that were taken later. It's obviously a gamble but just b/c it isn't obvious that there is a QB worth number one doesn't mean there isn't. (I know this is subjective and hindsight is 20/20 but just food for thought).

Yr Name Picked

2010 Colt McCoy 85th

2009 Josh Freeman 17th

2008 Joe Flacco 18th

2007 Kevin Kolb 36th

2006 Jay Cutler 11th

2005 Aaron Rodgers 24th

2004 Matt Schaub 90th

[teeray]

Man, you guys sound like you want to take a QB just because they're a QB. This is scouting, how it works is a young guy shows you signs of playing well. You go 'hmmmmmm... this guy could be something special', then you think about taking him. These gambles that you're talking about don't even seem like justified ones. They are in their very nature, reaching for need. How about we actually look at the guys we do like first and foremost, the guys who shows signs of being successful and THEN look at their positions? I didn't want to be this blunt to get my point across, but just to say "if you don't swing you won't get a home run" is RIDICULOUS. No one's saying that we shouldn't gamble, but how about gambling smartly? You guys almost sound like a bunch of alcoholics stuck on slot machines. "Stop throwing my money away? You're just afraid to lose!", "If you don't even try, how can you win?".

I'm sure that we will do that. We aren't going to gamble for the sake of gambling but what if we really like AJ Green so we drafted him but because we have a midget that throws virtually side arm as are QB we can't get him the ball. The problem here is we have other pieces in place and but no QB to bring it all together. That is why when we have a chance to have you pick of the entire litter in regards to QB's you have to CONSIDER taking him. It may turn out that our scouts don't like any of the QB's and goes in a different direction. But if one of these guys begins to stand out and they think he is a guy who can become a franchise QB then you take him regardless of where the scouts rank him.

[teeray]

I'm really torn on this but here is something to think about. I see 4 names that I think I would want with the # 1 pick that were taken later. It's obviously a gamble but just b/c it isn't obvious that there is a QB worth number one doesn't mean there isn't. (I know this is subjective and hindsight is 20/20 but just food for thought).

Yr Name Picked

2010 Colt McCoy 85th

2009 Josh Freeman 17th

2008 Joe Flacco 18th

2007 Kevin Kolb 36th

2006 Jay Cutler 11th

2005 Aaron Rodgers 24th

2004 Matt Schaub 90th

An interesting thing about Freeman, the Bucs front office SWEARS that if they had the number one overall pick they STILL would have selected Josh Freeman. Despite what the scouts ranked him. They were that impressed with him. I think we might be of a similar mind frame this draft.

Again a QB has to prove to our brass that they are worthy of being picked number 1 overall. Not Mel Kiper.

[theyhateme45]

I haven't seen what you're talking about.

What I do see is rational thoughts on why none of these QB's are worth the first pick. No one is saying they can't/won't succeed in time, but the Panthers need to get better now, not 2-3 years down the road.

Take someone like Fairley, Green, Peterson or Bowers and improve this year, or reach for a QB and hope they learn the NFL game in a couple seasons.

The Luck love is well deserved, he's shown that he can already do everything- no one else has.

Though I vary everyday on who we should draft, I don't agree with the section in bold.

If one of these guys can develop into a Top NFL QB in about 3 years I will take that over small meaningless improvement we can make the next few years. Yea we may become a better team, but our division is turning into one of the toughest in the NFL and we will need strong QB play to compete log term.

Yes it is a high risk, but if 3 years from now one of them is a pro bowl caliber QB, I would sign up for that.

[theyhateme45]

id rather wait until next year to draft a qb. luck, jones, and berkley are all better than the qbs in this draft

A lot of teams will still need a QB, and I don't see us drafting in the top 5 next year... where we would need too. Then if we don't get one of them next year we're stuck in QB mediocrity like most teams in the NFL.

[frash.exe]

Ummm... I don't disagree with that. I am arguing against the misconception posters on these forums about gambling on draft day. Yes, of course that's what scouts should do, of course they should trust their read over whatever media hype that's out there. A lot of posters here (not you) just don't seem to understand that it's their read that's important and want to draft a QB when there really hasn't been that many positive signs that they will succeed. I have said repeatedly that I am fine with them taking a QB if they are convinced that they have a good chance being a franchise QB. What they shouldn't do is go "he's a Qb who Mel Kiper likes, let's take a chance on him".

Then again, you understand all this, so I don't understand why you made your previous post :/

I know, but that's where my post originates and i guess from reading what you did that we're on the same page

whoever they draft i'll end up supporting

[Pox 08]

I think most of the negativity is about Luck. If we can't get the next Elway/Peyton Manning, screw it, every other qb in the draft sucks and most aren't worthy of going in even the 1st round.

The prospect of ...Ryan, Bradford, Rivers, Rodgers, Eli, Freeman, Sanchez, Flacco all look horrible if compared to Luck. A franchise qb doesn't have to be a superstar that makes the pro bowl every year. I'd settle for someone, anyone that can make the throws and doesn't cost us games. If Gabbert, Newton, Locker or Mallet can be that guy, then pull the trigger on one. I could care less about pre-draft hype or a lack thereof.

Like most have already said in this thread, no matter who we pick, we're going to be "reaching" anyway.

[TheRealDeal]

I also doubt we sign a veteran QB we will likely give Clausen next year to prove he can be a starter in the NFL. Clausen deserves that chance also.

Why do you think Clausen deserves it? What did he do to deserve it?

He doesn't deserve anything. He hasn't earned that right. If we feel there is a player that can come in and be better than him, that player will play. This staff has nothing invested in Clausen and his contract isn't anything crazy that demands we play him to get a return on our investment.

This mindset baffles me.