Panthers choosing btw Gabbart & Newton...this week???

[countryboi]

whatever happens i hope we end up with julius peppers and not david carr

[nagai]

whatever happens i hope we end up with julius peppers and not david carr

I think there's more truth to this analogy than people realise. This really isn't a strong QB class. There'll be plenty of Carrs and Leafs here. I'm a guy who cares as much for the decision making process as the choice itself. When making a decision there are 3 steps:

1. Define your purpose.

2. What is your read? What do you think will happen?

3. What is the risk/reward?

Notice that your read comes before your risk/reward. I don't care how much upside Cam for example has if you don't think he's going to transition well into the NFL. This is precisely why I hate the 'draft a QB and pray' model so many huddlers are preaching. The draft is primarily a talent evaluation process, if we get too blinded by needs, we'll end up missing out on the 50% or so of players who actually turn into decent NFL players.

At the end of the day, I just want a good player. If that guy's a QB, fantastic. If not however, that's fine too. The one thing I don't want the FO to do is just throw poo at the wall and see what sticks.

[KillerKat]

What people fail to realise when talking about wanting a QB who will transition well into the nfl is that Clausen was supposed to be the most nfl ready QB of the draft last year and look what happened. Also QB isn't like every other position. We can't just put some bullpoo scrub from FA at the position and hope he does well because we made the #1 at a different position just so that it's "safe". It's not possible to be be "blinded by needs" when it comes to QB because if this was any other position that was in just as much critical need, then yea we could draft elsewhere. But when the QB position is your #1 most crucial need, you have to be willing to go for it. If you want the most important position in the NFL to improve on your team, you have to be willing to take risks.

[nagai]

What people fail to realise when talking about wanting a QB who will transition well into the nfl is that Clausen was supposed to be the most nfl ready QB of the draft last year and look what happened. Also QB isn't like every other position. We can't just put some bullpoo scrub from FA at the position and hope he does well because we made the #1 at a different position just so that it's "safe". It's not possible to be be "blinded by needs" when it comes to QB because if this was any other position that was in just as much critical need, then yea we could draft elsewhere. But when the QB position is your #1 most crucial need, you have to be willing to go for it. If you want the most important position in the NFL to improve on your team, you have to be willing to take risks.

I'm willing to take risks such as being a project or not being pro ready. Things like toughness and intelligence however aren't things I like to gamble on. I'm not sure if you can use Clausen as an example to argue anything. If one of those QB needy teams drafted him in the first round, I'm not sure you'll be singing the same tune now. They passed on him even if they needed a QB and they made the right choice.

I hate how 'you need to take risks' has become the go to argument to drafting any QB. It's not that I disagree with it completely, it's just overly simplistic. There are degrees of risk, no prospect is perfect, but there are some weaknesses that are easier to overcome than others. I assume that when batters swing they're not just doing so blindly, they're estimating where the ball is going to be. When a poker pro bluffs all in, he's not doing so because he'll lose a lot of chips if he doesn't, he's doing it because he senses weakness from his opponent. You can take risks, but there better be something to indicate that things will turn out the way you want it to.

Say your read on Cam is that he's not very knowledgable and has done immature things in the past, but he's also a smart kid who's growing up; be my guest, take a chance on him. This would be a risk, but at least you think he'll turn into a good one. Same thing with Gabbert, if you think his biggest problems are his mechanics but you think that this can be fixed over time, draft him. I'm not advocating that we should wait for an Andrew Luck type prospect to draft a QB, that's would be unrealistic. However, if you take a risk, you better at least believe that it will work out. If the FO thinks it's a pure lottery (which I don't actually believe they do), this just shows me how incompetant they are. The point is, it's fine to take risks, but don't risk everything if you're completely in the dark.

[chef17]

I'm willing to take risks such as being a project or not being pro ready. Things like toughness and intelligence however aren't things I like to gamble on. I'm not sure if you can use Clausen as an example to argue anything. If one of those QB needy teams drafted him in the first round, I'm not sure you'll be singing the same tune now. They passed on him even if they needed a QB and they made the right choice.

I hate how 'you need to take risks' has become the go to argument to drafting any QB. It's not that I disagree with it completely, it's just overly simplistic. There are degrees of risk, no prospect is perfect, but there are some weaknesses that are easier to overcome than others. I assume that when batters swing they're not just doing so blindly, they're estimating where the ball is going to be. When a poker pro bluffs all in, he's not doing so because he'll lose a lot of chips if he doesn't, he's doing it because he senses weakness from his opponent. You can take risks, but there better be something to indicate that things will turn out the way you want it to.

Say your read on Cam is that he's not very knowledgable and has done immature things in the past, but he's also a smart kid who's growing up; be my guest, take a chance on him. This would be a risk, but at least you think he'll turn into a good one. Same thing with Gabbert, if you think his biggest problems are his mechanics but you think that this can be fixed over time, draft him. I'm not advocating that we should wait for an Andrew Luck type prospect to draft a QB, that's would be unrealistic. However, if you take a risk, you better at least believe that it will work out. If the FO thinks it's a pure lottery (which I don't actually believe they do), this just shows me how incompetant they are. The point is, it's fine to take risks, but don't risk everything if you're completely in the dark.

Rep. I have seen good reasons to take a QB. You need to take risk isn't a good reason however. You need to take calculated risks.

[teeray]

I'm willing to take risks such as being a project or not being pro ready. Things like toughness and intelligence however aren't things I like to gamble on. I'm not sure if you can use Clausen as an example to argue anything. If one of those QB needy teams drafted him in the first round, I'm not sure you'll be singing the same tune now. They passed on him even if they needed a QB and they made the right choice.

I hate how 'you need to take risks' has become the go to argument to drafting any QB. It's not that I disagree with it completely, it's just overly simplistic. There are degrees of risk, no prospect is perfect, but there are some weaknesses that are easier to overcome than others. I assume that when batters swing they're not just doing so blindly, they're estimating where the ball is going to be. When a poker pro bluffs all in, he's not doing so because he'll lose a lot of chips if he doesn't, he's doing it because he senses weakness from his opponent. You can take risks, but there better be something to indicate that things will turn out the way you want it to.

Say your read on Cam is that he's not very knowledgable and has done immature things in the past, but he's also a smart kid who's growing up; be my guest, take a chance on him. This would be a risk, but at least you think he'll turn into a good one. Same thing with Gabbert, if you think his biggest problems are his mechanics but you think that this can be fixed over time, draft him. I'm not advocating that we should wait for an Andrew Luck type prospect to draft a QB, that's would be unrealistic. However, if you take a risk, you better at least believe that it will work out. If the FO thinks it's a pure lottery (which I don't actually believe they do), this just shows me how incompetant they are. The point is, it's fine to take risks, but don't risk everything if you're completely in the dark.

I don't think anyone on either side of the debate would disagree with this.

[teeray]

At the same time there is always an inherently higher risk when drafting a QB but if you wait around for that "perfect" time or "perfect" QB you will be stalling the growth of your franchise.

I'm not sold that Andrew Luck is the greatest prospect since Peyton Manning. I like him a lot but he still has a lot to prove and to learn to be at that level in the NFL.

Most QBs get drafted over their perceived value because they are such a precious commodity in the NFL (or any level) so to some degree you usually are reaching a bit for a QB. It is a reach you have to eventually make in order to become competitive, especially in the NFC South these days.

The debate becomes cloudy in regards to this draft class. Some think there are no good QBs in this class. Others think there are. The ones that think there are think the Panthers should get him. The ones who don't think we should pass.

And that is essentially what it has boiled down to.

[nagai]

I don't think anyone on either side of the debate would disagree with this.

Sometimes things aren't made explicit on a forum, maybe this is one of those cases and I've read a lot of the posts too literally. :confused:

Having said that, I do think there's a lot of people here who do make bad arguments that are too simple.

Poster x: Cam has raised too many red flags for me to support him.

Poster y: But no candidate is perfect and it's a fact that you need a franchise QB to win the superbowl! We need a QB, so we have to take the risk.

How many times have you read this type of argument? I've seen it way too much for my liking.

[YourMomsLover]

Everybody already knows who were drafting. The only question left is, what jersey # does he wear? Buy #2 from Clausen? Buy #11 from Gettis? #1? Thats the only debate left. A month ago one of these QBs wasnt even considered a first round pick by some folks, now we're supposed to pretend we're not gonna take him. OK. LOL.

Saved for my future sig...who knows you might be right though :)

[teeray]

Sometimes things aren't made explicit on a forum, maybe this is one of those cases and I've read a lot of the posts too literally. :confused:

Having said that, I do think there's a lot of people here who do make bad arguments that are too simple.

Poster x: Cam has raised too many red flags for me to support him.

Poster y: But no candidate is perfect and it's a fact that you need a franchise QB to win the superbowl! We need a QB, so we have to take the risk.

How many times have you read this type of argument? I've seen it way too much for my liking.

It is a natural progression. I come from a political family so I think of it in those terms when it comes to debate.

Most of us start in the middle but dig in so hard by the time it is over we have gone to the extreme corners of the universe to hold our position.

That is what has happened here. We are all so concerned about being right we inch further and further away from reality.

On both sides.

[teeray]

I don't think anyone on either side of the debate should disagree with this.

I fixed it :)

[nagai]

I fixed it :)

That I can agree on :cheers2:

[vorbis]

just a hypothetical here, because that's all we got:

let's say the panthers DO decide, say, tomorrow, that cam newton is their guy. if i understand correctly they will be able to have all the contact in the world with him until he is drafted, and then they cannot communicate with him just like they can't communicate with any other player during the lockout. so, if they want him, wouldn't it behoove them to start now and give him a playbook before the draft and give him some things to work on, even keep an eye on his progress? once the draft comes around he's on his own until the CBA is resolved and he's got a contract. it's a potential angle, if a bit flimsy.

[teeray]

just a hypothetical here, because that's all we got:

let's say the panthers DO decide, say, tomorrow, that cam newton is their guy. if i understand correctly they will be able to have all the contact in the world with him until he is drafted, and then they cannot communicate with him just like they can't communicate with any other player during the lockout. so, if they want him, wouldn't it behoove them to start now and give him a playbook before the draft and give him some things to work on, even keep an eye on his progress? once the draft comes around he's on his own until the CBA is resolved and he's got a contract. it's a potential angle, if a bit flimsy.

I'm not sure how this will work having a new coach. Most teams would have their playbook and the players on the team would organize time to get together with everyone including a rookie and go over the playbook and "practice".

However, since we have a new coach I am not sure any player has a copy of the playbook yet so I am not sure what will happen and if we are allowed to give him the playbook until after he is drafted. I doubt we would do that in case something weird happened on draft day and we have a playbook floating around if we didn't selecthim.