Top QBs: Last 16 years

[DaveThePanther2008]

As a comparison, I think it gets to the point where, people don't understand just how some other teams' fans work. Giants fans are pissed, yea they went 12-4, they even went to win the big game the year before but they got embarrassed in their home field (not even as bad as us btw) and it left a sour taste in their mouths.

Half of our fans are probably just happy we made the playoffs. ....kind of setting the bar low. It becomes a point where the whole "glass half full" lifestyle becomes bloated, and people are just quick to write off any inadequacy with excuses or just plain avoidance.

And this demographic comes from where? I never said, nor did most of the other Jake loyal fans said it didn't leave a bad taste in our mouth. I don't think there is one true Panther fan that doesn't have that bad taste. But that is your opinion.

I think most of them know he had a bad game. You don't take a 12-4 team and dismantle it cause we blew a game we should have won. Most of the Jake haters think all will be good when he is gone. Most Jake fans don't. The F.O. doesn't either. IF we did make a change it wouldn't be for someone new off the streets. (IE 1st Round QB, FA pickup) It would be Moore or McCown.

[frash.exe]

RB, now you're just being a complete ass. There's a difference between critique and criticize and everyone knows that.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/critique#synonymsmodule

Synonyms

* criticism

* notice

* appraisal

* assessment

* comment

* commentary

* editorial

* examination

* exposition

* flak

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criticism

1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.

2. the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.

3. the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.

4. a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.

5. any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.: historical criticism; literary criticism.

6. investigation of the text, origin, etc., of literary documents, esp. Biblical ones: textual criticism.

Origin:

[R0CKnR0LLA]

You can post dictionary references all you want, but the average 5th grader can explain the difference to you in case you still think they are the same.

[DaveThePanther2008]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/critique

Very good!!! Now look up AH you should see your picture.

[frash.exe]

And this demographic comes from where? I never said, nor did most of the other Jake loyal fans said it didn't leave a bad taste in our mouth. I don't think there is one true Panther fan that doesn't have that bad taste. But that is your opinion.

I think most of them know he had a bad game. You don't take a 12-4 team and dismantle it cause we blew a game we should have won. Most of the Jake haters think all will be good when he is gone. Most Jake fans don't. The F.O. doesn't either. IF we did make a change it wouldn't be for someone new off the streets. (IE 1st Round QB, FA pickup) It would be Moore or McCown.

Playerwise, no I think most of us wanted to keep the team intact and just focus on QB and DT to solidify, which is why just about the entire board was uniform in it's stance about keeping Gross here and tagging Peppers so he would at least still be here.

As far as coaching is concerned, it was obvious the defensive formula was stale and hindering our progress. The entire assistant staff + Trgovac left, and it all will make the defense better in the end. But it wasn't the team that blew it up, the assistants left by choice, so it kind of blew up itself.

[frash.exe]

You can post dictionary references all you want, but the average 5th grader can explain the difference to you in case you still think they are the same.

...just cause you say there's a difference doesn't mean it's true.

me on the other hand, I've posted a link from a reputable source.

[R0CKnR0LLA]

...just cause you say there's a difference doesn't mean it's true.

me on the other hand, I've posted a link from a reputable source.

Not me saying it alone no, but the rest of society. The technical definition of a word from a dictionary isn't how it is always used or what it's understood to mean. If you genuinely don't understand the difference, go ask some people that have street smarts, not ones that sit and read definitions from a dictionary.

[frash.exe]

That's pretty telling. Add those round 8-12 guys to the UDFA list with today's draft, as well as the UDFA's you listed separately because of alternate experiance, you get...

23.8% as UDFAs

And only 35.2% for first rounders?? Wow. Let's start scouting those Canadians

with 10 slots available between pass rating and pass yards, there are 320 total spots available.

1st round draft picks showed up 41% of the time when I tallied all the occurrences of a 1st round draft pick in one of the spots.

vs. UDFAs, well counting the ones I listed, they only show up 11.25% of the time.

[frash.exe]

I'm not trying to be an ass.

I'm just not subjecting myself to be a slave to the status quo, that many people gleefully accept any happenstance that may come about. I think independently, and I'm coming out with facts that speak to the contrary of Fox's philosophy. That are telling me, the low-risk/low-reward strategy has historically not returned as well, and if you are going to make a mark in this league sometimes you have to put the chips in and go for it.

If that makes me a "hater" in your eyes than I guess that's your opinion. It really doesn't make me lose sleep at night. I don't care, I'm going to say what I want and if it frustrates people that's their business. But... I'm sorry, I'm just a bit more blunt. I can tell you I feel good about just about every other facet of our game right now, but QB is very, very, very, questionable and possibly our most unstable area of the game. It also happens to be just about the single most important position out of all of them.

[Urrymonster]

with 10 slots available between pass rating and pass yards, there are 320 total spots available.

1st round draft picks showed up 41% of the time when I tallied all the occurrences of a 1st round draft pick in one of the spots.

vs. UDFAs, well counting the ones I listed, they only show up 11.25% of the time.

So they show up once for every four QBs drafted in the first round? That's not actually awful probability, especially when you can bring them in at minimums rather than giving a fat juicy contract to a first round guy.

Regardless, what I wanted to say was this.

In my mind you only ever pick up a QB in the first round if you are in a semi or complete rebuilding project. These teams 'should' have a lot of cap room, which is generated by cutting the dead weight from the team - hence the rebuilding. That way, the large contract that is going to come hand in hand with the drafted QB is more manageable. It also means that if he bombs hard, they are not waisting their better players careers for three or four years.

Teams that are in a position to win it now and win it all, in theory should not draft a QB in the first round because they need immediate contributors from their first selections. Which is why our drafs have been so successful recently. We have played the laws of averages and selected positions and players that have a higher numerical chance of suceeding. Then those positions which are harder to predict in the draft we fill from free agency with veterans who have been playing n the league for a few years.

Makes sense to me. Let other people take the chance on those guys whilst we pick the more guys who have a higher chance of making it in the draft. First round rooks, have much bigger contracts than servicable vets, so we are not just playing the numbers in the draft, we are always playing the numbers in regards to what positions get the big bucks.

That whole philosophy makes far too much sense to me.

Another thing to consider - From the list posted on page 4 by Raging, rounds 2-7 generated 40.6%, higher than the the % rate in the first round. So by that logic, I would rather take a couple of fliers on later round QBs with no commitment in regards to contracts every other year and the statistics will quickly add up.

One QB you HAVE to keep at least four years due to the size of their contracts, or 2-3 QBs over that same contract length where you can quickly cut them if they do not perform to standard. To me, it seems like EXACTLY what the Pats do, they pick up a mid round guy every other year or so and eventually they get a Tom Brady and then they get one year wonders from Matt Cassel, nets them some decent compensation and they have already got their next guy lined up.

Seems far, far to logical.

[R0CKnR0LLA]

RB, the problem being that you come in biased and skew all the "facts" to fit whatever your preconceived ideas happen to be. For example,

UDFAs, well counting the ones I listed, they only show up 11.25% of the time.

But you're not counting the 8th through 12th round guys that would just end up being UDFAs today, right? I guess those guys "don't count", just like the NFLE/USFL guys "don't count" because they'd have CFL experience today instead.

Here are some facts from that same list...

Total QBs round 6 or lower, including UDFAs: 32.2%

Total QBs drafted round 1: 35.2%

Total times the lower rated QBs appeared: 28.1%

Total times the 1st round QBs appeared: 41%

And yet, you still refer to late round & UDFAs as "low-reward" If anything, these stats show that the late round/UDFA path is the better way to go. Especially when considering the huge money round 1 QBs get no matter how well they play.

[Urrymonster]

In the last three years the draft has produced 6 starters as of this day. As in they are projected to be starting this coming season.

4 first round QBs - Ryan, Flacco, Cutler, Russel

2 outside first round - Edwards, Jackson

Flacco and Russel are not better than Edwards or Jackson. Add in that Young, Leinart and Quinn have all been put into the starting line up and then pulled form the starting line up simply because they are not ready. In my opinion Flacco and Russel are either not ready or simply not good enough to warrant being first rounders AND starting. The simple fact is, that other than Ryan I can pretty much bet most of the coaches would have prefered that first round QB to be sitting until year three.

In my mind we can't justify picking a first round QB when most of our players are in their prime. By the time the QB is actually ready, we will have had to lose a few players due to the QBs contract making it impossible to extend one or two important players. Then people such as Gross, Pep, Ma'ake, Lewis, Harris, Smith might either be on the twilight of their careers or no longer with the team.

This team needs and wants to win now. There is not a huge wealth of dominating teams at the moment and all have their holes, so it makes sense on picking guys who can contribute straight off the bat. Then we can pick up someone through rounds 2-7 on a nominal contract and play the numbers game. We can then pick again two years later. It makes the same statistical sense as drafting a QB in the first round, so why not if we have to wait for them to be ready anyway?!

[carolinanimal]

Not me saying it alone no, but the rest of society. The technical definition of a word from a dictionary isn't how it is always used or what it's understood to mean. If you genuinely don't understand the difference, go ask some people that have street smarts, not ones that sit and read definitions from a dictionary.

What! Where did you got to school at? i wish i could have went there.

" No. Teacher that is incorrect! Listen to how we say it on the "streets"!"

[panthers55]

Actually I think this is a pretty good discussion. if folks can continue to discuss the facts and use evidence to support their position with out resorting to namecalling and personal attacks, it is a huge step up from some of the so called discussions on other threads.