Ask The Old Guy: So many quarterback questions

CHARLOTTE — As you may have noticed lately, the Panthers have done a lot of stuff.

But until they do that one thing, the questions are going to revolve around a particular theme.

For all the offensive linemen (plural), linebackers (plural), safeties, corners, defensive linemen, running backs, wide receivers, and even punters they’ve signed, the Panthers still haven’t added a quarterback to the mix.

So that’s the current object of fascination with this fanbase. There were many, many questions about quarterback options, and the short answer to all of them is, “Sure, maybe, depends.” That goes for the few remaining veteran options, as well as the three potential draft picks they spent this week checking out.

We’ll go through them in as much detail as possible, now that they’ve filled in a lot of other blanks. But y’all had quarterback questions this week. A lot of them.

———————————————————-

I am a bit concerned the quest for a QB1 will eventually result in Panthers mortgaging the future to save the present. I know Deshaun Watson is a talented player, but he was just average in wins as a starter, going 28-25 in his career, about 52 percent. That is on par with the likes of Carson Wentz, but less than Nick Foles (56 percent) and Jimmy Garoppolo (71 percent). The point being, I don’t believe paying “up” for just an average winner will be worth it in the long run. Are the Panthers missing the forest through the trees in their fanatical pursuit of a QB1? — Michael, Waxhaw, NC

Wins and losses aren’t necessarily a quarterback stat (because a team result depends on so many other factors), but Michael raises a fascinating philosophical point. How much is too much to spend on a quarterback? When do you cross the line from doing whatever it takes to get a franchise quarterback, to not investing enough in the rest of the team around him?

I’m of the belief that you want to build a whole team, which means you have to pay good offensive linemen, and skill position guys, and defensive players as well. I’ve also decided that if I ever got a chance to run a team (God forbid), I’d never give a quarterback a second contract, because that takes away your ability to fund the rest of the project. If you draft a quarterback in the first round, you have contractual control of him for seven years (including the option and a couple of franchise tags). That’s enough time to decide if he’s capable of winning you a Super Bowl. If he isn’t, trade him and start the process over with another first-rounder. People would argue, “What if you draft Patrick Mahomes?” I would counter with, “What if you draft Matt Stafford or Matt Ryan or Philip Rivers?” The Lions and Falcons and Chargers spent a lot of money on them for a lot of years, and it never got them a title. Also, could you imagine what the Chiefs could get for Mahomes if they put him on the market? All the picks. Perpetual Moneyball. You have a better chance of winning the lottery if you have all the tickets.

That’s why that 71-percenter you mentioned is intriguing, honestly.

An average quarterback surrounded by good stuff can appear to be above-average. But he remains average. You have to remember that when considering his value. Average at a certain price-point is a good thing. Average at inflated rates (of salary or compensation required to obtain) is not necessarily helpful.