Was Carson Palmer worth the #1 overall pick in 2003? (1 Viewer)

[valhallan]

This comes from a small debate in this thread.

Basically, has he been worthy of being the #1 overall selection? Has he performed up to expectations?

 

[biggamer3]

Franchise QB, with a strong accurate arm

sure

 

[King of the Jungle]

Head and shoulders above many #1 overalls. Franchise QB on a bad franchise.

 

[massraider]

Heck yeah.

 

[krsone21]

Head and shoulders above many #1 overalls. Franchise QB on a bad franchise.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[valhallan]

Heck yeah.

Figured so. However, a seemingly intelligent FBG staffer isn't convinced yet so I thought it necessary to see if I'm missing something here.

 

[Donnie Brasco]

Umm, yeah...

 

[J-Rock]

8 votes so far. All Yes, definitely. I emphatically agree.

 

[TheFanatic]

Who went after him in the draft that would've been worthy of the #1 in hindsight? I don't know the answer and don't want to look it up. Is Hakeem Olajuwan in 1984? A truly great player, but MJ was drafted a couple picks later?

 

[valhallan]

Who went after him in the draft that would've been worthy of the #1 in hindsight?

I think the counter-argument is that he might not have performed as well as a quarterback taken with the #1 overall should, not that there was necessarily anyone better available that year.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Heck yeah.

Figured so. However, a seemingly intelligent FBG staffer isn't convinced yet so I thought it necessary to see if I'm missing something here.

I'm not sure what the confusion is, but let me state it again:1) Through four seasons as a starter, Palmer has been very good, and worthy of being a #1 pick.2) A good #1 pick will deliver more than four good seasons as a starter.3) Therefore, we don't know if Palmer will turn out to have been a very productive #1 pick yet.

 

[valhallan]

Heck yeah.

Figured so. However, a seemingly intelligent FBG staffer isn't convinced yet so I thought it necessary to see if I'm missing something here.

I'm not sure what the confusion is, but let me state it again:1) Through four seasons as a starter, Palmer has been very good, and worthy of being a #1 pick.2) A good #1 pick will deliver more than four good seasons as a starter.3) Therefore, we don't know if Palmer will turn out to have been a very productive #1 pick yet.

I said an "FBG staffer isn't convinced yet". That seems consistent with what you just wrote.I wasn't really trying to call you out, I just wanted to see if any others have reservations about Palmer like you do.

 

[Tom Servo]

Heck yeah.

Figured so. However, a seemingly intelligent FBG staffer isn't convinced yet so I thought it necessary to see if I'm missing something here.

I'm not sure what the confusion is, but let me state it again:1) Through four seasons as a starter, Palmer has been very good, and worthy of being a #1 pick.2) A good #1 pick will deliver more than four good seasons as a starter.3) Therefore, we don't know if Palmer will turn out to have been a very productive #1 pick yet.

I like these sentiments. At the risk of opening up Pandora's box, I'd like to see him win a playoff game or two. I'm leaning towards YES, but I'm also willing to give him more time.

 

[Gatorman]

Heck yeah.

Figured so. However, a seemingly intelligent FBG staffer isn't convinced yet so I thought it necessary to see if I'm missing something here.

I'm not sure what the confusion is, but let me state it again:1) Through four seasons as a starter, Palmer has been very good, and worthy of being a #1 pick.2) A good #1 pick will deliver more than four good seasons as a starter.3) Therefore, we don't know if Palmer will turn out to have been a very productive #1 pick yet.

Wow, Chase, cannot disagree with you more...Palmer has been everything he should have been since the day he got there. Solid QB, Solid Student of the game, and someone who works on his game to get better. Now going with the "4 season's as starter" nonsense just comes from the fact that Kitna held him off for a year to start his career (unlike Peyton who got the ball from day 1).A better question may have been "Kitna + some other player at #1" vs. Palmer, but I think maybe only 4 teams in the NFL have a better QB under center this year than the Bengals.

 

[massraider]

I own Palmer in two leagues, and aside from my Raiders, I will watch the Bengals more than any other team. They just have had a lot of players I like. Or maybe it's because my team seems calm in comparison.

Last year, was a down year for him. I watched all or most of 8-10 of the Bengals games, and they had a lot of problems. Palmer was not guilt-free. There were misses that appeared to be Chad's fault, and flat out misses by Palmer. More than I have ever seen from him. And I think he throws the prettiest, easiest ball in the league. When he is on, I think he is the BEST passer in the league.

Maybe it was the pass rush, which definitely got turned up last year, maybe it was the knee, maybe it was the circus surrounding the team, maybe it was Chad screwing up (I love Chad, but it sure looked like he screwed the pooch a lot last year). Most likely, it's a bit of all of it.

Any reservations I have with Palmer have nothing to do with him. It has to do with my doubts that the Bengals can take care of all the other positions on the field.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Heck yeah.

Figured so. However, a seemingly intelligent FBG staffer isn't convinced yet so I thought it necessary to see if I'm missing something here.

I'm not sure what the confusion is, but let me state it again:1) Through four seasons as a starter, Palmer has been very good, and worthy of being a #1 pick.2) A good #1 pick will deliver more than four good seasons as a starter.3) Therefore, we don't know if Palmer will turn out to have been a very productive #1 pick yet.

Wow, Chase, cannot disagree with you more...Palmer has been everything he should have been since the day he got there. Solid QB, Solid Student of the game, and someone who works on his game to get better. Now going with the "4 season's as starter" nonsense just comes from the fact that Kitna held him off for a year to start his career (unlike Peyton who got the ball from day 1).A better question may have been "Kitna + some other player at #1" vs. Palmer, but I think maybe only 4 teams in the NFL have a better QB under center this year than the Bengals.

If Palmer retired tomorrow, would he have met the expectations of being the #1 pick? I'd say no.Reasonable people can disagree on this, but it's pretty difficult for me, to put a #1 pick in the "good" column after four years. With the #1 pick you expect a guy to be a starter for 10 years. Palmer has been a starter for four. Now he's been a very good one, but I'm going to hold off a few more years on that.

 

[massraider]

Heck yeah.

Figured so. However, a seemingly intelligent FBG staffer isn't convinced yet so I thought it necessary to see if I'm missing something here.

I'm not sure what the confusion is, but let me state it again:1) Through four seasons as a starter, Palmer has been very good, and worthy of being a #1 pick.

2) A good #1 pick will deliver more than four good seasons as a starter.

3) Therefore, we don't know if Palmer will turn out to have been a very productive #1 pick yet.

Wow, Chase, cannot disagree with you more...Palmer has been everything he should have been since the day he got there. Solid QB, Solid Student of the game, and someone who works on his game to get better. Now going with the "4 season's as starter" nonsense just comes from the fact that Kitna held him off for a year to start his career (unlike Peyton who got the ball from day 1).

A better question may have been "Kitna + some other player at #1" vs. Palmer, but I think maybe only 4 teams in the NFL have a better QB under center this year than the Bengals.

If Palmer retired tomorrow, would he have met the expectations of being the #1 pick? I'd say no.Reasonable people can disagree on this, but it's pretty difficult for me, to put a #1 pick in the "good" column after four years. With the #1 pick you expect a guy to be a starter for 10 years. Palmer has been a starter for four. Now he's been a very good one, but I'm going to hold off a few more years on that.

Maybe we shouldn't. Rank him in comparison to all the other #1 picks, and he holds up pretty well.

 

[Gatorman]

Heck yeah.

Figured so. However, a seemingly intelligent FBG staffer isn't convinced yet so I thought it necessary to see if I'm missing something here.

I'm not sure what the confusion is, but let me state it again:1) Through four seasons as a starter, Palmer has been very good, and worthy of being a #1 pick.2) A good #1 pick will deliver more than four good seasons as a starter.3) Therefore, we don't know if Palmer will turn out to have been a very productive #1 pick yet.

Wow, Chase, cannot disagree with you more...Palmer has been everything he should have been since the day he got there. Solid QB, Solid Student of the game, and someone who works on his game to get better. Now going with the "4 season's as starter" nonsense just comes from the fact that Kitna held him off for a year to start his career (unlike Peyton who got the ball from day 1).A better question may have been "Kitna + some other player at #1" vs. Palmer, but I think maybe only 4 teams in the NFL have a better QB under center this year than the Bengals.

If Palmer retired tomorrow, would he have met the expectations of being the #1 pick? I'd say no.Reasonable people can disagree on this, but it's pretty difficult for me, to put a #1 pick in the "good" column after four years. With the #1 pick you expect a guy to be a starter for 10 years. Palmer has been a starter for four. Now he's been a very good one, but I'm going to hold off a few more years on that.

You are nit picking. Is he one of the best at his position? If he blew out his knee tomorrow, or got hit by a bus, would that change the justification of him as a #1 pick..No. So if he plays for 20 mediocre years, by your reasoning, then he exceeded his pick. What about Manning (Eli). The giants won a SB with him, so is he "justified" while palmer is not?At what point did Elway become "justified"?I think you need to reasses how you value these things. Let's take Alex Smith vs. Carson Palmer. If alex smith solves his issues and becomes a decent QB he still will not justify being the #1 pick. If he was picked where Leinart was (or Brady Quinn) then maybe he avoids this arguement. There is nothing (short of having a Steve Young type "resurgence") that would ever make Alex Smith Justifiable. Nothing in Carson's game parallels this. If he suddenly pulled a ricky williams and retired (before the season started) then you may (may) have a small arguement.Carson's career, if anything, mirrors that of Peyton (only on a more dysfunctional franchise). All he needs now is his "dungy" (and Polian) to put all the pieces together to make him more that just another "great stat QB".Honestly, why is it always Jet fans who have these type of requirements to call someone worthwhile.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Heck yeah.

Figured so. However, a seemingly intelligent FBG staffer isn't convinced yet so I thought it necessary to see if I'm missing something here.

I'm not sure what the confusion is, but let me state it again:1) Through four seasons as a starter, Palmer has been very good, and worthy of being a #1 pick.

2) A good #1 pick will deliver more than four good seasons as a starter.

3) Therefore, we don't know if Palmer will turn out to have been a very productive #1 pick yet.

Wow, Chase, cannot disagree with you more...Palmer has been everything he should have been since the day he got there. Solid QB, Solid Student of the game, and someone who works on his game to get better. Now going with the "4 season's as starter" nonsense just comes from the fact that Kitna held him off for a year to start his career (unlike Peyton who got the ball from day 1).

A better question may have been "Kitna + some other player at #1" vs. Palmer, but I think maybe only 4 teams in the NFL have a better QB under center this year than the Bengals.

If Palmer retired tomorrow, would he have met the expectations of being the #1 pick? I'd say no.Reasonable people can disagree on this, but it's pretty difficult for me, to put a #1 pick in the "good" column after four years. With the #1 pick you expect a guy to be a starter for 10 years. Palmer has been a starter for four. Now he's been a very good one, but I'm going to hold off a few more years on that.

Maybe we shouldn't. Rank him in comparison to all the other #1 picks, and he holds up pretty well.

About half of the #1 picks start for 10 years.

 

[Chase Stuart]

...

If I told you that you could take 4 seasons worth of 16 games started, and 2 Pro Bowls, and that's it for the career of Jake Long, would you?

 

[Tau837]

...

If I told you that you could take 4 seasons worth of 16 games started, and 2 Pro Bowls, and that's it for the career of Jake Long, would you?

Pretty good counter.

 

[Gatorman]

...

If I told you that you could take 4 seasons worth of 16 games started, and 2 Pro Bowls, and that's it for the career of Jake Long, would you?

Yes, I would. But that is not your real point. If I had that from jake and then he dies vs what "Oh, I want to fish up in Mich. so goodbye NFL?"In anycase, I will answer that question. Yes, if Jake long elevates the position of LT to the point he gets 2 pro bowls and 64 starts, I consider that par for the pick. Palmer at this point is likely Par for his pick, but with upside to be a birdie. If they get the right players around him an actually contend, he is an eagle in that scenario.Alex Smith is a double bogey at best.

 

[valhallan]

...

If I told you that you could take 4 seasons worth of 16 games started, and 2 Pro Bowls, and that's it for the career of Jake Long, would you?

Pretty good counter.

Not really, Jake Long is not a quarterback. As a fan of a team (Saints) with a similar history of struggling as the Bengals, I can say for certain if I only get two more years and one more Pro Bowl from Brees, I would gladly have given a #1 overall for that.

 

[stevegamer]

...

If I told you that you could take 4 seasons worth of 16 games started, and 2 Pro Bowls, and that's it for the career of Jake Long, would you?

Interesting counter, but projecting Palmer to not play from here out, is pretty unlikely. He could be physically unable to play or quit.So, if my 2009 #1 pick (so no names are used) played 4 years at that level and got hit by a bus and was left unable to play football, I'd think I did fine with the pick. I can't predict that sort of stuff. Anyway it'd be about halfway to the 10 year mark that only half the #1's reach - so I might have done fine even considering that.- It won't mean there wasn't a better choice available in hindsight- It also won't mean that I made a poor choice.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

One of the top 4-5 QBs in the NFL, no-brainer.

 

[Chase Stuart]

...

If I told you that you could take 4 seasons worth of 16 games started, and 2 Pro Bowls, and that's it for the career of Jake Long, would you?

Yes, I would. But that is not your real point. If I had that from jake and then he dies vs what "Oh, I want to fish up in Mich. so goodbye NFL?"In anycase, I will answer that question. Yes, if Jake long elevates the position of LT to the point he gets 2 pro bowls and 64 starts, I consider that par for the pick. Palmer at this point is likely Par for his pick, but with upside to be a birdie. If they get the right players around him an actually contend, he is an eagle in that scenario.Alex Smith is a double bogey at best.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. I say no, you say yes. I don't think it's that big of a deal or that interesting.As for Smith, I'm not sure why you keep bringing him up. I think he's stunk so far, I was a pretty vocal hater of all things SF last summer, and I've almost never said anything good about Alex Smith. I've always said he's overrated, although I do give him some pass because he's so young. But it's pretty obvious that he's been an awful pick.

 

[twr]

...

If I told you that you could take 4 seasons worth of 16 games started, and 2 Pro Bowls, and that's it for the career of Jake Long, would you?

you do realize that making the probowl HALF of the time is pretty amazing?you know many many pro-bowls the great deion sanders played in? 8 out of 14 seasons, a little over HALF. and this is a guy who many people believe to be the BEST corner back EVER... you know how many pro-bowls the great dan marino played in? 9 out of 17 seasons, a little over HALF. best QB ever?carson palmer has shown he has the skills, leadership and STATS to "justify" the number 1 pick... there are plenty of guys who "dont justify" the #1 status... considering all the qb's who are head and shoulders WORSE than palmer, yea, i think he "justifies" the #1 picknot to mention he suffered a knee injury and came back the VERY NEXT YEAR gunz-a-blazing heres something you need might need to read again to put it into perspective....Paulos, an orthopedic surgeon who has worked with the U.S. Ski Team since 1983, replaced the anterior cruciate ligament, which runs through the middle of the knee and provides stability. He said the medial collateral ligament, which runs along the side of the knee, was damaged "real bad.""On a scale of one to three, it was a four," he said. "It was off the chart. It was pretty badly damaged -- shredded is the better term."you realize he came back from that AND MADE THE PRO-BOWL. now, has he exceeded his draft status? as someone said above... heck yeah

 

[TheFanatic]

Who went after him in the draft that would've been worthy of the #1 in hindsight?

I think the counter-argument is that he might not have performed as well as a quarterback taken with the #1 overall should, not that there was necessarily anyone better available that year.

Still, but Olajuwan was the #1 pick and had a stellar career. But it wasn't as good as Jordan's. So, I would say who was taken after him in the draft is very relevant.

 

[twr]

Who went after him in the draft that would've been worthy of the #1 in hindsight?

I think the counter-argument is that he might not have performed as well as a quarterback taken with the #1 overall should, not that there was necessarily anyone better available that year.

Still, but Olajuwan was the #1 pick and had a stellar career. But it wasn't as good as Jordan's. So, I would say who was taken after him in the draft is very relevant.

drafting is just like making projections, they are going to be wrong more than half the time... go check out the debate over there... MJ was so great due to his DRIVE and skill. he wanted to be the best, and had just the right amount of skill to make that happen... maybe his coach was better, maybe his supporting cast was better, heck, maybe the home field environment made him play like a god, there are far too many things to determine which was a better pick... and hind sight is always 20/20

 

[Tau837]

you do realize that making the probowl HALF of the time is pretty amazing?you know many many pro-bowls the great deion sanders played in? 8 out of 14 seasons, a little over HALF. and this is a guy who many people believe to be the BEST corner back EVER... you know how many pro-bowls the great dan marino played in? 9 out of 17 seasons, a little over HALF. best QB ever?

I pretty much agree that Palmer has justified the pick. But you chose some lousy examples here. You are including Deion's 2 seasons at ages 37 & 38 when he came out of retirement after 4 years off. Otherwise, he made it 8 out of 12 seasons, missing only his first 2 seasons, his last season before the first retirement at age 33, and a season in the middle when he missed 7 games. To use the 8/14 reference is quite misleading.And on Marino, he is an all time great, but it's obviously a stretch to suggest he might be the best QB ever. And, besides, he made the Pro Bowl in all of his first 5 seasons.Using other guys' career Pro Bowl selections, when they played a through a late career decline is apples and oranges to Palmer at this point. A better focus point would be on what great players did in their first 4 seasons. For example, a better point with Deion would have been that he made it in 2 of his first 4 seasons, just like Palmer if you ignore Palmer's first year when he wasn't a full time starter.

 

[glumpy]

Who went after him in the draft that would've been worthy of the #1 in hindsight? I don't know the answer and don't want to look it up. Is Hakeem Olajuwan in 1984? A truly great player, but MJ was drafted a couple picks later?

2003 NFL DRAFT FIRST-ROUND PICKS Pick Team Name 1 Cincinnati Carson Palmer 2 Detroit Charles Rogers 3 Houston Andre Johnson 4 New York Dewayne Robertson 5 Dallas Terence Newman 6 New Orleans Johnathan Sullivan 7 Jacksonville Byron Leftwich 8 Carolina Jordan Gross 9 Minnesota Kevin Williams 10 Baltimore Terrell Suggs 11 Seattle Marcus Trufant 12 St. Louis Jimmy Kennedy 13 New England Ty Warren 14 Chicago Michael Haynes 15 Philadelphia Jerome McDougle 16 Pittsburgh Troy Polamalu 17 Arizona Bryant Johnson 18 Arizona Calvin Pace 19 Baltimore Kyle Boller 20 Denver George Foster 21 Cleveland Jeff Faine 22 Chicago Rex Grossman 23 Buffalo Willis McGahee 24 Indianapolis Dallas Clark 25 New York William Joseph 26 San Francisco Kwame Harris 27 Kansas City Larry Johnson 28 Tennessee Andre Woolfolk 29 Green Bay Nick Barnett 30 San Diego Sammy Davis 31 Oakland Nnamdi Asomugha 32 Oakland Tyler Brayton I'd give a "hell yes"--Palmer was worth the first pick in that draft!

 

[J-Rock]

I'm not trying to hijack this thread but I have to chime in on the references to Alex Smith never being able to justify being the #1 pick.

I understand that it is hard to fathom today but if 10 years from now Smith is a multi time league MVP and has 3 rings including SB MVP honors it will be pretty tough to defend the argument that he shouldn't have been a #1 pick.

The thing that makes this such a difficult discussion is that it typically takes QB's a few seasons to develop. Anyone drafted #1 overall is going to a team with serious problems which makes it even more difficult to adjust to the pro game. It's easy to look at a guy like Big Ben and feel like #1 picks should be able to have the same success but that is just unrealistic. I think Alex Smith is a completely different QB in Ben's situation.

On another note, Smith's situation makes it clear that you have to compare the #1 pick to the rest of his draft class. It is unfair to compare former #1 picks against each other. If Smith is in the draft in 04 or 06 there is no way he's the #1 pick. having said that, it's too easy to look back and say they should have taken Braylon Edwards or Shawne Merriman. The best player in the draft doesn't always go #1, in that case Tom Brady would be in Cleveland.

Knowing what the 49ers knew at the time and given their situation would you have done anything differently? And don't say trade the pick. No one wanted it.

Using that same methodology would you have made a different pick if you were the Bengals in 2003?

 

[valhallan]

Who went after him in the draft that would've been worthy of the #1 in hindsight?

I think the counter-argument is that he might not have performed as well as a quarterback taken with the #1 overall should, not that there was necessarily anyone better available that year.

Still, but Olajuwan was the #1 pick and had a stellar career. But it wasn't as good as Jordan's. So, I would say who was taken after him in the draft is very relevant.

Sure, I was just trying to tell you what the impetus for this poll was. There was a discussion about the historical value of each draft slot and whether or not Palmer has outperformed his.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Who went after him in the draft that would've been worthy of the #1 in hindsight? I don't know the answer and don't want to look it up. Is Hakeem Olajuwan in 1984? A truly great player, but MJ was drafted a couple picks later?

2003 NFL DRAFT FIRST-ROUND PICKS Pick Team Name

1 Cincinnati Carson Palmer

2 Detroit Charles Rogers

3 Houston Andre Johnson

4 New York Dewayne Robertson

5 Dallas Terence Newman

6 New Orleans Johnathan Sullivan

7 Jacksonville Byron Leftwich

8 Carolina Jordan Gross

9 Minnesota Kevin Williams

10 Baltimore Terrell Suggs

11 Seattle Marcus Trufant

12 St. Louis Jimmy Kennedy

13 New England Ty Warren

14 Chicago Michael Haynes

15 Philadelphia Jerome McDougle

16 Pittsburgh Troy Polamalu

17 Arizona Bryant Johnson

18 Arizona Calvin Pace

19 Baltimore Kyle Boller

20 Denver George Foster

21 Cleveland Jeff Faine

22 Chicago Rex Grossman

23 Buffalo Willis McGahee

24 Indianapolis Dallas Clark

25 New York William Joseph

26 San Francisco Kwame Harris

27 Kansas City Larry Johnson

28 Tennessee Andre Woolfolk

29 Green Bay Nick Barnett

30 San Diego Sammy Davis

31 Oakland Nnamdi Asomugha

32 Oakland Tyler Brayton

I'd give a "hell yes"--Palmer was worth the first pick in that draft!

Here's a link to a site that did a 2003 NFL draft re-do:Link

I don't agree with all of their picks, but they still have Palmer going #1

 

[Warhogs]

Who went after him in the draft that would've been worthy of the #1 in hindsight?

I think the counter-argument is that he might not have performed as well as a quarterback taken with the #1 overall should, not that there was necessarily anyone better available that year.

Still, but Olajuwan was the #1 pick and had a stellar career. But it wasn't as good as Jordan's. So, I would say who was taken after him in the draft is very relevant.

I agree with fanatic on this one. The way the question is asked is was Palmer worth the #1 overall pick in 2003? If you look at the draft of 2003 and he is still the first person you would take then the answer is yes. If you would take someone else then no.

 

[Big 'N Tasty]

Who went after him in the draft that would've been worthy of the #1 in hindsight? I don't know the answer and don't want to look it up. Is Hakeem Olajuwan in 1984? A truly great player, but MJ was drafted a couple picks later?

2003 NFL DRAFT FIRST-ROUND PICKS Pick Team Name

1 Cincinnati Carson Palmer

2 Detroit Charles Rogers

3 Houston Andre Johnson

4 New York Dewayne Robertson

5 Dallas Terence Newman

6 New Orleans Johnathan Sullivan

7 Jacksonville Byron Leftwich

8 Carolina Jordan Gross

9 Minnesota Kevin Williams

10 Baltimore Terrell Suggs

11 Seattle Marcus Trufant

12 St. Louis Jimmy Kennedy

13 New England Ty Warren

14 Chicago Michael Haynes

15 Philadelphia Jerome McDougle

16 Pittsburgh Troy Polamalu

17 Arizona Bryant Johnson

18 Arizona Calvin Pace

19 Baltimore Kyle Boller

20 Denver George Foster

21 Cleveland Jeff Faine

22 Chicago Rex Grossman

23 Buffalo Willis McGahee

24 Indianapolis Dallas Clark

25 New York William Joseph

26 San Francisco Kwame Harris

27 Kansas City Larry Johnson

28 Tennessee Andre Woolfolk

29 Green Bay Nick Barnett

30 San Diego Sammy Davis

31 Oakland Nnamdi Asomugha

32 Oakland Tyler Brayton

I'd give a "hell yes"--Palmer was worth the first pick in that draft!

I have no data to back this up but this has to be the worst pair of first round picks in the same year by the same team in the history of sports. As a Bears fan I was doing a good job of forgetting about this.

 

[Chairshot]

This was kinda glossed over earlier (ETA: looks like others have made sure it wasn't glossed over by the time I got this post done ) , but to me, if you don't think he is justified as a number one pick that year, you have to look and see who else could have been that number one pick and argue that one of them should have been chosen over Palmer.

There have been 9 other players from the 2003 draft that have made at least 2 Pro Bowls (I know PBs aren't everything, just a quick and dirty way to look at it):

Troy Polamalu - 4

Jason Witten - 4

Kevin Williams - 3

Lance Briggs - 3

Larry Johnson - 2

Anquan Boldin - 2

Andre Johnson - 2

Osi Umenyiora - 2

Terrell Suggs - 2

So, to me, the question is: would I rather have any of these players over Palmer, thus far in their careers? I don't think so, though it's probably close on a couple of those players.

It's worth noting that by pretty much any measure, Palmer is the best QB from that draft (highlights from the other QBs taken are Byron Leftwich, Kyle Boller, Chris Simms, Rex Grossman, Seneca Wallace and Brooks Bollinger), so if you are asking if he was worth it based on being the best player from that draft who also plays the most difficult and important position in football, they the answer is probably a resounding yes, no matter how you cut it.

To me, it doesn't matter how long he plays, in order for the pick to be justified, he just has to outplay all the other options from that draft. If he has been the best player from the draft so far (which he might be, depending on what you like), then he is justified as the first overall pick in that draft, in my eyes.

 

[TheFanatic]

This was kinda glossed over earlier (ETA: looks like others have made sure it wasn't glossed over by the time I got this post done ) , but to me, if you don't think he is justified as a number one pick that year, you have to look and see who else could have been that number one pick and argue that one of them should have been chosen over Palmer.There have been 9 other players from the 2003 draft that have made at least 2 Pro Bowls (I know PBs aren't everything, just a quick and dirty way to look at it):Troy Polamalu - 4Jason Witten - 4Kevin Williams - 3Lance Briggs - 3Larry Johnson - 2Anquan Boldin - 2Andre Johnson - 2Osi Umenyiora - 2Terrell Suggs - 2So, to me, the question is: would I rather have any of these players over Palmer, thus far in their careers? I don't think so, though it's probably close on a couple of those players.It's worth noting that by pretty much any measure, Palmer is the best QB from that draft (highlights from the other QBs taken are Byron Leftwich, Kyle Boller, Chris Simms, Rex Grossman, Seneca Wallace and Brooks Bollinger), so if you are asking if he was worth it based on being the best player from that draft who also plays the most difficult and important position in football, they the answer is probably a resounding yes, no matter how you cut it.To me, it doesn't matter how long he plays, in order for the pick to be justified, he just has to outplay all the other options from that draft. If he has been the best player from the draft so far (which he might be, depending on what you like), then he is justified as the first overall pick in that draft, in my eyes.

 

[FUBAR]

Who went after him in the draft that would've been worthy of the #1 in hindsight? I don't know the answer and don't want to look it up. Is Hakeem Olajuwan in 1984? A truly great player, but MJ was drafted a couple picks later?

2003 NFL DRAFT FIRST-ROUND PICKS Pick Team Name

1 Cincinnati Carson Palmer

2 Detroit Charles Rogers

3 Houston Andre Johnson

4 New York Dewayne Robertson

5 Dallas Terence Newman

6 New Orleans Johnathan Sullivan

7 Jacksonville Byron Leftwich

8 Carolina Jordan Gross

9 Minnesota Kevin Williams

10 Baltimore Terrell Suggs

11 Seattle Marcus Trufant

12 St. Louis Jimmy Kennedy

13 New England Ty Warren

14 Chicago Michael Haynes

15 Philadelphia Jerome McDougle

16 Pittsburgh Troy Polamalu

17 Arizona Bryant Johnson

18 Arizona Calvin Pace

19 Baltimore Kyle Boller

20 Denver George Foster

21 Cleveland Jeff Faine

22 Chicago Rex Grossman

23 Buffalo Willis McGahee

24 Indianapolis Dallas Clark

25 New York William Joseph

26 San Francisco Kwame Harris

27 Kansas City Larry Johnson

28 Tennessee Andre Woolfolk

29 Green Bay Nick Barnett

30 San Diego Sammy Davis

31 Oakland Nnamdi Asomugha

32 Oakland Tyler Brayton

I'd give a "hell yes"--Palmer was worth the first pick in that draft!

Here's a link to a site that did a 2003 NFL draft re-do:Link

I don't agree with all of their picks, but they still have Palmer going #1

Newman, Kevin Williams, Suggs and maybe AJ are the only guys from the early 1st even close to Palmer.I'm pretty sure I'd take Palmer first, even with the benefit of hindsight. And frankly, I'm no fan of the guy.

FWIW, I HATE these articles where a writer says a team should have taken undrafted FAs in the first 6 picks, even if they are Romo and Gates.

 

[49erBamBam52]

I'm not trying to hijack this thread but I have to chime in on the references to Alex Smith never being able to justify being the #1 pick.I understand that it is hard to fathom today but if 10 years from now Smith is a multi time league MVP and has 3 rings including SB MVP honors it will be pretty tough to defend the argument that he shouldn't have been a #1 pick.The thing that makes this such a difficult discussion is that it typically takes QB's a few seasons to develop. Anyone drafted #1 overall is going to a team with serious problems which makes it even more difficult to adjust to the pro game. It's easy to look at a guy like Big Ben and feel like #1 picks should be able to have the same success but that is just unrealistic. I think Alex Smith is a completely different QB in Ben's situation. On another note, Smith's situation makes it clear that you have to compare the #1 pick to the rest of his draft class. It is unfair to compare former #1 picks against each other. If Smith is in the draft in 04 or 06 there is no way he's the #1 pick. having said that, it's too easy to look back and say they should have taken Braylon Edwards or Shawne Merriman. The best player in the draft doesn't always go #1, in that case Tom Brady would be in Cleveland. Knowing what the 49ers knew at the time and given their situation would you have done anything differently? And don't say trade the pick. No one wanted it. Using that same methodology would you have made a different pick if you were the Bengals in 2003?

EXACTLY... not posting as a niner fan here, just posting as a football fan...after looking over the list, there is noone on that list (posted above) that is even close to being worthy of #1 overall except Carson. LJ is the next closest having now seen their careers over the last 4 years.(now im posting as a niner fan)i cannot begin to address how pissed i have been over the last few years that the NFL draft class as a whole was so poor, and that Alex was the only choice...That bieng said, Alex does get a bad rap... a real bad one. but you've all heard it before, and im not going to drone on about why, becuase most of you have made your minds up about him allready and nothing i say can or will change your minds...i just have to say though, that i still have hope for him. BAM

 

[Gatorman]

For all of you talking about smith in reaction to what I said of Smith: I was just using him to illustrate how bad chases argument was. He may stil develop, but to talk about palmer as anything less than a good #1 pick just because he hasn't logged the miles is foolish.

The fact that it was chase is more amusing b/c f how much he has pimped guys like testeverde just b/c of heir longevity (HOF discussion anyone)

 

[Chase Stuart]

For all of you talking about smith in reaction to what I said of Smith: I was just using him to illustrate how bad chases argument was. He may stil develop, but to talk about palmer as anything less than a good #1 pick just because he hasn't logged the miles is foolish.

The fact that it was chase is more amusing b/c f how much he has pimped guys like testeverde just b/c of heir longevity (HOF discussion anyone)

I'm getting more and more confused when I read your posts. I still don't know why you brought up Alex Smith.I didn't say Palmer wasn't a good #1 pick; he's been a very good#1 pick. We just don't know if he'll end up as a good #1 pick. I don't understand what's difficult about this. It's got nothing to do with talent and everything to do with career length. I don't see the need to rush to judgment.

As for Testaverde, HOF worthy he's not, but I did rank him as the 52nd best QB of all time.

 

[Gatorman]

I'm getting more and more confused when I read your posts. I still don't know why you brought up Alex Smith.

I didn't say Palmer wasn't a good #1 pick; he's been a very good#1 pick. We just don't know if he'll end up as a good #1 pick. I don't understand what's difficult about this. It's got nothing to do with talent and everything to do with career length. I don't see the need to rush to judgment.

As for Testaverde, HOF worthy he's not, but I did rank him as the 52nd best QB of all time.

I do not think that it is so difficult. At this point he is a good #1 pick for various reasons.You use the argument that he hasn't been around long enough to see if he "ends up" as one, well, let us look at it...

Who in that draft could end up being the "better" #1 pick? Look at the "redraft" article and tell me who in that group could possibly beat him out in another 5 years (or 10). This pretty much ends the argument right there, but I'll humor you with the longevity issue.

I look it almost like grading periods. He has gotten no worse than an A grade for his first 4 years, so he is going to need 4 years of F's just to be considered an "average pick". That is not likely. I think the career length thing only becomes a factor when a QB takes a long time to develop or stars his career really slow (again, Alex smith). If the QB comes out of the gate like Palmer, then there should be no argument, unless he destroys his career (ala vick) or quits suddenly (ala ricky williams).

As for "rush to judgement", 4 years ain't a rush to judgement, considering we judge RBs within 2 years, WRs within 3, and Linemen within 2 as to whetehr they are busts or finds.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm getting more and more confused when I read your posts. I still don't know why you brought up Alex Smith.

I didn't say Palmer wasn't a good #1 pick; he's been a very good#1 pick. We just don't know if he'll end up as a good #1 pick. I don't understand what's difficult about this. It's got nothing to do with talent and everything to do with career length. I don't see the need to rush to judgment.

As for Testaverde, HOF worthy he's not, but I did rank him as the 52nd best QB of all time.

I do not think that it is so difficult. At this point he is a good #1 pick for various reasons.You use the argument that he hasn't been around long enough to see if he "ends up" as one, well, let us look at it...

Who in that draft could end up being the "better" #1 pick? Look at the "redraft" article and tell me who in that group could possibly beat him out in another 5 years (or 10). This pretty much ends the argument right there, but I'll humor you with the longevity issue.

I look it almost like grading periods. He has gotten no worse than an A grade for his first 4 years, so he is going to need 4 years of F's just to be considered an "average pick". That is not likely. I think the career length thing only becomes a factor when a QB takes a long time to develop or stars his career really slow (again, Alex smith). If the QB comes out of the gate like Palmer, then there should be no argument, unless he destroys his career (ala vick) or quits suddenly (ala ricky williams).

As for "rush to judgement", 4 years ain't a rush to judgement, considering we judge RBs within 2 years, WRs within 3, and Linemen within 2 as to whetehr they are busts or finds.

I agree Palmer has an A grade so far. I don't agree that it's so far fetched to assume that in 20 years, we'll look back on Palmer's career and say "meh". Drew Bledsoe started out his career really well too, but I don't think much of him. He's not a bust, but he's not an elite QB.

I agree with you that Palmer is more likely than not going to end up as a favorable pick. But that's not inconsistent with what I've been saying all along.

 

[oddball]

Considering the alternatives, and what cincy needed, I think Carson was worth it.

 

[Getinthemix]

Chase, at what point is it OK to effectively rank players from a draft? 5 years? 10 years? 25 years?

I think the "if he gets hit by a bus" schtick is a little ridiculous. You have to take a player for what he is. Look at Sayers. Based on the bus stuff, he was terrible, as he did not perform for a long enough period of time.

 

[RUSF18]

Am I the only one that realizes that Chase and everyone else are arguing two completely different topics?

One side is saying (overwhelmingly) that Carson was the right guy to pick #1 in that draft.

One side (Chase) saying that you can't make an evaluation on a #1 pick after four seasons.

Those aren't opposing viewpoints.

 

[bcr8f]

Who went after him in the draft that would've been worthy of the #1 in hindsight?

I think the counter-argument is that he might not have performed as well as a quarterback taken with the #1 overall should, not that there was necessarily anyone better available that year.

He performed great until his knee was taken out in the Steelers game.

 

[valhallan]

Am I the only one that realizes that Chase and everyone else are arguing two completely different topics?One side is saying (overwhelmingly) that Carson was the right guy to pick #1 in that draft.One side (Chase) saying that you can't make an evaluation on a #1 pick after four seasons.Those aren't opposing viewpoints.

Yeah, but unfortunately I didn't phrase the original poll correctly and the thread has taken on a life of its own.

 

[Manster]

yes he was. he is a GREAT QB on an a crappy team. thread over.