Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Icege

Changing the Narrative, Vol. 1: #9 vs. #16

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, stbugs said:

I’ll give you an example. In 2017, do you think Baltimore would rather have Marshon Lattimore or Marlon Humphrey? They could have had Lattimore at 9 and not at 16. Just because Cincy made a terrible pick at 9, doesn’t mean the 9th pick in 2017 wasn’t a better pick than 16. This is a silly argument. Pick 9 is way better than 16, just look at all the talent from 10-15 and realize that they were also available at 9. We picked Kuechly at 9 and CMC at 8, neither would have been there at 16, simple as that. Maybe if those were another team’s picks they would go elsewhere but it still doesn’t mean they weren’t better talent pools at 8/9.

Of course we can still make a great pick at 16 and I hope we do, but I’d rather have 9 because there will be a higher bust % as the picks get higher and making a great pick at 16 is harder. That’s a historical fact as well.

All that said, I also know NO clearly tanked and there was no way that if we played with effort that we would lose. Bridgewater was way worse than we gave him credit for and Brees carries that offense. Sucks that we won and we happened to get unlucky with tiebreaks because I’d rather pick 9th than 16th. 

Again, the positioning, while it does increase the likelihood of getting the most preferred player, does not guarantee that the pick is a successful one. Jamarcus Russell was the preferred pick for OAK at #1, and we saw how that worked out. The idea that the team and fans were stupid for wanting to win on Sunday, which was expressed ad nauseum by many Huddlers, is flawed because it is based entirely on the premise that getting an earlier pick guarantees a successful prospect.

#9 to #16 just 7 players out of the 200+ being drafted. If the team had traded away their first round pick like they had before, I could definitely be more understanding of picking at #40 instead of 47.

But 16th instead of 9th? The last decade shows that just isn't as much of an issue as it seems on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


4 minutes ago, Icege said:

Due to the lottery-esque nature of the draft and GMs making bad picks is exactly why it isn't as crucial as the chicken littles were making it out to be. Me being able to pick my lottery ticket before somebody else, while it gives me a better shot at getting the ticket that I want, does not guarantee a winning ticket. Obviously we have more information when it comes to draft prospects, but as we have seen that does not guarantee that the pick will be a successful one.

There are other players from those ranges btw under the Panthers selections.

Each individual pick is a lottery, but the draft isn’t a lottery. Stop using “guarantee” to justify saying that pick 16 is just as good as 9. See my example above. John Ross was a loser pick at 9, but Baltimore’s pick at 16 really wasn’t a better pick to have.

You use Ross, but pick 10 was Mahomes, 11 was Lattimore, 12 was Watson, 14 was Barnett and 15 was Hooker. All of them are better than Humphrey at 16 and some of them would have changed Cincinnati’s football team for years. Your cherry picked list completely ignores the talent pool from 10-15 that wasn’t there at 16. I’d hope it’s obvious just in this one year that Cincy sucks at drafting and their pick 9 was way more valuable that Baltimore’s pick at 16.

Take Luke’s year. Between him and Coples was also Stefon Gilmore, Fletcher Cox, Michael Brockers and Bruce Irvin. Pick 9 compared to pick 16 is subjective. Pick 9-15 versus 16 shows the tru difference in value. In both years (I didn’t look at any others), I found high value, multi year game changers/pro-bowlers between 9 and 16. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Icege said:

Again, the positioning, while it does increase the likelihood of getting the most preferred player, does not guarantee that the pick is a successful one. Jamarcus Russell was the preferred pick for OAK at #1, and we saw how that worked out. The idea that the team and fans were stupid for wanting to win on Sunday, which was expressed ad nauseum by many Huddlers, is flawed because it is based entirely on the premise that getting an earlier pick guarantees a successful prospect.

#9 to #16 just 7 players out of the 200+ being drafted. If the team had traded away their first round pick like they had before, I could definitely be more understanding of picking at #40 instead of 47.

But 16th instead of 9th? The last decade shows that just isn't as much of an issue as it seems on paper.

See my post above. Your comparison is flawed and missing a lot of talent available at 9 and not at 16. Guarantee is meaningless, there are bad picks, but I’d rather have Luke or CMC than Star (our closest to 16th recently). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevermind the draft is a crap shot. Nevermind that there are more busts in the top 10 than the next 10. 

Nevermind all the facts, picking higher is always better!!!

9 comes before 16 idiots!!!!!

 

Lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Nevermind the draft is a crap shot. Nevermind that there are more busts in the top 10 than the next 10. 

Nevermind all the facts, picking higher is always better!!!

9 comes before 16 idiots!!!!!

 

Lmao

Yep. If we pick the right player at 16, no worries. That said, it’s far more likely there will be 2-3 guys from 9-15 that we’d rather have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Each individual pick is a lottery, but the draft isn’t a lottery. Stop using “guarantee” to justify saying that pick 16 is just as good as 9. See my example above. John Ross was a loser pick at 9, but Baltimore’s pick at 16 really wasn’t a better pick to have.

You use Ross, but pick 10 was Mahomes, 11 was Lattimore, 12 was Watson, 14 was Barnett and 15 was Hooker. All of them are better than Humphrey at 16 and some of them would have changed Cincinnati’s football team for years. Your cherry picked list completely ignores the talent pool from 10-15 that wasn’t there at 16. I’d hope it’s obvious just in this one year that Cincy sucks at drafting and their pick 9 was way more valuable that Baltimore’s pick at 16.

Take Luke’s year. Between him and Coples was also Stefon Gilmore, Fletcher Cox, Michael Brockers and Bruce Irvin. Pick 9 compared to pick 16 is subjective. Pick 9-15 versus 16 shows the tru difference in value. In both years (I didn’t look at any others), I found high value, multi year game changers/pro-bowlers between 9 and 16. 

The irony of you calling this a cherry picked list while admitting to cherry picking yourself is not lost on me, and I hope that it isn't on you as well. I understand the mindset that you're advocating, I do. Better chance at getting a guy that the team loves, but is 7 selections the difference between a player being an impact? Was Haason Reddick (#13) a better pick than OJ Howard (#19)? TJ Watt (#30)? Budda Baker (#36)? Does anybody here really rage out when they have to pick #9 in their fantasy league instead of #2? There is still high quality talent available. Hell, I snagged CMC in the 2nd and got teased for being a homer buuuuuut that man balled tf out. Having a higher pick just means that the team has a better chance that they get the player that they want rather than the player that they need. That's why it was absolutely ridiculous for folks to sob over a W.

In regards to the latest post you made (we're playing a game of reply ladder here trying to catch up with one another lol), would you also rather have John Ross, Ereck Flowers, and Dee Milliner than Zack Martin, Ryan Kerrigan, and Derrick Morgan? I would argue that the latter three have been mainstays on their respective teams. Also, we are talking about more than just the first round. Human error must absolutely be accounted for. Hell, that Kuechly pick you just referenced, don't you recall how PISSED people here were that we didn't select Coples instead? It was insanity. Now, he's the best mike LB in football. When was the next LB taken? Depending on who you're talking to, Bruce Irvin at #15 and Melvin Ingram at #18 though both could be argued to be edge rushers rather than 4-3 LBs. The point? He could have still been there at 16.

Would it be nice to pick earlier? Sure. Does it mean that we are going to make the correct pick, that the player we want won't go 1-8, etc? No. Does it mean that we are going to get a corner stone player? No. So, imo, folks that were being belligerent about the whole ordeal were out of pocket.

Won't be able to respond any further until after work, but look forward to reading your response!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making smart picks is always better than draft position but a higher draft spot puts a GM in a better position to make that smart pick by offering more choices. That’s logic. Doesn’t mean the GM will or is smart enough to. And that’s all this data really means. 

I don’t hold Otah against Hurley. He was well worth trading up for. Straight up mauler who pancakes anyone standing in his way. Unfortunately, as with a lot of abnormally huge o linemen, his body just couldn’t hold up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Yep. If we pick the right player at 16, no worries. That said, it’s far more likely there will be 2-3 guys from 9-15 that we’d rather have.

Guess what, we'll still be good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stbugs has a great point. But hopefully there are enough dumb and desperate picks ahead of us that is gives us a shot at getting someone who should have been taken before the 10th pick, but wasn't. There are always dumb picks made, and some that appear smart but weren't when looking back. The worst thing about being that much lower is someone could slip a little and whoever is at 9 will get them before we can.

It is what it is though. We'll do the best we can with a moronic crosseyed mexican and a newspaper columnist calling the shots.

 

Btw, Jerry Rice was taken at 16. Troy Polomalu was also. I'd take that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Icege said:

The irony of you calling this a cherry picked list while admitting to cherry picking yourself is not lost on me, and I hope that it isn't on you as well. I understand the mindset that you're advocating, I do. Better chance at getting a guy that the team loves, but is 7 selections the difference between a player being an impact? Was Haason Reddick (#13) a better pick than OJ Howard (#19)? TJ Watt (#30)? Budda Baker (#36)? Does anybody here really rage out when they have to pick #9 in their fantasy league instead of #2? There is still high quality talent available. Hell, I snagged CMC in the 2nd and got teased for being a homer buuuuuut that man balled tf out. Having a higher pick just means that the team has a better chance that they get the player that they want rather than the player that they need. That's why it was absolutely ridiculous for folks to sob over a W.

In regards to the latest post you made (we're playing a game of reply ladder here trying to catch up with one another lol), would you also rather have John Ross, Ereck Flowers, and Dee Milliner than Zack Martin, Ryan Kerrigan, and Derrick Morgan? I would argue that the latter three have been mainstays on their respective teams. Also, we are talking about more than just the first round. Human error must absolutely be accounted for. Hell, that Kuechly pick you just referenced, don't you recall how PISSED people here were that we didn't select Coples instead? It was insanity. Now, he's the best mike LB in football. When was the next LB taken? Depending on who you're talking to, Bruce Irvin at #15 and Melvin Ingram at #18 though both could be argued to be edge rushers rather than 4-3 LBs. The point? He could have still been there at 16.

Would it be nice to pick earlier? Sure. Does it mean that we are going to make the correct pick, that the player we want won't go 1-8, etc? No. Does it mean that we are going to get a corner stone player? No. So, imo, folks that were being belligerent about the whole ordeal were out of pocket.

Won't be able to respond any further until after work, but look forward to reading your response!

Absolutely we are both cherry picking. First, no chance I would have selected Ross. That had crap written all over it. CMC picked right before, Mahomes, Lattimore and Watson picked in the 3 picks behind him. That’s one of those lots of great talent and Cincy just bungled it.

When you are cherry picking for Reddick, did you notice that you jumped from 19 to 30 to 36? When I looked at 9-15 I found Fletcher Cox and Pat Mahomes both at 10. One great #9 in Luke one shitty #9 in Ross but two great #10s both way better than Howard, Baker and Watt. My cherry picking was easy. Yours skipped 14-18, 20-29 and 31-35 so you found three good examples for people who could have gone 16 out of 21. That’s real cherry picking. My cherry picking was leaving out a couple people from 9-15 but showing that most were good to studs, wat better than Howard, Baker and Watt. They are good but CMC, Luke, Cox, Mahomes, Lattimore and Watson are team changers and all of them were 8-15 in only two years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the win Sunday, I was disappointed in fans wanting a loss and was hated on for taking the POV that a few draft spots doesn’t make a big difference.

This fanbase is divided between the true fans who know football and the sorry band wagoners from 2015. 

People get so gung-ho about draft position, when every selection is like rolling a dice at the casino. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, stratocatter said:

stbugs has a great point. But hopefully there are enough dumb and desperate picks ahead of us that is gives us a shot at getting someone who should have been taken before the 10th pick, but wasn't. There are always dumb picks made, and some that appear smart but weren't when looking back. The worst thing about being that much lower is someone could slip a little and whoever is at 9 will get them before we can.

It is what it is though. We'll do the best we can with a moronic crosseyed mexican and a newspaper columnist calling the shots.

 

Btw, Jerry Rice was taken at 16. Troy Polomalu was also. I'd take that.

Tons of examples and honestly the examples started to make me feel better until I looked at two drafts and the 9-15 players had so many good players that it made me sad again.

We really did get unlucky. 6-10 got us pick 9, 7-9 got us 16 and 8-8 got us 17. The 7-9 drop was our worst case. You don’t normally drop that far. Falcons got hit with the same. Their game winning FG dropped them from 7 to 14. We can laugh at them way more. Their 3 game winning streak basically took them from pick 2 to pick 14. Lots of comfort in that. Instead of facing Jarrett and Quinnen for years, they’ll pick Hassan Reddick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Porn Shop Clerk said:

Silotolu set us back big time.

 

He's the gift that keeps on giving, thanks Ron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moneyman321 said:

After the win Sunday, I was disappointed in fans wanting a loss and was hated on for taking the POV that a few draft spots doesn’t make a big difference.

This fanbase is divided between the true fans who know football and the sorry band wagoners from 2015. 

People get so gung-ho about draft position, when every selection is like rolling a dice at the casino. 

Lol. Not every selection is rolling the dice. It’s like trying to win the NBA lottery. You aren’t guaranteed the top spot, but I’d rather have a 25% chance to hit than a 1%. If every selection was rolling the dice then there’d be way more Tom Brady’s instead of just 1. Jerry Rice, Randy Moss, Cam Jordan, Emmitt Smith, Aaron Rodgers, etc. were all available at 16, but they were all also still first rounders. It’s not a crap shoot. It’s a chance with worse odds every pick you go down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...