Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

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

Icege

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

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, stbugs said:

We really did get unlucky.

Yeah. There are so many variables. A 63 yard FG had as much to do with it as beating the Saints.

 

And the SOS is a maze of crap really. They should use the same tiebreakers they use for standings. SOS can figure in if more sensible comparisons are exhausted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


5 hours ago, raz said:

anyone that thinks picking at 16 is better than picking at 9 is an idiot.   i mean holy god.   how are our school systems this bad.  it doesn't matter how you try to explain it.  you're an idiot

Don't think anybody is saying that picking 16 is better than picking at 9, just that, because of the uncertainties of the draft process, the gap isn't nearly what some here seem to think. It's just too hard to judge what college players are going to do in the pros. Lots of can't-miss prospects miss badly. Bust rate is 50% throughout the 1st round.

So, tell me, if draft position is so important, why did none of the non-playoff teams tank  in the 17th week? Panthers didn't Falcons didn't, cost them both 7 or so draft slots.

Lions didn't, Giants didn't, Bucs didn't, Cards didn't, Browns didn't, Bills didn't-some of them didn't win, but they were playing hard.

Miami lost to Buffalo, but they're 2-6 last 8 games in Buffalo, GB lost Rodgers to concussion early, others were playing better teams.

If losing the game makes so much sense, why didn't any team try to lose the last game?

Share this post


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

Yeah. There are so many variables. A 63 yard FG had as much to do with it as beating the Saints.

 

And the SOS is a maze of crap really. They should use the same tiebreakers they use for standings. SOS can figure in if more sensible comparisons are exhausted.

 

SOS makes sense. The standings/playoff tiebreakers are about finding the best teams in a tie. For the draft, it’s about finding the worst teams to put them worst to first. SOS makes sense because one could surmise that an 8-8 team with a .550 SOS is likely better than an 8-8 team with a .450 SOS.

We just got unlucky because 7-9 might have been the worst draft slot to record because of the slew of 6 loss teams and being last in the 4 7-9 teams. Unlucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sasquatch said:

Add up number of wins for each opponent. Since we play division twice, add their total wins twice. Tie counts as a half. Do the same for whichever team with the same record. Lower total picks first. 

Falcons had 4 (2 against the Panthers) Division wins to the Panthers 2.  Both teams played the exact same opponents with the exception of the Packers (6 wins 1 tie) and Cardinals (3 wins) / Lions (6 wins and beat Packers twice) and the Seahawks (10 wins and beat Cardinals/Packers).  So, with that math, the Panthers clearly had the harder SOS and should be picking ahead of the Falcons.  It really makes no sense.  

I haven't looked far enough into the Redskins, but I believe that if the totals were added there, the Panthers have the harder schedule based on playing the Saints twice, Baltimore, Seahawks and Eagles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gucceland said:

Falcons had 4 (2 against the Panthers) Division wins to the Panthers 2.  Both teams played the exact same opponents with the exception of the Packers (6 wins 1 tie) and Cardinals (3 wins) / Lions (6 wins and beat Packers twice) and the Seahawks (10 wins and beat Cardinals/Packers).  So, with that math, the Panthers clearly had the harder SOS and should be picking ahead of the Falcons.  It really makes no sense.  

I haven't looked far enough into the Redskins, but I believe that if the totals were added there, the Panthers have the harder schedule based on playing the Saints twice, Baltimore, Seahawks and Eagles.  

So I just reread the tiebreaker information.  The team that played opponents with the lowest winning percentage get the higher pick????  This makes absolutely no frucking sense???  Why would the team that played the easier schedule get the better draft pick, especially in a senecio where the said team beat the Panthers twice and are ahead of them in the Division!  Complete BS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gucceland said:

So I just reread the tiebreaker information.  The team that played opponents with the lowest winning percentage get the higher pick????  This makes absolutely no frucking sense???  Why would the team that played the easier schedule get the better draft pick, especially in a senecio where the said team beat the Panthers twice and are ahead of them in the Division!  Complete BS

 

Think about this.  

We got 7 wins against a tough schedule. 

Atlanta got 7 wins against a weaker schedule. 

The obvious conclusion is we are better since we did the same  but against a tougher schedule. Weaker teams have priority in the draft. 

Head-to-head is not the answer. For example say you have 3 teams at 7-9 and each team went 1-1 against the other two. Who picks first among the 3?

  • Pie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gucceland said:

Falcons had 4 (2 against the Panthers) Division wins to the Panthers 2.  Both teams played the exact same opponents with the exception of the Packers (6 wins 1 tie) and Cardinals (3 wins) / Lions (6 wins and beat Packers twice) and the Seahawks (10 wins and beat Cardinals/Packers).  So, with that math, the Panthers clearly had the harder SOS and should be picking ahead of the Falcons.  It really makes no sense.  

I haven't looked far enough into the Redskins, but I believe that if the totals were added there, the Panthers have the harder schedule based on playing the Saints twice, Baltimore, Seahawks and Eagles.  

You got it backwards. The Panthers did have the harder strength of schedule. (128 -122). That indicates that the Falcons were the lesser team and get the better draft pick.

YOu have to think opposite of how they determine standings/playoff seeding.

Edited by Sasquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue is the ability to take that 9th pick and trade it back to get to 16 and grab more stuff to fix the team. There in losing provided more options. I can see both sides though. Personally in a lost season I would want the best bang for my buck so logically the loss on paper would give me more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SCMunnerlyn1 said:

My issue is the ability to take that 9th pick and trade it back to get to 16 and grab more stuff to fix the team. There in losing provided more options. I can see both sides though. Personally in a lost season I would want the best bang for my buck so logically the loss on paper would give me more. 

It is what it is and what it is is the 16th pick. What ifs aren't going to change that.

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone seems to think we’re stuck at 16... teams are allowed to move up/down, yes it would’ve been nice to be sitting in the top 10 and not have to give something up to get there but we aren’t stuck at 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SCMunnerlyn1 said:

My issue is the ability to take that 9th pick and trade it back to get to 16 and grab more stuff to fix the team. There in losing provided more options. I can see both sides though. Personally in a lost season I would want the best bang for my buck so logically the loss on paper would give me more. 

Again, if the the earlier picks are so valuable, why didn't any of the non-playoff teams try to lose the last game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, falconidae said:

Again, if the the earlier picks are so valuable, why didn't any of the non-playoff teams try to lose the last game?

Can't answer for other teams. Is just my opinion. I'd rather start at 9 and go back to 16 by way of trade to get more picks if i had a team with a lot of aging players.  Lets say for example if everybody has their original picks and im trading with the 16 slot. Ill swap my 1,3,5 for your 1,3,4. Its nothing crazy but a team that really wants that pick may be willing to do all kinds of things far more extreme than that. The higher the picks you have the more options you have. If a player starts slipping for instance a MLB (we obviously have a great one) 16 slot may say oh hell no slot 10 needs one too andgod damn it i want that one..boom thats when you take a team to the woodshed. 

Edited by SCMunnerlyn1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 12:42 PM, Icege said:

Throughout the final game of the season, a thorough shallacking of the division rival (and champion) Saints, many Huddlers bemoaned the impending victory. Ron Rivera's intelligence was questioned (albeit not exclusively due to this game), fans threw their hands up in despair, and everything came down to whether or not David Tepper would mirror their emotional instability. Not being able to pick at #9, the highest possible position the team could have selected from after week 17, but instead at #16 meant that the team was doomed to miss out on a top tier prospect.

Nevermind that the draft is a crapshoot and that the team is far and away from one player making the difference between a Super Bowl and another losing season. Let's analyze that sentiment. First and foremost, these same users have made it abundantly clear that a draft class is a complete and total failure without at least 3 "successful" picks. I think that seeing that number on paper, even the most belligerent would be willing to admit that just getting two players out of the draft would be great. With the first two rounds being the "easiest" to nail a pick in, let us look at the draft results from the last ten years.

The tables below shows the players selected at #9, #16, #40, and #47 as these are where Carolina is picking as well as would have picked should the team had lost on Sunday. Also included are the Panthers 1st and 2nd round picks.
 

Year #9 #16
2018 Mike McGlinchey, OT, Notre Dame (SF) Tremaine Edmunds, LB, Virginia Tech (BUF)
2017 John Ross, WR, Washington (CIN) Marlon Humphrey, CB, Alabama (BAL)
2016 Leonard Floyd, EDGE, UGA (CHI) Taylor Decker, OT, Ohio St (DET)
2015 Ereck Flowers, OT, Miami (NYG) Kevin Johnson, CB, Wake Forest (HOU)
2014 Anthony Barr, LB, UCLA (MIN) Zack Martin, G, Notre Dame (DAL)
2013 Dee Milliner, CB, Alabama (NYJ) EJ Manuel, QB, Florida St (BUF)
2012 Luke Kuechly, LB, Boston College (CAR) Quinton Coples, DE, North Carolina (NYJ)
2011 Tyron Smith, OT, USC (DAL) Ryan Kerrigan, DE, Purdue (WAS)
2010 CJ Spiller, RB, Clemson (BUF) Derrick Morgan, DE, Georgia Tech (TEN)
2009 BJ Raji, DT, Boston College (GB) Larry English, DE, NIU (SD)
     
Year #40 #47
2018 Courtland Sutton, WR, SMU (DEN) Christian Kirk, WR, Texas A&M (ARI)
2017 Curtis Samuel, WR, Ohio St (CAR) Tyus Bowser, LB, Houston (BAL)
2016 Sterling Shepard, WR, Oklahoma (NYG) Michael Thomas, WR, Ohio St (NO)
2015 Dorial Green-Beckham, WR, Missouri (TEN) Eric Rowe, CB, Utah (PHI)
2014 Kyle Van Noy, LB, BYU (DET) Trent Murphy, LB, Stanford (WAS)
2013 Tank Carradine, DE, Florida St (SF) Kiko Alonso, LB, Oregon (BUF)
2012 Amini Silatolu, G, Midwestern St (CAR) Bobby Wagner, LB, Utah St (SEA)
2011 Bruce Carter, LB, North Carolina (DAL) Lance Kendricks, TE, Wisconsin (STL)
2010 Koa Misi, DE, Utah (MIA) Daryl Washington, LB, TCU, ARI
2009 Ron Bace, DT, Boston College (NE) Mike Mitchell, S, Ohio (OAK)
     
Year Carolina 1st Carolina 2nd
2018 DJ Moore (#24) Donte Jackson (#55)
2017 Christian McCaffrey (#8) Curtis Samuel (#40), Taylor Moton (#64)
2016 Vernon Butler (#30) James Bradberry (#62)
2015 Shaq Thompson (#26) Devin Funchess (#41)
2014 Kelvin Benjamin (#28) Kony Ealy (#60)
2013 Star Lotulelei (#14) Kawann Short (#44)
2012 Luke Kuechly (#9) Amini Silatolu (#40)
2011 Cam Newton (#1) None
2010 None Jimmy Clausen (#48)
2009 None Everette Brown (#43), Sherrod Martin (#59)

Looking at the first round, #9 and #16 are tied at 6-6. In the 2nd round, #40 & #47, #47 has been far and away much more successful of a spot to pick at. What I also find interesting is the breakdown in Carolina's draft picks. Looking at Gettleman's picks, his busts still produced at some level (with the exception of Vernon Butler). Hurney's picks, on the other hand, are feast or famine. We either get the greatness of Cam and Luke, or we get the likes of Jimmy Clausen, Everette Brown, and Sherrod Martin with our 2nd round picks because we've traded away the first rounders for the likes of Jeff Otah and the aforementioned Everette Brown. While Kony Ealy busted despite an MVP-esque Super Bowl and Funchess has never played to his size, Bradberry, KK (with the exception of this past season), Samuel, and Moton have all been great picks. Hurney did knock it out of the park with Donte Jackson, but that 4 year run of Silatolu, Clausen, Brown, and Martin make me want to vomit.

To note, the first pick of the 3rd round (#65) in 2011 for the Panthers was Terrell McClain, Igo's Pro Bowler prediction. You can add him to the list of Hurney second selection busts.

TLDR; 
1) Hurney is either going to pick somebody amazing or somebody that will have Gettleman haters wishing for the return of the fupa. 
2) 9th vs 16th doesn't matter while picking 47th in the last decade has worked out better than those picking at #40.
3) Huddlers that were belittling other fans for wanting to win were the real losers on Sunday.

You get pie for the thought put out in this post, the structure and the TLDR section.

 

However, your sample makes an assumption about the whole and it is erroneous.  Are you generally willing to stake your claim that later picks are better ones? Or, for a lesser position, that the difference is not significant enough to really be important?  Because I think that is a tough sell.

There may be an argument that teams picking later pick better because they have better management... a causal relationship.  However, the idea that there is no difference between the #9 and #16 pick, in any round, is in too much of a vacuum. 

In the end, meaningless games are meaningless.

Earlier picks are worth more.

Better players go earlier.

and...

Opinions are tough to change.

Edited by Lasus83.
  • Pie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, I believe in finding truth above winning an argument.  I did a quick google search of 'scatter plot of pro-bowlers vs. pick position' and quickly stumbled upon the below:

Link - https://www.derp/2018/5/16/17359772/what-draft-position-tells-us-finding-pro-bowlers-regular-contributors

I remain open to being convinced, though, that the game had any real meaning.  Our 'collateral' to move up was reduced in the devaluation of our picks. That is, it is clear that picks in the top 100 are of significance.  We now have less ability to achieve the maximum number of selections in that range.

2018_05.16_Contributors.jpg

Edited by Lasus83.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...