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

52 minutes ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

This isn't the NBA.  So much easier to tank with 5 guys than 22. Furthermore the talent drop off from 1-5 in the NBA draft is much worse than the NFL.  As the opening post indicated that between 9 and 16 you can get a player of equal or greater talent at 16 as you can at 9.  Once again as the OP indicated, over the past 12 years you have had better talent at 16 as you did 9.  6 each way or 50% of the time.  Obviously you have a couple more players to choose from but when the talking heads say Sweat will fall to 15 or 16 that isn't a bad choice.

Comparing Derwin James to DJ Moore is a bad example because they are totally different positions.   You also have far too many veterans at the WR position that would be Pro Bowlers over a rookie regardless of how good a season he had. You could also argue that had our coaching staff used Moore from day one he would have been in the conversation.  

It also should be noted that the 76ers tanked for years before they got good.  As a GM and HC you wouldn't have a job if you did it over a course of many years in the NFL.  You can use the Browns as a prime example.  How many coaches have they had while tanking for a draft pick?

Lastly because I feel tanking is not the way to go in the NFL doesn't mean it's a dumb debate because you feel it is a viable move. 

I had my response typed with literally all of this only to see that you already mentioned all of the points I was going to make (quality will be there at 16, NBA roster size vs. NFL roster size, NBA bust rate vs. NFL bust rate, would the rather have James than Moore, length of careers in the NBA vs. NFL).

To show my appreciation, here's a taco: :Taco_Emoji_42x42: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Icege said:

I had my response typed with literally all of this only to see that you already mentioned all of the points I was going to make (quality will be there at 16, NBA roster size vs. NFL roster size, NBA bust rate vs. NFL bust rate, would the rather have James than Moore, length of careers in the NBA vs. NFL).

To show my appreciation, here's a taco: :Taco_Emoji_42x42: 

Not fair to mention taco to a man sitting in the middle of the desert....lol (of course my taco, in my mind doesn't look like that :shades:)

Thanks for the props

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long will this be a topic?? Can we get a timeline when this poo ends??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Sub Zero said:

How long will this be a topic?? Can we get a timeline when this poo ends??

Are you familiar with the concept of the heat death of the universe?

Share this post


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

How long will this be a topic?? Can we get a timeline when this poo ends??

It won't end.  If whoever we pick at 16 doesn't produce from the very first preseason game, the "glad we won that last game crowd" will be thrilled and continue the one line remark throughout next season.  If whoever we pick at 16 sets the NFL on fire, it will be replaced with "glad we won that last game" except it won't be sarcastic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this somewhere else, can't remember. Historically after the top 5, the NFL draft is a crap shoot with basically 50-50 odds of hitting on a player from pick 6-32. The most successful range after the top 5 is actually 10-17 with around 55%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Vol 1”?! This makes me assume there are more volumes of this nonsense to come. This stupid thread does not warrant another post. 

9th pick > 16th pick. End of discussion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2019 at 9:39 AM, Chosen Newton said:

“Vol 1”?! This makes me assume there are more volumes of this nonsense to come. This stupid thread does not warrant another post. 

9th pick > 16th pick. End of discussion 

Uh oh, sounds like somebody doesn't want their echo chamber to be disturbed because they've been listening to mindless narratives such as "YOU HAVE TO LOSE THE LAST GAME SO THAT WE CAN DRAFT A ONCE IN A LIFETIME PLAYER AT #9!" and "MARTY HURNEY BUILT THE 2015 TEAM!"

Stay tuned and we might even challenge other stupid poo some folks believe, such as "THE EARTH IS FLAT!", "VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM!", and "MY SISTER IS A GOOD KISSER!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2019 at 9:39 AM, Chosen Newton said:

 

9th pick > 16th pick. End of discussion 

We all agree 9>16. What the OP showed is that historically there is no difference in talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Icege said:

Uh oh, sounds like somebody doesn't want their echo chamber to be disturbed because they've been listening to mindless narratives such as "YOU HAVE TO LOSE THE LAST GAME SO THAT WE CAN DRAFT A ONCE IN A LIFETIME PLAYER AT #9!" and "MARTY HURNEY BUILT THE 2015 TEAM!"

Stay tuned and we might even challenge other stupid poo some folks believe, such as "THE EARTH IS FLAT!", "VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM!", and "MY SISTER IS A GOOD KISSER!"

You sound butthurt you can’t convince people of your stupid analysis. You say Ross at 9 is equivalent to Humphrey at 16 yet you completely ignore Mahomes Watson and hooker who were picked before the 16th pick and could have been picked at 9 ya numbnut. Maybe you should put some more thought into your posts and making valid points rather than worrying about demeaning your critics *cue mic drop*

Share this post


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

You sound butthurt you can’t convince people of your stupid analysis. You say Ross at 9 is equivalent to Humphrey at 16 yet you completely ignore Mahomes Watson and hooker who were picked before the 16th pick and could have been picked at 9 ya numbnut. Maybe you should put some more thought into your posts and making valid points rather than worrying about demeaning your critics *cue mic drop*

"But they COULD have been picked at 9..." but they weren't, were they? So it doesn't matter. That's like saying Antonio Brown and Kareem Hunt could have been selected at #16 as well. Get all of the fug outta here with that nonsense.

Why would I care if people don't change their minds? Some of y'all still think that Shaq should be gone, that one DE at #9 is going to fix our pass rush, that whoever gets picked at #16 is going to be worthless, or that 53 grown ass men are going to suddenly turn it in so that the higher ups can get an earlier chance to replace them.

Some folks commit hard to being wrong and that's okay, because without losers we can't have winners.

Share this post


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

"But they COULD have been picked at 9..." but they weren't, were they? So it doesn't matter. That's like saying Antonio Brown and Kareem Hunt could have been selected at #16 as well. Get all of the fug outta here with that nonsense.

Why would I care if people don't change their minds? Some of y'all still think that Shaq should be gone, that one DE at #9 is going to fix our pass rush, that whoever gets picked at #16 is going to be worthless, or that 53 grown ass men are going to suddenly turn it in so that the higher ups can get an earlier chance to replace them.

Some folks commit hard to being wrong and that's okay, because without losers we can't have winners.

yes, and i'd like to thank you and the public school system for the win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2019 at 2:21 AM, DaveThePanther2008 said:

First of all, how do you build a winning culture if you ask players to give less than 100%? Regardless of current record and playoff status and against a divisional foe.  What the Saints or any other team does isn't our issue.   You play who is on the field but to outright ask them to tank is counterproductive what you are trying to build within your organization.

Secondly, if we had to "tank" for draft position, to me the only acceptable tanking, it would be for a top 5 pick.  As the OP noted quality players, even better players can be had between 9 and 16.  While they aren't necessarily franchise players they most likely will be solid pros.  I can't speak exactly for the OP but from my take he is trying to show that you are going to get a talented player at 16 as you would 9.  

Just like us teams have holes to fill and a great player could slide well into the 20s because his position doesn't meet any teams top needs. AKA Aaron Rodgers.

For all those that bitch about Hurney and Gettleman,  I will say this. Hurney has nailed every first round pick.  Even when we traded away to get Otah.  He was a solid player until he gave up on football. And in comparison to Gettleman it isn't even close. I will take Hurney's first round pick and believe it will help the team. Gettleman, not so much. If he does as well as he did last year.  I think he'll do ok with 2019 draft.  (though some will bitch about every player drafted).

BOTTOM LINE. YOU DON'T TANK IF YOU ARE TRYING TO BUILD A WINNING CULTURE.  END OF STORY!!!!

 

Dude this team was giving 25% the second half of the season, what is one more game?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zaximus said:

Dude this team was giving 25% the second half of the season, what is one more game?  

To be fair, the last game of the season was won by the backups and back up to back ups.  Not the starters who put on one of the greatest midseason collapses in the history of the NFL.  For the people that wanted us to lose that final game, maybe the key was to keep playing the starters.

Share this post


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

"But they COULD have been picked at 9..." but they weren't, were they? So it doesn't matter. That's like saying Antonio Brown and Kareem Hunt could have been selected at #16 as well. Get all of the fug outta here with that nonsense.

LOL point I’m making, which is surprisingly going way over your head, is that mahomes Watson and hooker did not make it to the 16th pick. Therefore, having the 9th pick gives you the ability to draft those players. DUY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      20,572
    • Most Online
      3,693

    Newest Member
    Hi Five
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      149,388
    • Total Posts
      4,984,691
  • Posts

    • you can if you are absolutely a stupid fuging retarded moron who can just remember the last 12 hours of whatever Fox News told you. His major problem was his support for the Iraq War, but I don't think that's whats got you whining about his kid.   Biden was a longtime member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In 1997, he became the ranking minority member and chaired the committee in January 2001 and from June 2001 to 2003. When Democrats retook control of the Senate after the 2006 elections, Biden again assumed the top spot on the committee.[126] He was generally a liberal internationalist in foreign policy.[75][127] He collaborated effectively with important Republican senators such as Richard Lugar and Jesse Helms and sometimes went against elements of his own party.[126][127] Biden was also co-chairman of the NATO Observer Group in the Senate.[128] A partial list covering this time showed Biden meeting with 150 leaders from nearly 60 countries and international organizations.[129] He held frequent hearings as chairman of the committee, as well as many subcommittee hearings during the three times he chaired the Subcommittee on European Affairs.[75]   Biden gives an opening statement and takes questions at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iraq, 2007 Biden voted against authorization for the Gulf War in 1991,[127] siding with 45 of the 55 Democratic senators; he said the U.S. was bearing almost all the burden in the anti-Iraq coalition.[130] Biden became interested in the Yugoslav Wars after hearing about Serbian abuses during the Croatian War of Independence in 1991.[75] Once the Bosnian War broke out, Biden was among the first to call for the "lift and strike" policy of lifting the arms embargo, training Bosnian Muslims and supporting them with NATO air strikes, and investigating war crimes.[75][126] The George H. W. Bush administration and Clinton administration were both reluctant to implement the policy, fearing Balkan entanglement.[75][127] In April 1993, Biden spent a week in the Balkans and held a tense three-hour meeting with Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević.[131] Biden related that he had told Milošević, "I think you're a damn war criminal and you should be tried as one."[131] Biden wrote an amendment in 1992 to compel the Bush administration to arm the Bosnians, but deferred in 1994 to a somewhat softer stance the Clinton administration preferred, before signing on the following year to a stronger measure sponsored by Bob Dole and Joe Lieberman.[131] The engagement led to a successful NATO peacekeeping effort.[75] Biden has called his role in affecting Balkans policy in the mid-1990s his "proudest moment in public life" related to foreign policy.[127] In 1998, Congressional Quarterly named Biden one of "Twelve Who Made a Difference" for playing a lead role in several foreign policy matters, including NATO enlargement and the successful passage of bills to streamline foreign affairs agencies and punish religious persecution overseas.[132] In 1999, during the Kosovo War, Biden supported the 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,[75] and co-sponsored with John McCain the McCain-Biden Kosovo Resolution, which called on President Clinton to use all necessary force, including ground troops, to confront Milošević over Yugoslav actions in Kosovo.[127][133] In 2016, Biden paid a state visit to Serbia where he met with Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić and expressed his condolences for the civilian victims of the bombing campaign.[134] Biden was a strong supporter of the 2001 war in Afghanistan, saying, "Whatever it takes, we should do it."[135] As head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden said in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security and there was no option but to "eliminate" that threat.[136] In October 2002, he voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, approving the U.S. invasion of Iraq.[127] More significantly, as chair of the committee, he assembled a series of witnesses to testify in favor of the authorization. They gave testimony grossly misrepresenting the intent, history of and status of Saddam and his Sunni government, which was an openly avowed enemy of al-Qaida, and touting Iraq's fictional possession of weapons of mass destruction.[137]   Biden addressing the press after having a meeting with Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in Baghdad, Iraq in 2004 While he eventually became a critic of the war and viewed his vote and role as a "mistake", he did not push for U.S. withdrawal.[127][131] He supported the appropriations to pay for the occupation, but argued repeatedly that the war should be internationalized, that more soldiers were needed, and that the Bush administration should "level with the American people" about the cost and length of the conflict.[126][133] By late 2006, Biden's stance had shifted considerably, and he opposed the troop surge of 2007,[127][131] saying General David Petraeus was "dead, flat wrong" in believing the surge could work.[138] Biden instead advocated dividing Iraq into a loose federation of three ethnic states.[139] In November 2006, Biden and Leslie H. Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, released a comprehensive strategy to end sectarian violence in Iraq.[140] Rather than continuing the present approach or withdrawing, the plan called for "a third way": federalizing Iraq and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis "breathing room" in their own regions.[9]:572–573 In September 2007, a non-binding resolution endorsing such a scheme passed the Senate,[140] but the idea was unfamiliar, had no political constituency, and failed to gain traction.[138] Iraq's political leadership denounced the resolution as de facto partitioning of the country, and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad issued a statement distancing itself from it.[140] In March 2004, Biden secured the brief release of Libyan democracy activist and political prisoner Fathi Eljahmi, after meeting with leader Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli.[141][142] In May 2008, Biden sharply criticized President George W. Bush for his speech to Israel's Knesset, where he suggested some Democrats were acting the way some Western leaders did when they appeased Hitler in the run-up to World War II. Biden said, "This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset ... and make this kind of ridiculous statement ... Since when does this administration think that if you sit down, you have to eliminate the word 'no' from your vocabulary?" He later apologized for using the expletive.[143]
    • There’s a systemic violence problem that needs to be thrown in the trash.
    • this is going to expose hypocrisy on both sides big time.  hell, it already is
  • Masters of PIE !

×
×
  • Create New...