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

[Icege 3,701]

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.

[Porn Shop Clerk 10,040]

Silotolu set us back big time.

 

[SmartyHurney 340]

Whatever logic you have to use to make picking from a smaller pool of talent equivalent or better than a larger one. Silly.

[Sasquatch 711]

During the Dallas game, was anyone thinking we should throw this game to get a better draft choice?

[Icege 3,701]

1 minute ago, SmartyHurney said:

Whatever logic you have to use to make picking from a smaller pool of talent equivalent or better than a larger one. Silly.

You mean observational results?

Ok.

[SmartyHurney 340]

Just now, Icege said:

You mean observational results?

Ok.

I mean clear undisputed logic. You're not being logical, you're looking at narrow slices of data to find pieces that fit your narrative. It's silly.

[SmartyHurney 340]

Check on Pro Bowl and All-Pro players, the rates from pick 7-10 and the rates from 13-16. Do it for the past 30 years.

[tondi 3,004]

Its better to pick higher, otherwise the entire premise of the draft is wrong.  Having said that, the NFL isn't the NBA and there will be plenty of impact players available at both 16 and 47(and later)  we just have to get lucky and find them. 

[Icege 3,701]

9 minutes ago, SmartyHurney said:

I mean clear undisputed logic. You're not being logical, you're looking at narrow slices of data to find pieces that fit your narrative. It's silly.

 

8 minutes ago, SmartyHurney said:

Check on Pro Bowl and All-Pro players, the rates from pick 7-10 and the rates from 13-16. Do it for the past 30 years.

So going back 10 years is not enough of a sample size? It has to go to 30? Why not 20? On top of that, per my original post, what qualifies as a successful draft is nailing on more than one player. One player at #9 or #16 in this coming draft is not going to suddenly fix this team. There are multiple holes on the roster, therefore positioning in other rounds must also be considered. You trying to focus on a limited window, one where two spots weren't available to us based on the results of other games (#7 & #8). If you want to go back and look at all of the All-Pros and Pro Bowlers at #9 compared to #16, go right ahead.

But if you want to ignore facts so that you can continue believing whatever it is that you do, go right ahead. The data is right here though for anybody willing to question whether or not they were talking out of their ass on Sunday.

[stbugs 7,991]

9 minutes ago, Icege said:

You mean observational results?

Ok.

Cherry picking is easy. As @SmartyHurney said which players picked before is irrelevant. At pick  #9, we can pick every single player you listed at #16 and all the players from 10-15 so really for the historical #9s you should list 9-15 because we never picked #9 so those are what those GMs wanted. Same with #40, let’s see 40-46 so we can compare the talent available.

Just because some other GM’s made bad picks doesn’t mean that pick 9 and 40 aren’t better than 16 and 47. I can trade down to both and pick up a mid second.

[Carolina Cajun 5,263]

Main takeaway is that gettleman fuged us hard in the draft from 2014-2016.  Not a single one will get a second contract from us.

[Icege 3,701]

1 minute ago, stbugs said:

Cherry picking is easy. As @SmartyHurney said which players picked before is irrelevant. At pick  #9, we can pick every single player you listed at #16 and all the players from 10-15 so really for the historical #9s you should list 9-15 because we never picked #9 so those are what those GMs wanted. Same with #40, let’s see 40-46 so we can compare the talent available.

Just because some other GM’s made bad picks doesn’t mean that pick 9 and 40 aren’t better than 16 and 47. I can trade down to both and pick up a mid second.

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.

[Shocker 6,183]

So picking #9 is better than picking #16.  Got ya

[stbugs 7,991]

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. 

[Chaos 10,611]

I appreciate the write up and analysis.  I would also argue that a stud pass rusher could do wonders for this team overnight.  You just can’t underestimate the power of pass rush, it makes the existing secondary worlds better immediately.   If a stud DE/DT is there at 16 I’m good with it all of it.

[Icege 3,701]

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.