Jon Snow

2 minutes ago, ProcessBlue2 said:

There was a thread on there from a few years ago and they talk about this place like it’s total hell. 

Well it is. I'm Satan's accountant. 

1 minute ago, strato said:

You could tell I didn’t really do my homework just jumped in with a couple of ideas, good job. 
Drinking tonight so, maybe in the morning. 

 

 

Im sitting in the corner shouting out my unwanted opinions myself. Kung is going to get irritated with me soon. I'm going to go watch the game and reread his original post when I'm sober.

Also you are trying to predict the future but you need to start with a baseline for each draftee with their college career production. Maybe you've already done that or are pulling it from somewhere else. Just throwing thing's out there to consider. 

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Well, it's a function of range drafted. Not so hyperfocused or maybe more so?

I am attempting to define a REASONABLE metric for success based on where a QB was drafted.

So, a 1st round QB SHOULD have much higher expectations than rounds lower, right?

Im not sure expectations should be a factor. Because how do you define something undefinable? Is it based on cost invested? Is it based on draft position? Because we know players are overdrated all the time. This could take NASA to figure out.

1 minute ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

Worst of the defense

14. S Nick Scott: 45.1

15. DL Tershawn Wharton: 43.7

16. DL LaBryan Ray: 42.1

17. CB Jaycee Horn: 41.7

18. OLB Princely Umanmielen: 28.3

Horn's 41.7 mark is the lowest of his season.

Umanmielen's 28.3 mark is the second-lowest for a Panthers defender in 2025.

Also checks out. 

Just now, TheSpecialJuan said:

Worst of the offense

13. RT Taylor Moton: 57.4

14. WR Xavier Legette: 57.4

15. TE Tommy Tremble: 53.3

16. QB Andy Dalton: 42.6

17. RT Yosh Nijman: 42.5

Nijman also filled in after Moton left with a knee injury. He allowed a team-high five pressures and was given a team-low 22.9 pass-blocking grade.

Dalton completed 16 of his 24 throws for 175 yards and an interception. He lost a pair of fumbles as well.

Pretty much what I saw as well. 

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

I guess I would ask, for a QB career, why would that matter based on the variables in the OP?

I would ask that you consider the OP and how you think it relates to your personal opinion of "success." Do these criteria seem reasonable? Is this a fair measure of "QB draft pick based on round drafted" success? If no, what is not fair? What can be added/improved on?

Success means different things to everyone. So much of a qb's success depends on things beyond his control  that you have to find a way to find a way to narrow it down to only things he directly controls. 

2 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Man, you must have worked for tech support before, lol!   I could only imagine you said that out loud in a foreign dialect as you were typing it.

Nah I  have heard that so many times when I've called for tech support I could get a job as one. Thats all they know. 

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

He doesn't at all. He ticks the boxes above him. 

In fact, based on what I have so far, the later rounds have higher "success" than predicted.

But, keep in mind that threshold(rounds 4-7) is 30+ games started OR 5+ year career.

I don't really think that is unfair, though. If we got a 5+ year backup in the 4-7th round, wouldn't you be pumped? How about 30+ starts? Same.

My thresholds could be off. Open to all debate on that.

I think I have the jist of it but im going to think on it for a while and get back to you. Im thinking there has to be a cutoff in league years to separate league draft tendencies in there somewhere. Im a bit to toasted to be analyzing anything at the moment. 

Well that didn't take long. Channeling his inner Andy.

Just now, kungfoodude said:

I don't really account for that because I am making an assumption based on the factors I have included(Accolades, Career Length, Starting Length) that it would largely control for those ups and downs of draft class strength. 

So, if your career was lengthy, that should eliminate class strength. Same with HOF, All Pro, MVP, Pro Bowl, etc. Same with starting length. If you came from a weak or a strong class, time will sort that out.

You would have to take out an outlier like Brady then because he will skew the numbers I would think. 

Have you tried unplugging for a minute then plugging it back in? That usually works for me.

17 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Is this broken down by round?

Lower to higher like the OP?

I am not grading on luck. I am grading based on "Was this QB successful based on round drafted in?"

That's why I am not being super specific because I don't think that will ultimately work. If I say that only QB's that have 3 SB appearances are "successful" I am literally excluding almost all the HOF players at the position. Similarly, if I say that only players with 3+ TD:INT ratio are "successful" I might be eliminating most of the HOF and almost all of the SB Champs. 

 

I am not against any input but it has to scale well across all rounds and be reasonably definable. That is how I came up with the criteria I did.

1. Accolades

2. Longevity 

3. Time as an NFL Starter

This should basically control for a lot of purely stats driven factors.

I say that because, if you aren't successful, you aren't going to garner many of the "accolades." Nor will you be in the league long or be a starter for long. 

That is the basis of what I have so far. 

How do you factor in the strength of the over class and year taken. Those details have some impact. How much of an impact i cannot say. Maybe im not understanding the exercise and should just bow out.

1 minute ago, Chaos said:

Wait, it’s that the panthers franchise or this website? lol 

Either. Both.

2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

FWIW, I am not trying to shut down all this great input, I am just asking for workable solutions to add it to the spreadsheet.

 

Im not sure there are workable solutions. A large factor in a selection is pure luck. And as Basbear just said it really comes down to the team and coaches they are paired with. Im not sure how you factor something like that in.

If this place closes I will have to go into rehab. 

Just now, Khyber53 said:

Dalton was brought in as a veteran to be the mentor to Bryce.

And an emergency back-up if need be. Never meant to really take the reins.

And well, I really think it's time to put Hooker in, set Andy back on the bench and in the film room. Bryce needs more time to heal. Maybe a lot more time.

 

If you think Andy was bad just wait until you see Hooker. Thats if he has even learned enough of the playbook to complete 1 drive much less an entire game.

1 minute ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Yeah I can already see the writing on the wall.  They pick up year 5 to buy themselves more time.  The rationale will be that the year 5 salary is an absolute steal for a franchise QB.  Its the Sam Darnold logic.

Which would have probably worked out better in the ling term had the FO just stuck with it for a little longer. But hindsight is 50/50.

1 minute ago, tukafan21 said:

Keeping Young would be worst than bringing in someone who isn't even as good as him.

Once a 1st overall pick has proven to not be the guy, keeping him around is just asking for trouble, more so than going for a re-set.  Especially as it would mean picking up his 5th year, which in turn means he's probably here for 2 more years.

Sometimes you have to take 1 step backwards to then be able to take 2 steps forward, rather than just staying stuck in the mud.

All you really care about is the Tmac gets his yards. Im not interested in taking a step back. You either improve a situation or you shouldn't be the coach or GM. Im not listening to anyone that can't see past a long ball pass. It takes a hell of a lot more than a big arm to be a great qb in the nfl.

1 minute ago, tukafan21 said:

I didn't say do nothing if we don't draft one in the 1st and I"m not counting on a FA to magically become a franchise QB.

But signing a FA to be our starter for the year and then re-address the next offseason would be FAR better than reaching on the wrong QB in the 1st this offseason.

Feeling we HAVE to find our long term solution just because we need a new QB is how we got into this mess.  We thought Two Gloves would be at worst an average level QB for a few years, that didn't happen, so we went out and traded for Darnold.  That didn't work so we went out and traded for Baker, that didn't work so we went out and traded up to get Bryce.

Our last 4 QB moves were all trying to force a solution, none of them worked out, and we're still trying to find Cam's replacement all these years later.  We'd just have been better off spending a year or two building up the rest of the team and going year to year on FA QB's while doing so.  I get it, it will be frustrating to deal with, but then when you find that actual long term solution, they plug right into an already built out roster and you're ready to contend immediately.

You're not going to find a better starter in FA than Young. Its that simple. You can bring in another reject for "competition" if it makes you feel better but the truth is Young will be starting here next season barring another injury. 

1 minute ago, tukafan21 said:

If you take a QB in the 1st and it doesn't work out, it absolutely sets you back 3-5 years unless you're so bad that you luck into another top pick in a good QB year and can replace them before that time period is up.

Because if that doesn't happen, you end up with that QB as your starer for at least 3 years, even if you then replace them after that time, you generally have a year or two of growth with a new QB too.

So yea, if you take the wrong QB in the 1st round, it's usually going to be a good 5 years before you have a chance to be a contending team again.

And yes, I know that's not a hard rule that always takes place, but in 95% of the bad 1st round QB picks, that's the case.

If he wins the starting job there's no set back. If you are seeking someone to start day 1 and ball out from there then good luck. Doing nothing at qb is not a strategy and counting on a FA reject to magically become a Franchise QB is not a real plan either. They will have to draft another qb if you really want Young replaced at QB1.

6 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

I cant really blame him for smiling while watching Dalton get his ass kicked. I smiled when I saw him smile. lol

Im sure what he was thinking was "see, its not so damn easy to execute this game plan after all".

1 minute ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

We could still get the Bucs backups in week 18 as well.

There's no guarantee they could beat the Bucs backups. 

Just now, tukafan21 said:

Not against it, clearly, seeing as I'm one of the more vocal anti-Bryce guys on here.

But I'm nowhere near saying that I'm "all in" on it at this point, for many reasons.  Mainly because it's way too early to know where we'll be drafting, what QB's will be actually worth 1st round picks, and who might be there once we're on the clock.

If there is a QB that makes sense, then yes, 100% I'm in.

But reaching and taking the wrong QB will set us back another 5 years.  We're not a piece or two away from contending, but I do think we have a lot of nice building blocks in place that if we go about things the right way the next few offseasons, we have a real shot at being relevant again this decade.

It would not set us back 5 years when it would only cost 1 draft pick. Now if they try to trade up again I will be all for burning BOA to the ground.