Reviewing recent Gettleman draft picks & their grades

[KendrickPanther]

We have to see who leaves in FA. But It feels like we could have more depth than usual if certain players resign. Guys like Amini Silatolu, Mike Remmers, and Fernando Velasco could all be in or out. Chris Scott is a free agent as well. 3 backups and 1 starter up for Free Agency on the oline... I don't mind late round draft picks. They don't feel like a waste the way it does when you move up for a bust.

[CPantherKing]

53 roster spots to fill. I would much rather have a majority of the roster drafted/traded players than free agents (30+, overpriced, bottom of barrel, off the street). Five draft picks per season will not get that done and it is not healthy for the longevity of a teams talent level.

Personally, I would stock pile 10 to 12 3rd to 5th round draft picks per year and pick and choose the players to invest the time in for the future of the team. When you get a surplus of picks over multiple seasons, then use them to trade for young players to compliment the team. First and 2nd round picks are overrated. The major reason they turn out to be more productive is due to teams investing the limited time in a season to those players.

[KB_fan]

16 minutes ago, CPantherKing said:

53 roster spots to fill. I would much rather have a majority of the roster drafted/traded players than free agents (30+, overpriced, bottom of barrel, off the street). Five draft picks per season will not get that done and it is not healthy for the longevity of a teams talent level.

Personally, I would stock pile 10 to 12 3rd to 5th round draft picks per year and pick and choose the players to invest the time in for the future of the team. When you get a surplus of picks over multiple seasons, then use them to trade for young players to compliment the team. First and 2nd round picks are overrated. The major reason they turn out to be more productive is due to teams investing the limited time in a season to those players.

And how exactly will you obtain 10 - 12 3rd to 5th round draft picks each year to stockpile?!?!?  You're dreaming or smoking something....

Over 21 years, the most we've ever had in those rounds that I can find is 6 in 2005.  I don't see that most of those players did much for our team.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Panthers_draft_history

2005 NFL Draft

Round #	Pick #	Overall Pick #	Player	Position	College
1	14	14	Thomas Davis	Linebacker	Georgia
2	22	54	Eric Shelton	Running Back	Louisville
3	15	79	Evan Mathis	Guard	Alabama
3	25	89	Atiyyah Ellison	Defensive Tackle	Missouri
4	20	121	Stefan LeFors	Quarterback	Louisville
5	13	148	Adam Seward	Linebacker	UNLV
5	33	169	Geoff Hangartner	Center	Texas A&M
5	35	171	Ben Emanuel	Defensive Back	UCLA
6	15	189	Jovan Haye	Defensive End	Vanderbilt
6	33	207	Joe Berger	Tackle	Michigan Tech

[thefuzz]

8 hours ago, CPantherKing said:

53 roster spots to fill. I would much rather have a majority of the roster drafted/traded players than free agents (30+, overpriced, bottom of barrel, off the street). Five draft picks per season will not get that done and it is not healthy for the longevity of a teams talent level.

Personally, I would stock pile 10 to 12 3rd to 5th round draft picks per year and pick and choose the players to invest the time in for the future of the team. When you get a surplus of picks over multiple seasons, then use them to trade for young players to compliment the team. First and 2nd round picks are overrated. The major reason they turn out to be more productive is due to teams investing the limited time in a season to those players.

Yes, let's draft 30-36 3rd to 5th round draft picks over a 3 year period.

Yes, first and second round picks are overrated.  Let's start with a couple of our and see how stupid it was to even draft them.  Cam, Luke, Star, KK, Kalil, Stewart, Ealy, TD, KB, etc...

 

Man you are bad at this.

[Davidson Deac II]

21 hours ago, top dawg said:

The demise of the Brady and the Patriots has been overblown in the Huddle for the last couple of seasons. I don't see Billy B going anywhere, and their drafts have not been terrible. Between drafting and free agency, The Hoodie is a master team builder.

Perhaps, but getting an top tier qb is equal parts luck and skill.  And when they got Brady, it was more luck than skill.  Its inevitable that Brady's skills will began to drop significantly sometime within the next 3-4 years.   And when they do, I wouldn't be shocked if BB decided to retire.  If they get lucky and get a good qb to replace Brady, he might stay a little while longer.  Or he might decide the time is right to go. 

[KSpan]

8 hours ago, KB_fan said:

And how exactly will you obtain 10 - 12 3rd to 5th round draft picks each year to stockpile?!?!?  You're dreaming or smoking something....

Over 21 years, the most we've ever had in those rounds that I can find is 6 in 2005.  I don't see that most of those players did much for our team.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Panthers_draft_history

2005 NFL Draft

Round #	Pick #	Overall Pick #	Player	Position	College
1	14	14	Thomas Davis	Linebacker	Georgia
2	22	54	Eric Shelton	Running Back	Louisville
3	15	79	Evan Mathis	Guard	Alabama
3	25	89	Atiyyah Ellison	Defensive Tackle	Missouri
4	20	121	Stefan LeFors	Quarterback	Louisville
5	13	148	Adam Seward	Linebacker	UNLV
5	33	169	Geoff Hangartner	Center	Texas A&M
5	35	171	Ben Emanuel	Defensive Back	UCLA
6	15	189	Jovan Haye	Defensive End	Vanderbilt
6	33	207	Joe Berger	Tackle	Michigan Tech

FWIW, Seward was a quality Carolina ST player for a few years, Haye had a reasonable career as a backup/role player other places, Hangman was obviously a starter for a while, and Berger has been decent depth for a while now. Nothing earth-shattering, but the guys picked ended up showing some longevity.

Granted, this is a single draft that was 10 years ago so it's not all that relevant other than to show that having a lot of low-round picks can be helpful in certain situations. The Gettleman "I'd rather have one dollar than 3 dimes" philosophy, however, probably precludes this type of scenario from happening in Carolina.

[t96]

On 2/18/2016 at 0:19 PM, top dawg said:

The demise of the Brady and the Patriots has been overblown in the Huddle for the last couple of seasons. I don't see Billy B going anywhere, and their drafts have not been terrible. Between drafting and free agency, The Hoodie is a master team builder.

He's never been a great drafter. It's FA where he's a master. DG happens to be a master of both...

[top dawg]

3 hours ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Perhaps, but getting an top tier qb is equal parts luck and skill.  And when they got Brady, it was more luck than skill.  Its inevitable that Brady's skills will began to drop significantly sometime within the next 3-4 years.   And when they do, I wouldn't be shocked if BB decided to retire.  If they get lucky and get a good qb to replace Brady, he might stay a little while longer.  Or he might decide the time is right to go. 

So I take it that you don't put a lot of faith in Jimmy Garropolo. He's being well-schooled in their system.

[thefuzz]

59 minutes ago, top dawg said:

So I take it that you don't put a lot of faith in Jimmy Garropolo. He's being well-schooled in their system.

As was Cassel.

[top dawg]

4 hours ago, thefuzz said:

As was Cassel.

Yeah, man, I was going to bring that up, but I thought that it was pretty obvious. That's another reason why I don't think that Billy B is going to call it quits after Brady retires. If Matt Cassel can guide a Patriots team to 11-5, I think that Garropolo should be able to do that as well as I think that he is the better QB. I also think that The Hoodie loves the game and has a big enough ego to keep going so that he can show nonbelievers that he can do his thing post-Brady.

The Patriots have never really been star-studded, but their players have always been smart and solidly good across the board for going on 20 years.

[CPantherKing]

14 hours ago, thefuzz said:

Yes, let's draft 30-36 3rd to 5th round draft picks over a 3 year period.

Yes, first and second round picks are overrated.  Let's start with a couple of our and see how stupid it was to even draft them.  Cam, Luke, Star, KK, Kalil, Stewart, Ealy, TD, KB, etc...

 

Man you are bad at this.

Russell Wilson, Danny Trevathan, Brandon Mebane, Barry Coefield, Bryan Stork, Brandon Jacobs, Justin Tuck, KJ Wright, James Jones, etc...

The difference is they have at least one Lombardi, many more playoff wins, and multiple conference championship titles under their belt.

Not to mention you get extra draft picks for competition/depth and roster growth over the years.

So, 30 mid round players and more success, or 15 players with 1st and 2nd round picks and less success?

There are multiple roster strategies to get to and win a Super Bowl. The question is which one is more expansive, effective, and expeditious?

I never said it is stupid to draft 1st and 2nd round picks. I made the point that the reason they appear to be more successful at a higher rate is due to the amount of time invested in them from the limited pool of time that a season offers a player. The value of a 1st and 2nd round pick versus a 3rd and 4th round pick is overrated. It is an illusion created by a pattern of preferential opportunity. If it were true that top talent among a small pool of players is beneficial, then teams picking in the top 10 of the 1st and 2nd rounds every season should be dominating the NFL. If you took several 1st round picks and several 3rd round picks and invested the same amount of time in them at their given positions, you would find that the success/failure rate between the two groups would not have a significant variance.

If you could choose to have 10 players from 60 to 160 or 5 players from 30 to 250 in the draft (distributed evenly), which one would you choose?

[thefuzz]

7 hours ago, CPantherKing said:

Russell Wilson, Danny Trevathan, Brandon Mebane, Barry Coefield, Bryan Stork, Brandon Jacobs, Justin Tuck, KJ Wright, James Jones, etc...

The difference is they have at least one Lombardi, many more playoff wins, and multiple conference championship titles under their belt.

Not to mention you get extra draft picks for competition/depth and roster growth over the years.

So, 30 mid round players and more success, or 15 players with 1st and 2nd round picks and less success?

There are multiple roster strategies to get to and win a Super Bowl. The question is which one is more expansive, effective, and expeditious?

I never said it is stupid to draft 1st and 2nd round picks. I made the point that the reason they appear to be more successful at a higher rate is due to the amount of time invested in them from the limited pool of time that a season offers a player. The value of a 1st and 2nd round pick versus a 3rd and 4th round pick is overrated. It is an illusion created by a pattern of preferential opportunity. If it were true that top talent among a small pool of players is beneficial, then teams picking in the top 10 of the 1st and 2nd rounds every season should be dominating the NFL. If you took several 1st round picks and several 3rd round picks and invested the same amount of time in them at their given positions, you would find that the success/failure rate between the two groups would not have a significant variance.

If you could choose to have 10 players from 60 to 160 or 5 players from 30 to 250 in the draft (distributed evenly), which one would you choose?

All of this is wrong.

Just like DG says, "I would rather have a dollar than 3 dimes".

Teams that are drafting in the top 10 of the draft most likely have holes to fill, and need every pick to see if something can stick, teams in the back 10 of the draft most likely have a well rounded roster, with only a few holes to fill.

If we were to bring in 12 players during this draft, in addition to the players we will extend/tag/re-sign we would likely be cutting 6 of those as there just aren't enough seats for all the asses.

Just stop please, draft picks are like gold in the NFL, with the top two rounds where you get your playmakers.

[Khyber53]

On 2/18/2016 at 11:10 AM, Mr. Scot said:

The Patriots haven't been great at drafting for a while.  Very hit or miss.

They still get good free agents cheap because guys figure they have a good shot at a ring, but I get the sense their long open window is starting to inch toward shutting.

 

I think that a lot of the Patriots' drafting prowess actually came down to the luck of getting Tom Brady. Remember that they also passed on him five times before finally drafting him, so it wasn't like they had any real idea how big of a deal he would become. And a player like him elevates the play of those around him, even rookies. His abilities improve the perceived performance of RBs, offensive line, TEs and wide receivers. The defensive players get the boost from having a high scoring, ball control offense. Heck, even special teams benefit from how he plays. It can make an average drafting class look better than they really are.

Right now in Carolina, we have that situation as well. Cam is still developing (I think he gets even more dynamic over the next two seasons before fully hitting his prime), so Gettleman's job gets a bit easier. Draft smart players, team players and limit your reaches, and it should all work out fine. 

So far, so good.

 

[NJPanthers12]

On February 20, 2016 at 1:36 AM, CPantherKing said:

Russell Wilson, Danny Trevathan, Brandon Mebane, Barry Coefield, Bryan Stork, Brandon Jacobs, Justin Tuck, KJ Wright, James Jones, etc...

The difference is they have at least one Lombardi, many more playoff wins, and multiple conference championship titles under their belt.

Not to mention you get extra draft picks for competition/depth and roster growth over the years.

So, 30 mid round players and more success, or 15 players with 1st and 2nd round picks and less success?

There are multiple roster strategies to get to and win a Super Bowl. The question is which one is more expansive, effective, and expeditious?

I never said it is stupid to draft 1st and 2nd round picks. I made the point that the reason they appear to be more successful at a higher rate is due to the amount of time invested in them from the limited pool of time that a season offers a player. The value of a 1st and 2nd round pick versus a 3rd and 4th round pick is overrated. It is an illusion created by a pattern of preferential opportunity. If it were true that top talent among a small pool of players is beneficial, then teams picking in the top 10 of the 1st and 2nd rounds every season should be dominating the NFL. If you took several 1st round picks and several 3rd round picks and invested the same amount of time in them at their given positions, you would find that the success/failure rate between the two groups would not have a significant variance.

If you could choose to have 10 players from 60 to 160 or 5 players from 30 to 250 in the draft (distributed evenly), which one would you choose?

can you at least tell us all why you don't like gettleman? or would you just rather spew nonsense about him and have everyone think you are clueless?