Historically, Panthers near bottom of total number of picks

[top dawg]

Here is something a little interesting. Comparatively, our total number of draft picks has been low. I don't know if it's because we've sucked,  don't lose many quality players as to earn comp picks,  or simply trade picks away,  but it's something to consider. 

 

"The correlation isn’t totally reliable, but the success of Green Bay and New England suggests that Carolina might want to stockpile more draft picks in the future, whether by trading down or letting players walk in free agency and getting comp picks."

https://pantherswire.usatoday.com/2018/02/23/panthers-have-only-averaged-the-26th-most-draft-picks-since-1994/

 

There may be some lose correlations about winning percentage, but, at the end of the day, I generally don't care for losing draft capital. That's one thing that drove me crazy about Dave Gettleman, and Marty Hurney later during his tenure (to the exclusion of obtaining Greg Olsen). Of course nothing is absolute for me. I don't mind parlaying picks for legitimate stars or stars-in-the-making, but you better be right! Though I believe in aggression---perhaps controlled aggression is a better phrase---I also believe that there is a certain aspect of "throwing poo against the wall and seeing if it sticks" to the draft,  particularly in the later rounds (not to mention having more picks to parlay around to enable you to get your man). So although I understand the philosophy behind moving up, I prefer patience and acquiring more picks when at all possible. But it's a fluid situation and judgement call. 

https://pantherswire.usatoday.com/2018/02/23/panthers-have-only-averaged-the-26th-most-draft-picks-since-1994/

[Reebis21]

I seriously wish I got paid to track stats like this...I could read this kinda stuff alllll day...interesting find for sure

[Lumps]

Aside from a few outliers like the Browns, that list most certainly correlated with W/L ratios in that time frame. It’s almost scary....

its as as if having more choices of talent to evaluate and weed through matters in the long term. Panthers have always struggled with talent evaluation besides obvious players. 

Of course the Panthers will play Cam and Keauchly...but many good players the Panthers find was because of force, ie and injury. I mean what happened there? He’ll even Delhomme is an example.

I don’t think other teams work that way....

[Carolina Cajun]

I think its interesting because you can tell historically which teams value specific targets, and which teams prefer the scatter shot trade down philosophy.  The scatter shot is clearly the better philosophy, but it hasn't been something our GMs have believed.

[Cyberjag]

In Hurney's first stint with the team, he averaged 8.9 picks per draft.  Gettleman averaged 5.25.

[Car123]

12 minutes ago, Uncfan said:

Gettleman valued high quality over quantity compared to damn Hurney that drafts craP wr like Joe adams

How many high quality players did Gettleman select?

[top dawg]

26 minutes ago, Cyberjag said:

In Hurney's first stint with the team, he averaged 8.9 picks per draft.  Gettleman averaged 5.25.

That's crazy. It's especially whack when you consider the players acquired and timing of those acquisitions. 

Just my opinion.  For all the Gettlegod worshippers, I don't care to make this a G-man Vs. Hurney thread.

[Swaggasaurus]

Do you want a dollar or 10 dimes?- DG

Damn I liked Gettleman, but I’ve always been a Hurney man

[Ship]

I think an interesting difference between some top teams and us/lower teams on this list is the ability to churn out productive backups. Think about the backup QBs the Pats and Packers have had during this time and the guys who went on to start for other teams. Those back up QBs turned into draft picks either through trades or comp picks. Qb is a good example there, but think of other positions where they've been good at creating a line of succession.

Something we've never been good at is developing quality guys behind our stars and I think that has been a choice by the team. If this team had drafted a backup for Cam a few years ago, think of the opportunities we could have used to showcase a guy instead of throwing DA out there, who was valuable but not a real 'future starter' guy in his time here. The best we've done so far was AJ Klein behind Luke. If we did this stuff right, we'd have guys we could be selling high on every few years, instead we keep our top guys and backfill with vets and other short term solutions. I think part of the investment in a Brady is he's one of the all time greats, but he also gets to put his stamp on tons of young QBs who "learned to prepare behind him". If we handled it right, Cam could have that same cache for mobile QBs. Instead we've stuck with DA and nobody.

[Goondal]

Two interesting things I noticed.

1) The Giants are at #30, so it is pretty clear where Gettleman learned his philosophy (they did win two Super Bowls)

2) Our entire division is 22 or lower.  There have frequently been multiple teams from our division in the playoffs, however they have also been inconsistent from one year to the next.

One thought on the Pats/Packers.  How much of their success is these picks and how much of it is Farve/Rodgers and Belichick/Brady?  On the one hand, Belichick clearly makes the right decision more often than not.  Where the Pack are concerned though they have pretty much a garbage team, at least of late, outside of their QB as evidenced by how they do when he is out.

[tondi]

This reinforces the concept that the draft is a crapshoot for everyone so the only way to improve your odds is to get more picks. 

[Mother Grabber]

How many of Hurney's 8.9 draft picks were out of the NFL within 3 years?  Raw quantity doesn't mean poo, if you don't know what you're doing.  This chart needs to show not only number of picks, but also NFL longevity of those picks.  As it is, the conclusions you're drawing aren't showing the complete picture, eg, you can make numbers say anything you want to, if you present them right.

[Toomers]

1 hour ago, top dawg said:

That's crazy. It's especially whack when you consider the players acquired and timing of those acquisitions. 

Just my opinion.  For all the Gettlegod worshippers, I don't care to make this a G-man Vs. Hurney thread.

  But you did. And rather emphatically with a Gettlegod comment. How about DGs 1st year in 2013 when Hurney only left him with 5 picks because he traded the 3rd for Joe Adams. What should he have done there? Or maybe get back those picks he used to take Daryl Williams? That was a huge mistake. 

[Cyberjag]

9 minutes ago, Mother Grabber said:

How many of Hurney's 8.9 draft picks were out of the NFL within 3 years?  Raw quantity doesn't mean poo, if you don't know what you're doing.  This chart needs to show not only number of picks, but also NFL longevity of those picks.  As it is, the conclusions you're drawing aren't showing the complete picture, eg, you can make numbers say anything you want to, if you present them right.

A fair amount never really contributed at all.  And a surprising amount never did much here but once they got to other teams they actually became starters and contributors.  A great example is Evan Mathis, who was a decent guard here that no one was upset to see go, and in Philly he became an all-pro.  Gary Barnidge is another example. 

I think John Fox is a good coach and did some of his best work here, but his staff was never about developing young talent.  I mean, how does a guy like Keary Colbert put on a rookie season like he did and then never show up again?  Rivera, on the other hand, seems to look for coaches who are teachers.  He's not the tactician that Fox is, but he's going to make his GMs look smarter than Fox ever did because he develops the talent that's given to him.