Historically, Panthers near bottom of total number of picks

[panthers55]

Not all those teams have been drafting since 1994 so average number is a better stat to use in order to rank them. Overall number of picks is a quantity stat that tells very little about trades and their success, or how well you are hitting on your picks with starters or good contributors versus busts. Plus everyone seems to use New England as their example and Brady has simply made everyone look good including Belichick. Look at how Cam has made Rivera and Gettleman look good. And it pains me to say anything nice about New England.

If half your picks are starters or contributors you are doing well. Moving up is great if you get your guy and he delivers. Getting more picks is great as well if you need depth or want to bundle them. Lots of ways that work.

[Ricky Spanish]

8.9 draft picks per year lead to 3 post season appearances in 11 years.

5.25 per year lead to 4 playoff appearances in 5 years.

There's a ton of other things that contribute to it all, but I really don't think there is any correlation at all, just a happy coincidence with some stats.

[Riverboat Ron]

Hurney: Fug that, gonna spend next year's 1st on a tweener!

[chknwing]

I'd like to see that same list with where the picks were in the draft.  some teams just like trading back.  Like the patriots.

[unicar15]

Well...when Marty used to trade multiple picks to move up for Jimmy Clausen and Everette Brown that kinda sucks the air out of the draft building. He’s done it time and time again and has to make up for his blunders by giving out bad contracts bc we have no depth. It’s a cycle. Let’s see if he can break out of his crap tendencies this year...

[top dawg]

1 hour ago, Toomers said:

  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. 

If you noticed,  I criticized both,  and Hurney particularly during his later tenure before Gettleman took over. But even with that, stop trying to act like Gettleman didn't spend (in my opinion)  an excessive amount of draft capital. And not trying to get into the minutiae of a specific draft,  but there is ALWAYS more than one way to skin a cat.  The draft and free agency are about decisions,  and GMs can't generally hide from their choices. 

[Mr. Scot]

50 minutes ago, Cracka McNasty said:

8.9 draft picks per year lead to 3 post season appearances in 11 years.

5.25 per year lead to 4 playoff appearances in 5 years.

There's a ton of other things that contribute to it all, but I really think there is any correlation at all, just a happy coincidence with some stats.

Dawg would be happy to explain to you that it's because somewhere in the three months between when Marty Hurney was fired and Dave Gettleman was hired, Ron Rivera went from being only a moderately successful coach to a coaching super genius. 

He was, in fact, such an amazing coach that he managed to win lots of games despite being handicapped by the inferior talent handed to him by Gettleman.

 

 

 

I'm not joking. He's actually said that.

[top dawg]

39 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Dawg would be happy to explain to you that it's because somewhere in the three months between when Marty Hurney was fired and Dave Gettleman was hired, Ron Rivera went from being only a moderately successful coach to a coaching super genius. 

He was, in fact, such an amazing coach that he managed to win lots of games despite being handicapped by the inferior talent handed to him by Gettleman.

 

 

 

I'm not joking. He's actually said that.

Not exactly what I said,  but I'm not surprised that even you're full of poo now. 

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, top dawg said:

Not exactly what I said,  but I'm not surprised that even you're full of poo now. 

So now you no longer believe that Rivera won in spite of Gettleman, or you'd just phrase it differently?

[Toomers]

55 minutes ago, top dawg said:

If you noticed,  I criticized both,  and Hurney particularly during his later tenure before Gettleman took over. But even with that, stop trying to act like Gettleman didn't spend (in my opinion)  an excessive amount of draft capital. And not trying to get into the minutiae of a specific draft,  but there is ALWAYS more than one way to skin a cat.  The draft and free agency are about decisions,  and GMs can't generally hide from their choices. 

Well I just covered 2 of them. One that Hurney was responsible for. And I responded specifically your post with the “Gettlegod” comment and “Not wanting to turn it into a DG vs MH debate”. Which is BS. You posted this whole topic as a means to take a specific shot. You have made your agenda clear. No matter how many times you move the goalposts. 

[top dawg]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

So now you no longer believe that Rivera won in spite of Gettleman, or you'd just phrase it differently?

You're damned right I said it,  but is that what you said? No. 

As much as you desire to polish Gettleman's knob,  he not only left us with a severely limited receiving corps as far as quality and depth before and after KB went down,  but he pretty much did the same thing with the position LT while he was here---two of the most critical positions on offense.  But,  what did Ron do?  He just went out and led the team to the Super Bowl, a team that no one predicted would be there.  

Now,  the next season,  while again,  trusting youth and inexperience at receiver (even knowing that KB would probably not be quite right until well into the season),  he decides to stupidly and bizarrely rescind a franchise tag and subsequently stock our secondary with boob's.  Yet,  Rivera still had us into contention later in the season.

And, lastly,  Gettleman ignores the fact that our corners were suspect, gets rid of our main receiver---at least one with the speed---and replaces him with a nobody, essentially hamstringing the receiving corps yet again,  and, as was his custom,  doubled down on mediocrity---not even that level,  really---and essentially ensured a turnstile at left tackle.  And what does Ron do?  He goes out and leads the team to 11 wins on a team with holes at key positions,  yet again. 

Now you know exactly what I said and generally why I believe that Gettleman arguably made everyone's job harder,  and sucked at taking advantage of windows,  and why you should be thanking your lucky stars that Rivera is the HC. 

You can disagree all you like,  but don't put words in my mouth and make poo up. Go and use that tact with someone else.

[top dawg]

30 minutes ago, Toomers said:

Well I just covered 2 of them. One that Hurney was responsible for. And I responded specifically your post with the “Gettlegod” comment and “Not wanting to turn it into a DG vs MH debate”. Which is BS. You posted this whole topic as a means to take a specific shot. You have made your agenda clear. No matter how many times you move the goalposts. 

First off,  I mean what I say and say what I mean. I don't have to play games.  You should know that about me as long as I've been here.  

I wasn't the one to post the fact that Gettleman had a relatively small number of picks, even on a percentage basis,  but it is relevant to the topic.  Even still,  Gettleman was a smaller part of our history than the others. I posted this as a reflection on every GM in our history, so what you're suggesting is the B.S. Stop being so sensitive.  Unlike Hurney, Gettleman isn't coming back, so who really gives a poo?  This is more about consideration going forward than anything else. 

[Mr. Scot]

13 minutes ago, top dawg said:

You're damned right I said it,  but is that what you said? No. 

As much as you desire to polish Gettleman's knob,  he not only left us with a severely limited receiving corps as far as quality and depth before and after KB went down,  but he pretty much did the same thing with the position LT while he was here---two of the most critical positions on offense.  But,  what did Ron do?  He just went out and led the team to the Super Bowl, a team that no one predicted would be there.  

Now,  the next season,  while again,  trusting youth and inexperience at receiver (even knowing that KB would probably not be quite right until well into the season),  he decides to stupidly and bizarrely rescind a franchise tag and subsequently stock our secondary with boob's.  Yet,  Rivera still had us into contention later in the season.

And, lastly,  Gettleman ignores the fact that our corners were suspect, gets rid of our main receiver---at least one with the speed---and replaces him with a nobody, essentially hamstringing the receiving corps yet again,  and, as was his custom,  doubled down on mediocrity---not even that level,  really---and essentially ensured a turnstile at left tackle.  And what does Ron do?  He goes out and leads the team to 11 wins on a team with holes at key positions,  yet again. 

Now you know exactly what I said and generally why I believe that Gettleman arguably made everyone's job harder,  and sucked at taking advantage of windows,  and why you should be thanking your lucky stars that Rivera is the HC. 

You can disagree all you like,  but don't put words in my mouth and make poo up. Go and use that tact with someone else.

But you're not biased or anything, right?

When asked to evaluate whether a GM is doing well or not, the first and primary thing I look at is whether their team is winning. My liking or disliking specific moves they make doesn't really mean anything.

It seems like pretty much all of your judgment as to how good a GM is performing is based on "well, I wouldn't have done it that way".

Hate to tell ya, but you don't have that kind of credibility.

The team was performing at a mediocre level when Marty was here. Gettleman takes over and the team performs better than it has at any point in team history.  You don't want those things to correlate so you try and do anything you can to spin that somehow, some way, their had to be other causes. Then you accuse people who disagree with you of not thinking objectively.

Yeah...

Believe what you want dude, but you're building a fantasy world here just to try and validate your opinion.

[Car123]

^^Looks at winning except when it comes to head coaches.