Historically, Panthers near bottom of total number of picks

[Toomers]

8 minutes ago, top dawg said:

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. 

  “Gettlegod”..........

  Despite your “Popeye” schtick you repeat constantly, it’s still the same agenda. 

[top dawg]

16 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

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.

And yet you refuse to fully realize that Rivera is our best coach ever and that he has arguably overachieved given holes, injuries,  and a marked lack of quality at key positions during his tenure. You give most of the credit to Gettleman which is ludicrous in my opinion. 

Ron is a better coach than Gettleman was a GM.  You believe what you want to believe. 

I haven't  accused anyone of not thinking objectively just because we disagree.  You're the one going around calling people "silly" and acting like their opinion is just totally off base and fantastical.  You're the one that has the problem.

First,  all I ask is that if someone has an opinion to use logic and rationale to defend it. And second,  realize that an opinion is an opinion and not a fact. And third,  express yourself in a respectful manner (especially when addressing me). And those don't come in any particular order. 

You're the one that has the problem of pushing off your opinion as fact,  and then everyone else is living in a fantasy world because they disagree with it. Like I said,  go use that tactic with someone else. 

[top dawg]

16 minutes ago, Toomers said:

  “Gettlegod”..........

  Despite your “Popeye” schtick you repeat constantly, it’s still the same agenda. 

What is this agenda?  Oh, I guess it's to play you Gettleman worshippers like a Stradivarius.  Perhaps it's a Pavlovian experiment.  That's it!

I've discussed way more than Gettleman over the years,  even during the past month.  Week! It's only when I get into these petty little arguments over the pettiness of Gettlemanites or Hurney bashers that I really even bring the man's name up anymore. LOL

Agenda? My only agenda is to have interesting discussion about the Panthers and cheer them on to a championship.  I would think that's why we're all here. 

[CPF4LIFE]

2 hours 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.

That doesnt say anything, Hurneys picks were the ones that actually carried this team to the playoffs. 

[Ricky Spanish]

11 minutes ago, CPF4LIFE said:

That doesnt say anything, Hurneys picks were the ones that actually carried this team to the playoffs. 

That's what I'm saying though. 

It means nothing. 

[CPF4LIFE]

19 minutes ago, top dawg said:

What is this agenda?  Oh, I guess it's to play you Gettleman worshippers like a Stradivarius.  Perhaps it's a Pavlovian experiment.  That's it!

I've discussed way more than Gettleman over the years,  even during the past month.  Week! It's only when I get into these petty little arguments over the pettiness of Gettlemanites or Hurney bashers that I really even bring the man's name up anymore. LOL

Agenda? My only agenda is to have interesting discussion about the Panthers and cheer them on to a championship.  I would think that's why we're all here. 

Please just ignore that guy, he gets furious and baits you in to conflicts over random conspiracies that are just steaming in his own head and tries to label you as the antagonist for them. He will have you arguing over something you never said. His name fits him.

[Mr. Scot]

47 minutes ago, top dawg said:

And yet you refuse to fully realize that Rivera is our best coach ever and that he has arguably overachieved given holes, injuries,  and a marked lack of quality at key positions during his tenure. You give most of the credit to Gettleman which is ludicrous in my opinion. 

Ron is a better coach than Gettleman was a GM.  You believe what you want to believe. 

I haven't  accused anyone of not thinking objectively just because we disagree.  You're the one going around calling people "silly" and acting like their opinion is just totally off base and fantastical.  You're the one that has the problem.

First,  all I ask is that if someone has an opinion to use logic and rationale to defend it. And second,  realize that an opinion is an opinion and not a fact. And third,  express yourself in a respectful manner (especially when addressing me). And those don't come in any particular order. 

You're the one that has the problem of pushing off your opinion as fact,  and then everyone else is living in a fantasy world because they disagree with it. Like I said,  go use that tactic with someone else. 

I have specifically said Rivera is the best coach we've had. Who else would be? John Fox?

What you don't seem able to grasp is that building a winning team requires a combination approach.

Quarterback and receiver tandems frequently get evaluated together, and there's a reason for that. Chemistry between two players is just as important as their individual ability. Aikman and Irvin, Rice and Montana, etc. You can argue in each of those duos and other which was greater, but the reality is they worked well together.

On the flipside, there are tandems that don't work, and the reasons vary. In the case of Donovan McNabb and Terrell Owens, both were great players but they couldn't work well together. More relevant to this debate though is the example of Jimmy Clausen and Steve Smith. They were never a successful tandem for a very specific reason: One of them wasn't very good at his job.

That's Hurney and Rivera.

Rivera and Gettleman, on the other hand, worked quite well together. Each of them had their flaws, but their collaboration was more successful than not.

You want to insist that all the success came from one person of the two. In reality, that's hardly ever true. It's equally untrue that Gettleman was responsible for all the success on his own, which is why you'll never hear me say something as ridiculous as "well, he won despite being sabotaged by the other."

It's not an accident that we started winning when Gettleman got here. He was good at what he did, and he and Rivera had great chemistry with each other. Gettleman drafted the kind of players Rivera wanted and Rivera used them. That's how a successful coach-GM combined works.

Hurney-Rivera was not a successful combo, and I don't have a lot of faith that it would be again. Maybe a good season or two but ultimately it's not much different from Hurney-Fox, which should also provide a clue.  Hurney was unsuccessful with two separate head coaches, and all of the "but he drafted Cam and Luke" histrionics in the world won't change that.

But hey, if you want to continue the "has to be one or the other" approach, feel free. But the inability to grasp that it's the whole rather than the individual pieces is why you'll continue to be wrong.

[Mr. Scot]

37 minutes ago, top dawg said:

What is this agenda?  Oh, I guess it's to play you Gettleman worshippers like a Stradivarius.  Perhaps it's a Pavlovian experiment.  That's it!

I've discussed way more than Gettleman over the years,  even during the past month.  Week! It's only when I get into these petty little arguments over the pettiness of Gettlemanites or Hurney bashers that I really even bring the man's name up anymore. LOL

Agenda? My only agenda is to have interesting discussion about the Panthers and cheer them on to a championship.  I would think that's why we're all here. 

Ah yes, the old "when it looked like I said something incredibly stupid, I was actually trolling" excuse.

Good choice. If I were in your position, I'd probably go there too.

[Davidson Deac II]

If they used the 1994 draft, the numbers are a little off, since we didn't get any selections in that draft.  Counting our first (April 1995) thru the 2016 draft, we averaged  7.95 picks per draft, which is slightly better.  But maybe I  am reading it wrong.

[top dawg]

23 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I have specifically said Rivera is the best coach we've had. What you don't seem able to grasp is that it's a combination approach.

Quarterback and receiver tandems frequently get evaluated together, and there's a reason for that. Chemistry between two players is just as important as their individual ability. Aikman and Irvin, Rice and Montana, etc. You can argue in each of those duos and other which was greater, but the reality is they worked well together.

On the flipside, there are tandems that don't work, and the reasons vary. In the case of Donovan McNabb and Terrell Owens, both were great players but they couldn't work well together. More relevant to this debate though is the example of Jimmy Clausen and Steve Smith. They were never a successful tandem for a very specific reason: One of them wasn't very good at his job.

That's Hurney and Rivera.

Rivera and Gettleman, on the other hand, worked quite well together. Each of them had their flaws, but their collaboration was more successful than not.

You want to insist that all the success came from one person of the two. In reality, that's hardly ever true. It's equally untrue that Gettleman was responsible for all the success on his own, which is why you'll never hear me say something as ridiculous as "well, he won despite being sabotaged by the other."

It's not an accident that we started winning when Gettleman got here. He was good at what he did, and he and Rivera had great chemistry with each other. Gettleman drafted the kind of players Rivera wanted and Rivera used them. That's how a successful coach-GM combined works.

Hurney-Rivera was not a successful combo, and I don't have a lot of faith that it would be again. Maybe a good season or two but ultimately it's not much different from Hurney-Fox, which should also provide a clue.  Hurney was unsuccessful with two separate head coaches, and all of the "but he drafted Cam and Luke" histrionics in the world won't change that.

But hey, if you want to continue the "has to be one or the other" approach, feel free. But the inability to grasp that it's the whole rather than the individual pieces is why you'll continue to be wrong.

That's rich coming from someone who has continually downplayed Rivera to the point of starting threads about his successors, while simultaneously just recklessly (in my opinion) disregarding Rivera's extremely trying circumstances. 

I don't  give Ron ALL the credit for anything,  just most of it.  I am calling it as I see it.  You think I don't know that it takes a team to win from the top on down?  That is an undeniable truth,  but there are reasons for success and/or failure,  and most people have their thoughts about which part of the team is doing better than others---which parts are strengths and which parts are weaknesses.  And when things don't go as planned to the good, different amounts of blame go around.  That's just human. 

When Ron took this team over it was a hot mess.  And,  sure,  some of it was Hurney,  if not most of it (though we could argue about JR), but Rivera showed progress and promise despite dealing with that.  By the time he and Rivera could have developed a meaningful working relationship,  complete with an appreciable body of work together,  Hurney was gone.  So how you make the determination that they won't (or wouldn't) be a good tandem is beyond me.  In my opinion,  there hasn't been enough time to draw such a conclusion.  As such, I see it more about "hating" Hurney and refusing to give the man a second chance---any chance in Hell,  really (which is fine),  but just own up to it. 

[top dawg]

22 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Ah yes, the old "when it looked like I said something incredibly stupid, I was actually trolling" excuse.

Good choice. If I were in your position, I'd probably go there too.

I love it when your emotional sensibilities overflow. Can't take a little ribbing about your worship of the Gettlegod. I understand.  Poor baby. 

[frash.exe]

given how much of a total crapshoot the draft is past round 2, best to trade a late pick here and there if you can get a vet that has proven they can do something in this league

 

idk what the fug you guys think like you can consistently hit on those mid-late rounders and find well rounded players that can do it all every time.

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, top dawg said:

I love it when your emotional sensibilities overflow. Can't take a little ribbing about your worship of the Gettlegod. I understand.  Poor baby. 

Actually, I'd say a good way to gauge who gets emotional about this stuff would be to take notice of who refers to names like "Gettlegod" or "Gettledouche".

Those are pretty good indicators that somebody's not being entirely rational in their argument.

To be clear, I don't actually have any derisive nicknames for Hurney. I prefer to discuss things on a higher level than that.

[Mother Grabber]

so, i take it that this thread is no longer about statistical analysis of draft picks, but rather about slinging grade school insults at each other. :thumbsup: