By several measures, Panthers 2017 rookie class worst in NFL

[KB_fan]

Here's a closer look at the AV value of Panthers rookie classes over the past 7 years:

This graph is somewhat similar to the above, but instead of showing rookies on the roster and those starting 1+ games, it shows rookies on the roster and the number of rookies who had an AV of 3 or better in their rookie season.

Here's the avg AV per Panthers rookie over the past 7 draft classes.  Of course Cam and Luke in 2011 & 2012 skew things a bit.  If you're picking high, you have a better chance of getting rookies who will have high AV their rookie year...

That's one of the things that's troubling in terms of the 2017 rookie class.  Panthers were drafting the highest they had in years.  You need to get value from that kind of class.  Now CMC DID contribute.  His rookie AV (9) was the same as that of Luke...  So, great for 1st round.  But we need more contributors from that class.

Hopefully Moton, Samuel and even Hall or Elder will have an impact in 2018.

 

 

[KB_fan]

To help you visualize what an AV of 3 or better looks like, here are all Panthers from 2011-2017 who had an AV of 3 or better their rookie season:

This is ONLY rookie season AV.  So a player who turned into a stud like KK (but whose rookie AV was 2) is not on here, while various duds who didn't contribute much after a productive rookie season ARE here.

[KB_fan]

One more set of tables re: rookies & AV from 2011 - 2017:

This shows how "cumulative" AV for the rookie classes from 2015 - 2017 dropped off a cliff.  Also, it quite concerns me to see those ZEROS in the column for rookies with an AV of 3-4 for 3 consecutive years.  It speaks to getting very thin at depth, losing the consistent role players who make a solid contribution year to year even if they don't flash.

[KB_fan]

Now on to the 2017 class specifically, compared to the rest of the NFL:

I looked at 5 measures of each teams rookie class:

1. Number of rookies that made the roster

2. AV total for each rookie class

3. Number of rookies with AV of 3 or better

4. Average AV per rookie (to try and be fair to small but great rookie classes)

5. AV3+ as a % of all rookies in the class, again, if you only have 5 or 6 rookies but 4 or 5 are contributing, then maybe it's a good class although small.

I then ranked all the teams on each of the 5 data points:

Panthers ranked in the bottom 5 in 4 of the 5 categories.  All except AV per rookie thanks to CMC's excellent rookie AV of 9 averaging out across a small rookie class.

And taking the average of all the ranks, Panthers come out the worst of all the 2017 rookie classes by these measures.

 

 

[FakePlasticTrees]

I never understood why the local media was not more critical of Gettleman. Using words like " hog molly" seemed to immunize him from significant criticism. The cutting of Norman was an inexcusable self-inflicted wound that laid the groundwork for a bad draft and worse season the year after a Super Bowl loss. 

The reality is that even the best GMs will have plenty of misses in the draft. The unknown qualities and other innumerable variables of draftees make that inevitable. That inevitability makes cutting a known quantity all the more egregious. Effectively, he revoked the franchise tag for a supplemental draft choice. Arrogance cometh before a fall.

[KB_fan]

OK, real work beckons.  Will catch up with replies and comments here later today.

[cookinbrak]

I just don't see how a player that went on IR before the season started can be called a bust. Drop Corn and DaeDae off the list and see what happens.

[KB_fan]

8 hours ago, top dawg said:

This is a fair summary of the 2016 Class by Tim Weaver of USA Today. I was going to do a thread on it, but thought I'd give it a break. 

https://pantherswire.usatoday.com/2018/07/25/panthers-2016-nfl-draft-class-is-not-looking-so-good/

Excellent article.  

[KB_fan]

9 minutes ago, cookinbrak said:

I just don't see how a player that went on IR before the season started can be called a bust. Drop Corn and DaeDae off the list and see what happens.

Never said they were a bust.  Just that we got no contribution from them their rookie years.  A statistical fact.  Not their fault.  Not even Gettleman's fault.  Just that injuries happen and so perhaps the "less is more" theory that Gettleman used in combining picks to trade up, resulting in 3 small draft classes, is risky.

I've hope that the 2017 class has much more to show us and can still be good players for the Panthers!

[Pup McBarky]

It's great when rookies make an impact, and I generally expect 1st rounders to make a fairly immediate impact. That said, if a lot of rookies are playing for you, you've got a problem. Even one year of experience at the NFL level is a huge advantage over rookies, unless their talent level is superior. The mental aspects alone require an adjustment for the vast majority of rookies. 

That said, I think coaches who played, like Rivera, tend to remember the above and are often hesitant to give rookies a whole lot of trust unless there are no other options. That alone could account for our "bad" rookie class of last year. Moton didn't play very much at all, except for jumbo packages...would he have played better than Kalil? An argument can be made there. Elder, Hall, and Samuel went on IR, so it's tough to say they were bad picks. Circumstances play a pretty big role in this as well.

I think, if the point of this is to rate draft classes, the more important stat is how those rookies fare down the road - particularly rookies drafted after the first round - and not necessarily with the team that drafted them. I keep remembering Evan Mathis, who didn't get much of a shot here, but eventually was named all-pro in multiple years with the Eagles. Was that a bad draft pick because it took him a few years to reach his potential?

Statistics are wonderful, but can be used and manipulated in ways that tell us falsehoods. We all know that. I'm certainly not accusing @KB_fan of doing this. She's put a lot of work and thought into this, clearly. But it doesn't tell the whole story - not by a long shot. There are just too many variables to analyze in this regard. That's why NFL teams have entire departments who do this kind of thing - and they still get it wrong many times.

[Moo Daeng]

Gettlemagic

[electro's horse]

While I appreciate what you're doing, this kinda boils down to "who was healthy."

The Panthers rookies were far and away not. 

Gotta give these things like 3 years to look at.

So for example, 2015 isn't looking too shabby.

[KB_fan]

54 minutes ago, Pup McBarky said:

That said, if a lot of rookies are playing for you, you've got a problem. Even one year of experience at the NFL level is a huge advantage over rookies, unless their talent level is superior. The mental aspects alone require an adjustment for the vast majority of rookies. 

This is such a great point. A few years ago I posted some stuff trying to quiet all the "Ron never plays rookies" haters. I showed that Ron did actually play quite a lot of rookies, but exactly as you say, too many rookies is a bad thing, at least in the short term. Playoff teams tend to have a solid core of experience.

I'll see if I can find my research on that.

There has to be some balance - continuing to refresh your roster and giving rookies enough playing time to develop them, while at the same time having strong veteran players who really carry the team.

[KB_fan]

1 hour ago, electro's horse said:

While I appreciate what you're doing, this kinda boils down to "who was healthy."

The Panthers rookies were far and away not. 

Gotta give these things like 3 years to look at.

So for example, 2015 isn't looking too shabby.

Oh, I totally agree.  The how the rookie class is looking 3 years later is important analysis and a different exercise.

This really was just meant to look at rookie participation in the short term in relation to what a difference it would be if we could once again have 4 or 5 rookies on the roster who make an impact and get significant playing time as rookies.