By several measures, Panthers 2017 rookie class worst in NFL

[Pup McBarky]

5 minutes ago, KB_fan said:

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.

Josh Norman was an excellent example of the problem with playing rookies. He held tons of potential, but he would often freelance and make bonehead plays. He may have been the best CB on the team at the time, but his lack of experience hurt more than his talent could overcome. And that's what it boils down to: every coach has to weigh that talent and potential vs. lack of experience and determine if it's worth it. For a player like Cam or Kuechly, the answer was obvious, but they were high 1st rounders, so that's not surprising.

And then you have the situations like Butler and Shaq...playing behind all-pros. Do you pass up on those picks because you've got all-pros at those positions? GMs debate this still. It comes back to BPA or picking for need. BPA is the simpler prospect (if either could be described as "simple") while picking for need is risky to say the least.

All us armchair GMs think we're smart, but that ain't an easy job at all.

[KB_fan]

So going back to the "you need a balance" and starting tons of rookies generally is not good:

Yup, I found the 2014 research I did looking at the relationship between roster experience and rookies as a % of all starters vs wins.  It's only one season (for all teams in the NFL), but I did also see some correlation when looking at Panthers history from 1995 - 2014.  It would be fun to look at a few more seasons of all NFL data to see just how true it holds that winning teams / playoff teams in general are starting a considerably lower % of rookies.  But it seems like common sense.

This is data from 2014 for all NFL teams, sorted in descending order of the far right column.  Rookie % of all starts.

(Yellow below highlights teams winning 10 or more games, note how all but 2 winning teams in 2014 started a below-average % of rookies.  

 

Here's the correlation such as it is between wins and rookie starting %  from 2014 in graphical form, presented 2 ways.

[dksmith17]

High number of rookie starters in a given year often correlates with trash rosters from the previous season

Look at the best rankings from 2017...  SFO CLE BUF NOR HOU 

What can we take from that in terms of identifying good futures are coming? absolutely nothing

A better analysis is to look at long term starters on good, consistent, playoff level type teams. The best of the current era has to be the Seahawks in that 09-12 era. IIRC they only hit on like 2.5 starters per draft in a 3 year stretch which resulted in a roster strength driven mini dynasty (as opposed to QB driven dynasty). 

 

[KB_fan]

Totally agree about what would make for better analysis.  

Really all this was about was showing just how little contribution we got from recent rookies.  On a stand alone basis it can't say whether that fact was good or bad, or what caused it.  I was just surprised by how LOW the Panthers rookie contribution numbers have been dropping in the past 3 years, which is one thing I think contributing to my own desire to overhype and over hope for production from the 2018 class.  Bringing some of them along slowly is probably wise.  It's just that we've not had a lot of good fun new shiny rookies to enjoy for a few years and we want to watch some now!!

Really, that's about all this was.  Me just having fun with numbers, recognizing why there's such a hunger to see 3 or 4 rookies flash, not just one or two.  I'm really not trying to draw huge conclusions. 

The only conclusion I'm really drawing is that fact:

the Panthers got less contribution from rookies than just about every other team in the league last year in terms of numbers of rookies playing and the total value rookies added to the roster. 

But if CMC continues to develop into a major playmaker and guys like Moton and Samuel show up this year, who cares?! It doesn't matter in the long run, probably, especially since we no longer have Gettleman here continuing his less is more drafting philosophy.

[KB_fan]

One last graph and then I need to sign off.  Just for fun, here's the Panthers data for rookie start % (rookie starts as a % of all 352 starts in a regular season) from 1995 - 2017:

[dksmith17]

I'd try to look at it more as low contribution from 2015-17 drafts should not play any role in 2018 draft expectations as those were the relative NFL norm for playoff level type rosters. If 4-5 rookies beat out vets and contribute on a good team it should go a long way to long term roster strength. That is why people are excited, not because 15-17 dissapointed.

And undrafted/free agent contributions should not be ignored. After all, this is a franchise whose pivotal moment came via an undrafted journeyman nobody QB handing off to a free agent RB. Just last season a 2014 UDFA became the highest paid guard in the league, if people want to be excited for an undrafted rookie OG, we shouldn't necessarily temper the enthusiasm. 

 

 

[electro's horse]

1 hour ago, KB_fan said:

 

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.  

This metric would also favor bad teams as theoretically they'd have more opportunities for rookies to start.

like obviously everyone for the browns got to play in 2017. Players, coaches, random fans, EVERYONE GETS A HELMET

[My Goodness My Guinness]

I get we are trying to be all scientific and smarts, but this dumb. "Worst in NFL"? At what? Starts? Does that make players good or bad? CMC, Samuel, Armah, Moton, and the possibility of Hall? How is that the worst class in the NFL?

[grimesgoat]

Looking back - the 2016 draft was mediocre at best.  But frankly, after 15-1, there wasn't much room for a bunch of new starters. 

Butler was picked in case we lost Short and Edwards/Cole were done.

Letting Norman walk vs. paying him 15m was a calculated gamble.  We play zone and had confidence in Benewikere stepping in.  Gman probably felt he could get someone solid in the 2nd or 3rd (which he did) that could hold down a zone corner spot.  The extra cap allowed us to extend Oher, and rollover about 13m, which was ultimately used to pay Turner and Short. 

Most of our starters in 2015 were the same in 2016.  The following chart shows the exceptions and his replacement:

Punter: Nortman (Lee)

DE: Allen (Ealy)

WR: Crotchery (KB)

S: Harper (Boston)

CB: Robert McClain (Benewikere)

CB: Norman (Bradberry)

Arguably, with the exception of Norman, every single starter was replaced by a better guy.  We didn't need to draft a ton of guys all over the roster, just depth on the dline and a solid zone corner.  That is exactly what we got.  We also got a mediocre corner that we turned into Torrey Smith and a few pieces that have helped out here and there (Byrd and Cash).  Its not the best draft - but you have to remember the context.

Bottom line is - We got what we needed to repeat in 2016 - we just got destroyed by injuries and losing close games.

 

 

[mc52beast]

Fire Gettleman

[panthers55]

I don't know that rookies contributing is always  a necessary thing unless they are playing significant minutes. For example not playing Hall much was a function of having double digit sack vets already starting and not needing him.

Can't say the same about Samuel who we did need and he was hurt. I don't like rookies starting and would rather have vets in key positions. Obviously CMC was plug and play but that is usually the case with running backs. So I'd Gaulden and Jackson start this year I hope they contribute but don't like them even getting significant reps unless they are the best option and not just forced into duty because we have little else.

[KendrickPanther]

I honestly don't think we make the playoffs last year without Christian McCaffrey. He picked up a lot of First Downs that no one else could get. Keep in mind Greg Olsen was essentially useless last year and our WR group was a mess as well. CMC was a big time difference maker for us. 

[The Natural]

I think except for a small (very vocal) minority most people can look back and realize Dave Gettleman was an AWFUL gm.

[shaqattaq]

3 hours ago, My Goodness My Guinness said:

I get we are trying to be all scientific and smarts, but this dumb. "Worst in NFL"? At what? Starts? Does that make players good or bad? CMC, Samuel, Armah, Moton, and the possibility of Hall? How is that the worst class in the NFL?

OP is only measuring immediate success of draft classes, not overall contribution. With all the injuries our rookie class had last year, only CMC made any noticeable contribution. That sucks. A year later, we have 3 starters from that group and at least 4 that look to make a serious impact. Your statement is correct, but OP's point is valid as well.