Pick 9 vs 16

[Wyank]

14 hours ago, Basbear said:

I thought it would be a bigger difference, still COMPLETELY disagree with the win. Once you are mathematically eliminated from playoffs, start the young ones and lose all you can. Win the long battle. 

I don't think we were mathematically eliminated until the week 16 loss. 

[panthers55]

7 hours ago, Manther said:

9 is better than 16.  Anyone arguing otherwise does not understand the drafting process.  The W hurt.  We can go round and round about how much.   We won ONLY because the stains gave it to us.  That W had no upside.

BTW we also would have higher picks in the other rounds, heck we've traded up just a few spots in the in the later rounds in the past.

In the end,  RR was worried only about himself.  There is absolutely no way he was going to end that season setting the record for the greatest collapse in NFL history when the stains were bending over offering the win to us.  Even though we deserved the title of the greatest NFL collapse.

No one is arguing 9 isn't possibly better than 16. The point is that the results don't show that guys picked at 9th are automatic better than those picked 7 picks later or that those 7 spots justified  throwing the game. That win didn't hurt us at all. It was a good chance to see some backups like Allen,  some linebackers and other players and for guys like Kalil to end their career with a win after 7 losses. Plus we beat the Saints in their house which is always a good thing . Finally the coach and players would never throw a game. Honestly I bet it never even occurred to Rivera to do that. Coaches and players don't focus on draft picks, GMs and scouts do. Players and coaches focus on winning every game they can and the Panthers play hard for Rivera, something that a guy like Tepper readily sees.

[Manther]

25 minutes ago, Wyank said:

I'm not really sure what people wanted RR to do.  Backups to backups were in.  Hell we were one hit to the QB away from CMC going in as QB. 

No starters at CB or LB.  Its not rocket science.

[Icege]

I love the focus on #9 vs #16 as if this were the NBA draft and we only got 1 or 2 picks (or that ONE pick will suddenly completely change the trajectory of the team that isn't a QB).

Also, nobody would be citing Ron's W-L record with an asterisk stating that he tanked 1 game for the team to get a better draft pick. Nobody will say that we lost 5 in a row to the Saints, but it was because for the 5th game we were trying to get a better shot at gambling on the future.

To wish for a better opportunity at a prospect is fine, but to do so at the expense of the competitive integrity of the team is stupid at best, self destructive at worst.

[AU-panther]

11 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Of course I want 9 over 16. It isn't  that I can't find a probowler either way. I want 9 because there are seven players I can choose that I won't have at 16. Of those 7 maybe 3 are high on my board. But not enough to throw a game and cheat my way to move 7 spots in the draft. I loved we kicked the Saints butt no matter who they played. I didn't see them feeling sorry for us when Cam was hurt. Seeing Peyton have that sour troll face he makes when he loses was good stuff . Nope. There is no justification for playing to.lose. it dishonors all the players who fought hard for a chance to play or got injured along the way. You play for each other and you play to win. Everyone knows that if they played competitive team sports. It gets drilled into you every day. 

I didn't say anything about we should have lost.

All I did was go back and look at the extra 7 players available at 9 that weren't there at 16 and compared them to the next 7 and  compare there performance based on Pro Bowls and All Pro designations.  Nothing more or less.  

Needless to say the earlier drafted players have done better based on those metrics.  I think most of us would have guessed that before looking at the numbers.  There is nothing to really debate on the numbers that I listed.  Does that guarantee the same results in the future?  Of course not, but I would guess it would hold true.

Also I wanted to see how rare all pro level players are at that point in the draft.  That kind of information can help you make decisions when it is time to draft.  Personally If I was a GM I would lean more towards BPA than need in the first round because I'm hoping to get lucky and find an elite player which based on history are actually vary rare in the draft and without running the numbers I would guess the first round is my best chance to find an All Pro.  Not that I would totally ignore need, don't want to get the argument started.

Here again if you have a better metric to measure the difference in value between the two picks I would love to hear it.

 

[Wyank]

33 minutes ago, Manther said:

No starters at CB or LB.  Its not rocket science.

Snap Counts:

Shaq: IR  (Aj Klein 53%)

TD played 52% of the defensive snaps.  Probably final game as a Panther. Sure lets sit him after one series because future draft pick.  (De Davis 62%)

Luke played 10% of the defensive snaps.  Luke is Luke. Played one series.  (Alex 51%)

Donte Jackson (100%) and Bradberry (98%) played full game.  I guess these 2 guys made all the difference.   (Eli Apple was 92% and Lattimore was 50%)

 

Is that really your solution for RR to lose that game?  Pull Donte Jackson and Bradberry?  btw Michel Thomas 79% of Saints offensive snaps.  So it wasn't like they were lining up against back ups.

[d-dave]

I do with people would get over the win.  Sorry, but that's the truth.

The Panthers did win a week 17 game.  Why?  Because the team wanted to win, the coach wanted to win, the Panthers wanted to win.  The NFL is full of Alpha Males who are the best in the world at what they do.  Can you really go up to a bunch of men like that and tell them:  "Hey, you guys need to intentionally lose this game so we can draft another young guy higher to come and take your job next season."  Yeah, that's not going to fly.

As far as draft picks go, nothing is ever guaranteed.  It's really easy to look at historical picks and say "Wow, we should have drafted that guy!"  The fact is, the draft has a lot to do with luck as well as evaluation.  Remember Aaron Curry?  Guy was supposed to be a super safe pick, a Day 1 staring LB with Pro Bowl and All-Pro potential.  Yeah, that didn't go well for the Raiders.  At best, he was a JAG.

Will we miss a great talent?  Sure, we might.  Draft night will be a crazy thing.  Teams might pull an Atlanta/Julio Jones.  Prospects will rise and fall.  QBs will rise because there are still teams who need them.  Great players with slightly below average measurable will tumble.  Also, I think the draft has really changed how the top of the first round works with the CBA and the 5th year options.  There are a lot of factors that go into draft night.  

Quibbling about the win is pointless.  Instead, look to the future.  I'm sure the Panthers COULD find an impact player at 16.  They could of at 9.  They could also whiff either way.  One misstep in rookie camp could ruin a draft.

[panthers55]

30 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

I didn't say anything about we should have lost.

All I did was go back and look at the extra 7 players available at 9 that weren't there at 16 and compared them to the next 7 and  compare there performance based on Pro Bowls and All Pro designations.  Nothing more or less.  

Needless to say the earlier drafted players have done better based on those metrics.  I think most of us would have guessed that before looking at the numbers.  There is nothing to really debate on the numbers that I listed.  Does that guarantee the same results in the future?  Of course not, but I would guess it would hold true.

Also I wanted to see how rare all pro level players are at that point in the draft.  That kind of information can help you make decisions when it is time to draft.  Personally If I was a GM I would lean more towards BPA than need in the first round because I'm hoping to get lucky and find an elite player which based on history are actually vary rare in the draft and without running the numbers I would guess the first round is my best chance to find an All Pro.  Not that I would totally ignore need, don't want to get the argument started.

Here again if you have a better metric to measure the difference in value between the two picks I would love to hear it.

 

You focus on a tree and miss the forest. The whole discussion for the past week was about why we should have tanked the game to get a better draft pick. You tried to show that the difference in the pick was a big deal. I argued it wasn't a big deal and didn't justify throwing a game and dishonoring the sport. Of course picking 9 gives you more options but we also know that you can find gems up and down the draft. We should have done exactly what we did, play hard to win and let the chips fall where they may 

[SOJA]

Something that really isn't being discussed is that not only does winning that game drop the premium level of talent that will be available at 16 but it drops our pick in every single round. We literally lose draft capital by winning that game. This makes trade downs in other rounds less lucrative and trade ups more costly.

The only argument that makes winning that game valid is that the Saints literally didn't try and wanted us to win to fug us over. In which case they did it perfectly. 

[raz]

i blame the school system for peoples inability to do simple math.    9 is a better pick than 16.   7 more players to choose from.   good god.

[panthers55]

5 minutes ago, SOJA said:

Something that really isn't being discussed is that not only does winning that game drop the premium level of talent that will be available at 16 but it drops our pick in every single round. We literally lose draft capital by winning that game. This makes trade downs in other rounds less lucrative and trade ups more costly.

The only argument that makes winning that game valid is that the Saints literally didn't try and wanted us to win to fug us over. In which case they did it perfectly. 

Now make a case that 7 positions in any other round would make a big difference. If it didn't do much in the first, the effect later in the draft is even more a non-issue. The only issue that makes any sense is you always play to win just like we did. This whole discussion is loser mentality and something I promise you coaches and players don't even consider.  

[panthers55]

1 minute ago, raz said:

i blame the school system for peoples inability to do simple math.    9 is a better pick than 16.   7 more players to choose from.   good god.

I blame school for teaching kids to focus on one point and miss the whole discussion. The argument is there is little evidence to prove the 9th pick works out better than the 16th especially enough to throw a game and cheat the system.

Just because folks have more choice doesn't mean they make a better pick.  Abstract logic- try it.

[CBDellinger]

Imagine telling TD and Luke that we are gonna go out and lose a game to improve our draft position. 

Good luck with all that!

[mc52beast]

You have to take into account the teams that are making these picks, I’m assuming some of them are the same teams that keep losing year after year.