Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Draft Analysis: "A massive value-destroying error"?

PanthersATL

By PanthersATL,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

jayboogieman Grand Master

jayboogieman

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, CRA said:

I think you are trying over complicate this.

If you draft a QB high.....you give him a real shot.  No one expecting the bar to be Cam Newton blowing the doors off out of the gate or you go back to the draft.   You give a Mitch Trubisky legit time.  Which he got.  Then they moved on.  

Teams that don't have a QB should be looking to solve that as their first priority in today's NFL. 

adding Dwayne Haskins, Sam Darnold, etc in 2021 can't be viewed on par with going to the NFL draft and acquiring a top 10 QB. 

I'm not trying to over complicate this. Your stated opinion was that a team with a hole at QB should use their first round pick each year until they find their guy.

Quote
 1 hour ago, Shocker said:

So I guess we should use our first rounder on a QB every draft and we cool.  GTFOH

Teams that have a hole at QB should. 

Now you are saying that if you draft a QB high, you give him a real shot. What is a real shot? One year? Three years?

Does drafting a QB high one year mean you can't draft one highly the next year? If he plays his rookie year, he got a chance. If he didn't play, the hole is still there since you can't know if he is the guy or not yet. And according to you, they should draft another QB in the first. But wait, now you are saying we have to give the first guy his chance, so should the team take a different position in the draft or not?

 

Edit: Oh yeah, the last two superbowl winning teams built the team before they got their QB.

Edited by jayboogieman
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toomers Mentor

Toomers

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

I'm not trying to over complicate this. Your stated opinion was that a team with a hole at QB should use their first round pick each year until they find their guy.

Now you are saying that if you draft a QB high, you give him a real shot. What is a real shot? One year? Three years?

Does drafting a QB high one year mean you can't draft one highly the next year? If he plays his rookie year, he got a chance. If he didn't play, the hole is still there since you can't know if he is the guy or not yet. And according to you, they should draft another QB in the first. But wait, now you are saying we have to give the first guy his chance, so should the team take a different position in the draft or not?

The key being what is defined as a “hole”. Unless there is some sort of special circumstance, no team is giving up on a top draft pick after one year.  It took a coaching change for Rosen, and even Haskins got a second year despite seemingly trying to fail. 
 

   

Edited by Toomers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted

Great article but they could expand that to actually include actual performance and that would probably change the results substantially.

From the "positional value" aspect, it hits the mark. But, not all draft decisions are that simple. 

I would say it is a dramatic oversimplification of the process to break it down that way. Great data but not necessarily something you could run a draft based on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, rayzor said:

But what if they traded for (or even picked up in FA) their guy instead?

Depends who you acquire.  

You sign Teddy Bridgewater to a deal today for 2 years.  Does your franchise have a QB?  

I'd say you have a hole and a need at QB.  That needs to be solved before you will do anything. 

Sign Tom Brady? I'd say you are in win now mode for at least 2 years and have a QB short term. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jayboogieman Grand Master

jayboogieman

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Toomers said:

The key being what is defined as a “hole”. Unless there is some sort of special circumstance, no team is giving up on a top draft pick after one year.  It took a coaching change for Rosen, and even Haskins got a second year despite seemingly trying to fail. 
 

   

That's the thing. What defines the hole? Does a high draft pick fill it just because the guy is a high draft pick? How long should the QB be given to prove that he can do the job? That's why I stated I disagreed with him about taking a QB in the first round every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CarolinaLivin Grand Master

CarolinaLivin

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm not mad at Teddy though. Us signing Teddy allowed us to draft the way we wanted to (all defense) and so did the Sam signing this year.

This team is willing to take a chance on QB in order to build the rest of the roster. Most won't and don't agree with that, but I actually like that way of building a roster. 

Edited by CarolinaLivin
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toomers Mentor

Toomers

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

That's the thing. What defines the hole? Does a high draft pick fill it just because the guy is a high draft pick? How long should the QB be given to prove that he can do the job? That's why I stated I disagreed with him about taking a QB in the first round every year.

The coaches and FO. If a staff feels they can get a better QB, they will do it. There is not set guidelines. If I’m going to the playoffs with Alex Smith, I’m not passing on Mahomes if I think he can be better. It pretty simple. After 2-3 years, of a staff isn’t sure about a QB, they can move on. If they get the chance because they probably got fired for choosing the wrong QB in the first place. 
 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CPcavedweller Grand Master

CPcavedweller

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, PanthersATL said:

Here's some analysis about HOW MUCH VALUE DO TEAMS LOSE WHEN THEY DON'T DRAFT A QB IN THE FIRST ROUND:  
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-value-do-teams-lose-when-they-dont-draft-a-quarterback-in-the-first-round/

The article focuses on Fitterer and Rhule's decision to draft Horn instead of Fields.  There's a bunch of number crunching and talk about a quarterback's draft value vs drafting other positions. Those Huddlers who like to dig into stats and numbers will probably like those parts.

 But here are some other excerpts from the piece:
 

 

 

 

We saw Sam as our QB draft pick...its that simple. I personally don't blame them considering he is 23 and already has NFL experience. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

That's the thing. What defines the hole? Does a high draft pick fill it just because the guy is a high draft pick? How long should the QB be given to prove that he can do the job? That's why I stated I disagreed with him about taking a QB in the first round every year.

They temporarily fill the hole.  You then generally give them 2-4 years to grow and work on being the actual solution.    After that period you generally know if you still have a hole or not. 

Exceptions to everything.  So you will see a rare Rosen that doesn’t get the time. 

You also have bodies in the NFL.   Bodies can sometimes have potential to be more and exceed expectations.   But I don’t think you can overly play into the potential and expectations.   Saw that with Teddy.  Seeing that with Darnold.   Bringing in Darnold was the right call….but the narrative that he is on par with bringing in Zach Wilson or Justin Fields for an org just isn’t how I look at things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CPF4LIFE Grand Master

CPF4LIFE

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, travisura said:

This is all based on player potential by position. If Horn becomes a perennial pro-bowler and Fields doesn't live up to the hype do we really call it a failure? 

If its the opposite then the failure looks a whole lot worse.

Even if Horn is good and Fields is good it still looks bad because QB > CB any day of the week.

Its going to come down to whether Darnold was worth it or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • JawnyBlaze
      Why does Bryce get the blame?

      By JawnyBlaze · Posted

      It wasn’t completely his fault, but outside of two throws and one or two scrambles he didn’t do much to help. His accuracy was all over the place, numerous passes that were placed poorly and didn’t give the receiver a good chance to catch the ball or do anything with it after. He also continues to display terrible pocket awareness. Even the sacks could have been avoided, they weren’t immediate like the pressure we got on Shough at times. Bryce just often has no feel for pressure and stands there waiting to get sacked after numerous seconds have passed. 
    • TylerDurden
      Possibly playoff affectng news

      By TylerDurden · Posted

      I really fuging hate this era in so many ways.  I look at those Adin Ross and Neon kids, and I just wonder why tf are they famous?  Why would anyone be desperate enough to gain THAT audience that they’d risk money, career, disciplinary action to go up there and associate with those fuging dweebs?  And back in my day, racist peers got their ass beat.  And not endorsing or approving bully culture, but checks and balances and all…  had those two been bullied, or at the very least humbled, they wouldn’t be famous and glorified for being the fuging idiots they are now.  It seriously pisses me off… they both have done and said multiple, openly racist stuff and major media keeps pushing them, talking about them, and propping them up… and then dummies like Puka who don’t need the platform or exposure lend their celebrity to them.  fuging idiot… and even the other streamers, I don’t get - Speed, Kai…  I don’t understand making nobodies famous at all, but there is at least entertainment value to some degree there, and I could see how young, impressionable kids would find them something to aspire to (sadly), or view as “cool.”  But Ross and Neon?  They’re just shitty, shitty nerds with big ass mouths. I’ve went back recently and watched some classics (in two very different eras and categories 😂)  like Robocop and Idiocracy.  And what I find fascinating is how both movies illustrate how stupid society became by showing what the citizenry is entertained by.  In both, society became anti-intellectual and the citizenry were entertained by lowest denominator, primal-type absurdity - poo like, “Ouch! My Balls!”  Or on Robocop, a guy is a watching a show where they are smashing cakes on ladies’ breasts and then a guy says a line as the camera zooms in like, “I’d buy that for a dollar!” and the audience thinks it’s hilarious.  That’s where I feel like we are now.  Like who watches that clip with Puka and thinks any of that poo is funny or cool?  If I was Puka, I’d honestly be wondering why tf I’m hanging out with these beta ass, racist, cretin ass weirdos.
    • CPF4LIFE
      If you can only fire ONE person before 2026....

      By CPF4LIFE · Posted

      7 wins this year and some of those against really good teams and yall think Canales might get fired? Lol Good luck getting a better coach in here if that happens.  
×
×
  • Create New...