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!

     

let's talk about Brock Purdy and Mike White

GOAT

By GOAT,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Wundrbread33 Grand Master

Wundrbread33

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, BrianS said:

Statistically speaking, QB's selected in the first round hit at a rate of about 50%.  Which isn't wonderful . . . until you consider that QB's selected in every other round hit at a rate of about 10%.  Coaching and system play a huge role in this, yes, but the delta between round 1 and all other rounds is so high that you simply can't ignore it.

Stats are good at showing what happened, but they don’t tell you why.

 

See: Teddy’s completion percentage 

  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerry Green Veteran

Gerry Green

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

Makes me think of Jake Delhomme/Chris Weinke. 
 

Back in their day, there were enough reps for a legit QB battle. Weinke vs. Lewis, and a couple years later, Weinke/Delhomme/Peete.

 

Delhomme, undrafted, backup for years, but was brought in and given a chance, and then the staff committed to him.  

 

IMO, the CBA is the reason there is so much bad football. Not enough practice time. I get that you can only get so much out of practice. That nothing beats actual playing time. But practice is the only time some of these guys have to impress the coaches. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MasterAwesome Veteran

MasterAwesome

Posted
Posted

Saying "let's skip drafting a QB in the 1st and just take late-round QBs instead" would be a stupid argument...but I don't think anyone is making that argument?  What's debatable and the question that the OP seems to be asking is: is it worth deliberately tanking in hopes that you're gonna draft the savior of your franchise at the top of the 1st when it's such a volatile crapshoot?

I keep hearing people bring up Kyle Allen but the irony is that Kyle Allen (UFA) won more games for us than any of our highly drafted 1st round picks in recent years: Teddy, Darnold, or Baker.  You guys are only unironically bolstering the OP's argument lol.

My position is that you wholeheartedly compete for the entire season (no "tanking"), let the chips fall where they may, then if there's a QB you think can be your franchise QB wherever you're picking in the 1st, you pull the trigger on him or even move up for him.  Don't lose your minds over our team winning too many games to take one of the Top 2 guys or w/e...people did exactly that last season with Zach Wilson.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerry Green Veteran

Gerry Green

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

Stats are good at showing what happened, but they don’t tell you why.

 

See: Teddy’s completion percentage 

 

I get really confused about stat usage around here.

 

Stats are good if you want to make a point.

 

Stats are bad when you want to make a counterpoint.

 

However, stats, I've been told, are for losers. 

 

I guess I'll continue to use them when I think I need them, and lol at them when others use them? Is there a handbook for this sort of thing? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerry Green Veteran

Gerry Green

Posted
Posted (edited)

There are 2 teams with a realistic shot at the SuperB owl. Buf, and KC. both their QBs were taken right around where we will be sitting. 

 

You play to win, take what you get, and do the best you can with it.

 

Edit to add; Or Hurts in the 2nd, and Prescott in the 4th. It may be nice to have a top pick. But if you play it right. You don't need it.

Edited by Gerry Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrianS Veteran

BrianS

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

Stats are good at showing what happened, but they don’t tell you why.

 

See: Teddy’s completion percentage 

Kinda.  A better example might be to look at the Browns history of drafting 1st round QB's over the last 25 years or so.  They've drafted Baker Mayfield, Johnny Manziel, Brandon Weeden, Brady Quinn and Tim Couch.  Statistically speaking, they should have "hit" on a couple of those. 

Heck, look at their picks in other rounds over that time period:  Dishone Kizer, Cody Kessler, Colt McCoy, Charlie Frye, Luke McCown and Spergon Wynne.  I mean, come on!  Just sheer dumb luck at some point should have gone their way.

But it didn't.

This is where coaching and organizational quality come into play.  The truth is that some of those guys probably were "good not great" QB's.  Unfortunately, the overall situation in Cleveland doomed them.

QB is the hardest position in professional sports to play.  It's the hardest position in professional sports to predict.  It doesn't invalidate the general statistical trend.

Generally speaking, if you want the best opportunity for the most advantageous outcome you need to draft your QB in the first round.  Generally speaking, having a pick toward the top of the draft is more important since the league has placed such an emphasis on offense in recent history.  It's pushed teams to select QB's earlier in the draft since the difference between having a good QB and not having one can't be as easily overcome in the league today.

 

  • Pie 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wundrbread33 Grand Master

Wundrbread33

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Gerry Green said:

 

I get really confused about stat usage around here.

 

Stats are good if you want to make a point.

 

Stats are bad when you want to make a counterpoint.

 

However, stats, I've been told, are for losers. 

 

I guess I'll continue to use them when I think I need them, and lol at them when others use them? Is there a handbook for this sort of thing? lol

Stats are a good starting point. They’re part of the puzzle. I don’t think they are useless, but if people rely on them too heavily they won’t get the full picture. 
 

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerry Green Veteran

Gerry Green

Posted
Posted
Just now, Wundrbread33 said:

Stats are a good starting point. They’re part of the puzzle. I don’t think they are useless, but if people rely on them too heavily they won’t get the full picture. 
 

 

 

I agree. Stats can be a useful tool when forming an argument. But on their own, they are a curse. lol

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

    • Seltzer
      Post- Training Camp 53-Man Roster Projection

      By Seltzer · Posted

      By all indications, the surgery was "minor." I know with all surgeries and especially back surgery there can be complications, but I think the whole time Tremble did this with the expectation he would be able to be back for Week 1 It sounds like he will be ready to start back in team drills next week. He's a veteran who knows the system so I'm sure that helps. I still can't imagine he will play a normal workload early on though 
    • Seltzer
      Post- Training Camp 53-Man Roster Projection

      By Seltzer · Posted

      Maybe. He was pretty good in college before a bad injury. He had a good preseason last year as a UDFA in Washington and was on their practice squad all year so they obviously saw something worth developing. He signed a futures deal with the Panthers earlier this year, and everything about him has been increasingly positive. Tremayne has gotten a decent amount of time with the ones, and a lot with the twos for someone that doesn't have a chance. He's the only other 6'4" plus WR on the team, plays ST, and is a more natural backup to the X receiver position than David Moore. That was my thinking behind it. But he may well end up as one of the last roster cuts. If so, I do hope they can bring him back to the PS. But I personally think there's a good chance he could be claimed given his ST ability and what hes shown at WR.
    • Seltzer
      Post- Training Camp 53-Man Roster Projection

      By Seltzer · Posted

      That was my thought originally, but so many of the beat writers have mentioned keeping 7 WRs in conversations that I went with that, at least for the purposes of this projection. But you're right that historically defensive guys who were standouts at ST have tradionally gotten those last spots  
×
×
  • Create New...