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!

     

Albert Breer: Panthers could "hold auction" for #33 pick


TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, strato said:

Question from a person that is not great with stats: If the scouts suck, then isn’t it better to view a pick as an educated guess? And if that were true wouldn’t we have a better chance with more guesses? 

Statistics would say that's true but unfortunately it seems when teams try this method they still draft based off of older school scout attributes and it somewhat defeats it. I have no stats to back this up. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, strato said:

Question from a person that is not great with stats: If the scouts suck, then isn’t it better to view a pick as an educated guess? And if that were true wouldn’t we have a better chance with more guesses? 

We don't really know if our scouts suck. Reports suggest that our GMs have been ignoring them. Hell, we had a college coach calling the shots for a few years. One thing Fitterer said that was actually correct was that predictability of getting quality players dropped at a certain point. The higher the pick, the better the chances of getting a decent player.

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, strato said:

Question from a person that is not great with stats: If the scouts suck, then isn’t it better to view a pick as an educated guess? And if that were true wouldn’t we have a better chance with more guesses? 


No, the stats clearly show that the odds of getting a good player fall drastically as the draft goes on.

In short, your odds of getting a starter at the top of the 2nd round is much higher than finding one starter from three 3rd rounders.

It’s like this. If your kicker sucks, do you want to give him one try on the 10 yard line or 3 tries at the 50?

  • Beer 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tbe said:


No, the stats clearly show that the odds of getting a good player fall drastically as the draft goes on.

In short, your odds of getting a starter at the top of the 2nd round is much higher than finding one starter from three 3rd rounders.

It’s like this. If your kicker sucks, do you want to give him one try on the 10 yard line or 3 tries at the 50?

I might disagree with that, anecdotally at least. Or question it. We can name a lot of great players taken in the 3rd round. And in a deep draft as this supposedly is? With 3 chances? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way you look at it a high value 1st round pick is going to fall in this draft especially if all 6 QBs go. 

I'd weight the trade based off what the future 1st would bring. If we're trading with KC, Buffalo or any playoff caliber team I probably wouldn't make the trade because we'd only move up a spot or two and have to wait a year. However, if NYG or Seattle or any other team that might wind up in the upper portion of the draft I'm going to listen. 

More importantly the trade would have to be a win for us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Campbell:

" Some team sources said they think there could be more trade movement in this year’s draft compared to typical years. They shared they believe this movement could start in the middle of the first round, stretch into late in Round 1, and then continue throughout the second day of the 2024 NFL Draft. The reason for the expected fluidity is teams feeling there is a lack of talent on Day 3 of the draft thanks to the influence of NIL in college football and more players getting paid to stay in school. That has weakened the talent depth of the draft, leaving teams believing that third-day picks have less value. Some sources from playoff teams felt that there is a good chance that the players they would get on Day 3 of the 2024 NFL Draft would have a very hard time making their final 53-man roster, so rather than use the pick on a player who is likely to get cut, they could use the pick to move up in the early rounds. This year’s draft has the potential to be one with a lot of trades, starting on the opening night of the draft."

I've always been under the idea that 5-7th round picks are worthless and should be used to trade up. Especially for the Panthers UDFA's have the same or better impact than 5-7th round picks

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact there are great starters picked in mid rounds every year belies that idea that we have to pick at 33 or risk getting a guy with lesser talent.  On the other hand if you don't have good scouting ability it doesn't matter where you draft including number 1 in the draft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 5th in general is still valuable to a degree but the 6th and 7th?  A 6th is a throw in to even out a trade, don’t even talk to me about a 7th.

And yeah the scouting and decision making can make a 1st round pick into a total flyer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, strato said:

I might disagree with that, anecdotally at least. Or question it. We can name a lot of great players taken in the 3rd round. And in a deep draft as this supposedly is? With 3 chances? 


Here are some numbers I found. Posted this a few months back.

2nd round - about 33% of players drafted in the 2nd round developed into a solid NFL starter. It’s higher for the top of the round. From here, it dropped by 50% per round.

3rd round - about 16%.

4th round - about 8%.

If you do the math, selecting two 3rd rounders gives you a 29.44% chance of gaining ONE long term starter.

Thats less than the odds for a single high 2nd.

 

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tbe said:


Here are some numbers I found. Posted this a few months back.

2nd round - about 33% of players drafted in the 2nd round developed into a solid NFL starter. It’s higher for the top of the round. From here, it dropped by 50% per round.

3rd round - about 16%.

4th round - about 8%.

If you do the math, selecting two 3rd rounders gives you a 29.44% chance of gaining ONE long term starter.

Thats less than the odds for a single high 2nd.

 

1 quarter, 2 dimes, etc.

  • Pie 1
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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...