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!

     

Pre-Draft thoughts from Diana Russini


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Waldo said:

 

I started watching this and I'm about half done. He starts at the beginning of the concepts and keeps building upon it. I almost walked but then he kept expanding. I can't tell where he is going yet but it's well done to the half way point. 

He did another great video on the draft a while ago.  highly recommend.

 

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Waldo said:

 

I started watching this and I'm about half done. He starts at the beginning of the concepts and keeps building upon it. I almost walked but then he kept expanding. I can't tell where he is going yet but it's well done to the half way point. 

Just finished it, and this was a great video.  The other one I linked has some similar findings in it.  Fitterer definitely subscribed to some of this, but he couldn't evaluate talent.  It doesn't matter how many at bats you get if you strike out 100% of the time.

Edited by PNW_PantherMan
  • Beer 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Just finished it, and this was a great video.  The other one I linked has some similar findings in it.  Fitterer definitely subscribed to some of this, but he couldn't evaluate talent.  It doesn't matter how many at bats you get if you strike out 100% of the time.

My biggest take is the big picture approach and recognizing the known pitfalls. Look at the money, look at the value but realize the situation. I was impressed too.

Fritts was part of thr trade back school for sure. He just had no positives as a GM. I can't remember one.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Fritts was part of thr trade back school for sure. He just had no positives as a GM. I can't remember one.

When Scott Fitterer got behind a microphone and gushed over Ian Thomas I knew we were cooked.

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

29 minutes ago, Waldo said:

My biggest take is the big picture approach and recognizing the known pitfalls. Look at the money, look at the value but realize the situation. I was impressed too.

Fritts was part of thr trade back school for sure. He just had no positives as a GM. I can't remember one.

Well trading out and up (today's 2nd for tomorrow's 1st) is way better than trading down.  It's just that's how you get fired as a GM, because you're going to suck until you get to make those selections and they have time to hit their strides.

It's the mismatch of incentive that causes the bad decisions that overly prioritize today at the expense of tomorrow.  You have to win now or you're gone.  No 80 year old billionaire has the patience for a 5 year plan.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Well trading out and up (today's 2nd for tomorrow's 1st) is way better than trading down.  It's just that's how you get fired as a GM, because you're going to suck until you get to make those selections and they have time to hit their strides.

It's the mismatch of incentive that causes the bad decisions that overly prioritize today at the expense of tomorrow.  You have to win now or you're gone.  No 80 year old billionaire has the patience for a 5 year plan.

Trading up is very risky from a cost to production view point. Sitting isn't the best value but it doesn't have a negative present bias that trading back does even if value is better. I always looked at performance but never really leaned into cost because of the rookie scale. I'm rethinking that now. I have belived the NFL had an issue with future value wherenI couldn't understand why know one is taking advantage of that. Selling a 2nd this year to have a 1st from last years second just seemed like a win with a 1 year payment to get it rolling but that present bias is that strong.

The 52% chance the player picked would be better than the next player at that position is wild. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Waldo said:

Trading up is very risky from a cost to production view point. Sitting isn't the best value but it doesn't have a negative present bias that trading back does even if value is better. I always looked at performance but never really leaned into cost because of the rookie scale. I'm rethinking that now. I have belived the NFL had an issue with future value wherenI couldn't understand why know one is taking advantage of that. Selling a 2nd this year to have a 1st from last years second just seemed like a win with a 1 year payment to get it rolling but that present bias is that strong.

The 52% chance the player picked would be better than the next player at that position is wild. 

Yeah it's insane.  Also with the late 1st being technically the highest surplus value, that means that the best run teams are getting the highest surplus value picks every year.  So while they might not be picking in the top 10 and landing the Abdul Carters, they are picking in the last 10 and landing cheap pro bowlers.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Yeah it's insane.  Also with the late 1st being technically the highest surplus value, that means that the best run teams are getting the highest surplus value picks every year.  So while they might not be picking in the top 10 and landing the Abdul Carters, they are picking in the last 10 and landing cheap pro bowlers.

It is insane. I love he made fun of the value chart and then proved where it was close and where it wasn't. Nice little glass of cold water before a draft and the craziness that kicks off before the long dead space and entrinchment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

It has to do with their style...

The quarterbacks who get sacked the least are the Marino / Brady / Brees types who make quick reads and get rid of the ball fast.

Likewise, if you have someone who's trying to play "hero ball" and make a big play every time, that style doesn't translate well to the NFL. 

Pretty sure Sanders has been criticized more than once for holding on to the ball too long.

I get that but when you have an ass oline and a suspect defense I'd prefer my qb go out and try to make plays knowing we need to score 35+ to win rather than checking down a couple times and punting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooo many teams trying to trade back in this class. It's kinda been an easy to see situation with so few true blue chip players in this draft.

I hope we stick at 8 and go with BPA. My preference is for Warren, but there are some very, very good players that could amazingly fall to us based on trade ups ahead or just terrible picks being made. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CPcavedweller said:

Buffalo literally follows the Carolina model. It works for them because of their stability and their drafts have hit. 

They also play in a garbage division.

It also works for them because they have great qb play.  

And we play in a bad division.  

  • 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

    • Give me Mitchell Evans over T Sanders in this run heavy offense any day of the week. 
    • What's up gents, the OGs remember me, the guy who single-handedly gave the Panthers the greatest uniform in history moniker. Not too long after that I got involved with Pro Football Focus (pre-Collinsworth acquisition) and ended up taking backseat here to preserve some objectivity. But from a distance I noticed a lot. After the end of the Cam era this place devolved into the most un-fun, petty, negative cesspool of whining and bitching that has ever graced the internet. The worst part of it all is that the level of discussion turned into the most ill-informed, hot-take, unnuanced crap, rife with people talking out of their posteriors as if they have any clue about what they are watching. Once you get into the professional side of the sport and actual film rooms, you start to understand there's an absurd number of moving parts to pretty much every snap and the details you are privy to are truly only half the picture. The absolute most important thing I learned from being part of professional level football analysis is that quarterbacking is literally the most intricate and difficult position in all of professional sports, and that the NFL itself is struggling to develop any workable model that allows them to understand what makes one succeed vs what makes one fail. Because of this paradox it has also made the quarterback position itself grossly overvalued from a fan and media standpoint, creating an absurd fixation on the results delivered by a single player who has to rely on the contributions of everyone around them. This also drives the dreaded inflation of QB salaries that inevitably cause even elite teams to lose key talent all to pour cash into the one player supposed to be able to single-handedly elevate the entire team (and defense and special teams and coaching and ownership by some mysterious proxy), yet without those same players even talented teams can wander the wilderness searching for the right guy to take advantage of their talent window. The discussions the last few years around Bryce has personified this insanity, as this board has devolved into some sort of electronic civil war between the hyperbolic Young supporters and the vitriolic Bryce haters. The reality, like practically everything in this world, is somewhere in the middle. He has traits that can absolutely elevate a team with creativity, play recognition, off-arm angle throws, mental toughness, etc. He's also physically limited, with mostly "good-enough" qualities for most situations that a professional quarterback is asked to do, and will never be an overpowering physical force like pre-injury Cam. But "good-enough" physicality represents a large majority of championship-winning quarterbacks, even in the modern era. There's a reason the corpse of Peyton Manning took the chip from elite physical specimen Cam, because the team surrounding him was talented enough to get him there, while we all know Cam was the driving force of that 2015 team. That's no knock on him, that's just how the game of football tends to work: the more complete team usually wins. The summary is this: if this team lives or dies solely on the performance of its quarterback, then it is absolutely a paper tiger even if he plays brilliantly week in and out. There are no superheroes in this sport, there are only conduits that proxy the collective efforts of much of the team around them. And no one alive can tell you how the position is played perfectly, it's all a confluence of circumstance and what unique collection of traits each player brings to the position, which can never be truly recreated season after season, even for the same player on the same team. If this place remains a raging hellscape of idiotic hot takes I will happily remove myself again and do something more productive for yet another decade, but maybe's there hope that we can all get back to the old adage, and keep pounding.
    • Really impressed how the bottom six have looked the past couple games
×
×
  • Create New...