Evil Hurney

Here is the projected draft order based on the Vegas lines as of this morning. Basically I assumed Vegas was able to correctly pick the winner of each game today. Note that the playoff teams may be mis-ordered as I just sorted based on Win% and then SOS%.

Knowing that the Raiders lost, the best we can do with a win is #8, but it'll be really hard. Catching ATL in SOS is much harder than catching the Raiders in SOS.

With the Panthers officially out of playoff contention we can all collectively turn our attention to the draft. If the season were to end today the Panthers would hold the 9th pick in the draft (https://www.tankathon.com/nfl). Draft order is based upon: 1) Winning % 2) Strength of Schedule (SOS) - the aggregate winning % of a team’s opponents 3) a bunch of tie-breakers that you can read about here: https://operations.nfl.com/journey-to-the-nfl/the-nfl-draft/the-rules-of-the-draft/ Looking at just the first two criteria, Pick #9 appears to to be the floor with Pick #6 being the ceiling. So, what needs to happen in order to move up 3 spots? Below I have highlighted the preferred winner of each matchup and provided a short excerpt explaining why. --- Week 17(?) [BUF] @ CIN, CIN losing lowers SOS for NFCS teams --- Week 18 KC @ [LV], LV winning would give them a better winning % (assuming CAR loses) TEN @ JAC, winner doesn't matter BAL @ CIN, winner doesn't matter CLE @ [PIT], CLE losing lowers SOS for NFCS teams MIN @ [CHI], CHI winning increases SOS for ATL only [NE] @ BUF, NE winning increases SOS for LV only NYJ @ MIA, winner doesn't matter TB @ [ATL], ATL winning would give them a better winning % (assuming CAR loses) CAR @ [NO], hopefully no explanation is needed HOU @ IND, winner doesn't matter ARI @ SF, winner doesn't matter DAL @ [WAS], WAS winning increases SOS for ATL only [LAR] @ SEA, LAR winning would give them the same winning % (assuming CAR loses) NYG @ [PHI], NYG losing lowers SOS for CAR only [LAC] @ DEN, LAC winning increases SOS for ATL + DEN losing lowers SOS for CAR DET @ [GB], DET losing lowers SOS for CAR only --- Entering all of that into a spreadsheet shows that we can catch LV and ATL in SOS. LV is much easier to surpass than ATL though.

In reality this is a bit of 8D chess. Locks in the 5th rounder cost, clears ~$2M in cap space (if claimed), and doing a player a solid doesn't hurt when FA rolls around.

We are close, but not quite there yet. Baker has missed 267 of the 582 offensive snaps. If we project out those 582 snaps for an entire season we get ~989 total offensive snaps. 30% of 989 is 297 snaps meaning the team is about 30 snaps or 1/2 a game away from being "safe". I assume they would just sit Baker week 18 if it came to it.

I understand what you are saying. I do. The OP is trying to figure out the probability of drafting players with comparable production and profit. Without doing A LOT of leg work the Pro Bowl data is the best surrogate I found for binning drafted players into groups. If you want to tick things up or down a few percentage points to account for "not actually making a Pro Bowl", go for it. But as I already mentioned WRs make the Pro Bowl far less often than the 44% I already used.

This first part of this was addressed. Look at page 2. Salary or more accurately cap space is an interesting dimension brought up by many. I just don't know how to value it. In a money ball sense you are paying for production (over replacement) not just warm bodies, but what are the chances that level of production even exists in FA. If they did why would anyone trade for a DJ or Burns? Players that have that much projected productivity don't tend to hit FA. Instead you are paying for band-aids and projects which will likely cost more in the long run (see our recent QB history).

I said he was Pro Bowl caliber. If you are intending to replace his production the WR would need to be Pro Bowl caliber. If you can find a better way to quantify his value and the probability of finding someone with similar value in the draft (or FA) I'm all ears.

No malice was intended by combining the two deals. The deals often get talked about in concert and it's a more compact discussion. I probably should have looked at them separately.

Burns is under team control for 3 more seasons (5th year + 2 franchise tags). At any point in the next year they can still trade him for those Rams picks. It's not like they have been (or will be) spent.

Fair point. It really comes down to what you mean by "solid" and how they are valued. Star power, at least at WR and EDGE, seems to matter in the league. I'm not convinced that 4 YGMs are better than 2 Burns, or 4 TMJs are better than 2 DJs. I ran some numbers based on a 20% bust rate for 1st rounders and 35% for 2nd rounders along with the previous Pro Bowler numbers in the OP; Bust in this case being someone that didn't get a 2nd contract. That means for each roll the player could be a A) Pro Bowler, B) Non-Bust, or C) Bust. Results:

There's been a lot of digital ink spilled over the non-trades of Brian Burns and DJ Moore. The alleged total compensation was 3 1st-round picks and 1 2nd-round pick for the pair. I was curious what probability said regarding the decision. Assumptions: We can spend all the picks at the same time and neglect the year of the draft pick (some were way off in the future making them less valuable) Burns and DJ are considered Pro Bowl caliber players; Note that I didn't say All Pro, which is a higher bar A 1st round pick becomes a Pro Bowler 44% of the time; Keep in mind WRs and DL have been shown to hit at a much lower rate A 2nd round pick becomes a Pro Bower 18% of the time Background: I am going to model this using a probability tree where we are essentially rolling a dice for each pick. We have 3 dice weighted for a 1st-round pick (44% success) and 1 dice weighted for a 2nd-round pick (18% success). Once we have 2 success we stop rolling and collect the profit (the extra picks). Results: Takeaway: Within this context the Panthers made the right decision. They have a 41% chance of profiting off the trade (big or small gain) compared to a 52% chance of losing on the trade (big or small loss).

While I'd like to have Payton as the next HC it isn't happening. It'll cost too much in draft capitol and team control. It also doesn't help that Payton has his eyes on the Chargers job. That thing is tailor made for what he wants.

I think he'll need to miss 3 more games (including this Sunday). Baker can only play 69.9% of snaps (the 4th triggers at 70% per Person). The team is on pace for ~940 snaps this season. 30.1% of that is around 283 plays missed. Currently Baker has missed 103 snaps and needs to miss another 180. At a pace of 55-60 snaps per games that is 3 additional games missed.

I wonder how Sam feels about this. He was honestly better off not playing a single down this season.

Probably a year early. But it doesn't hurt to have a brother pumping out 13 win seasons. He's near the top of my list.

Raiders seemed to play well under him. That said, his ST units were part of the problem for GB yesterday.

I you squint that's almost equal to a 2024 5th rounder ... i.e. Baker Mayfield

Sh!t meet wall

I hear the opposite. Wilks has to dramatically outperform to even be "considered" for the future HC job.

I agree. Unlike a typical RB CMC catches and run routes like a WR. How much would Cooper Kupp fetch in a trade? Deebo? CMC is 3 years younger than Kupp and the same age as Deebo.

Reasons for firing from the presser: Lack of success, no upward trajectory (wins and expected wins) Losing the home stadium to opponent (fan support) Lack of effort/intensity on the field this week (player buy-in)

Definitely. He pushed back hard on that reporter. Basically daring him to ask the actual question ... "Are you the problem?" ... instead of beating around the bush

I do sense that Fit isn't safe as well. It could also be holding on to a bargaining chip for a future HC ... letting them pick their GM.

Newton is so bad at his job. The disgust on faces when he asks a question is universal.