Changing the Narrative, Vol. 1: #9 vs. #16

[DaveThePanther2008]

First of all, how do you build a winning culture if you ask players to give less than 100%? Regardless of current record and playoff status and against a divisional foe.  What the Saints or any other team does isn't our issue.   You play who is on the field but to outright ask them to tank is counterproductive what you are trying to build within your organization.

Secondly, if we had to "tank" for draft position, to me the only acceptable tanking, it would be for a top 5 pick.  As the OP noted quality players, even better players can be had between 9 and 16.  While they aren't necessarily franchise players they most likely will be solid pros.  I can't speak exactly for the OP but from my take he is trying to show that you are going to get a talented player at 16 as you would 9.  

Just like us teams have holes to fill and a great player could slide well into the 20s because his position doesn't meet any teams top needs. AKA Aaron Rodgers.

For all those that bitch about Hurney and Gettleman,  I will say this. Hurney has nailed every first round pick.  Even when we traded away to get Otah.  He was a solid player until he gave up on football. And in comparison to Gettleman it isn't even close. I will take Hurney's first round pick and believe it will help the team. Gettleman, not so much. If he does as well as he did last year.  I think he'll do ok with 2019 draft.  (though some will bitch about every player drafted).

BOTTOM LINE. YOU DON'T TANK IF YOU ARE TRYING TO BUILD A WINNING CULTURE.  END OF STORY!!!!

 

[micnificent28]

2 hours ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

First of all, how do you build a winning culture if you ask players to give less than 100%? Regardless of current record and playoff status and against a divisional foe.  What the Saints or any other team does isn't our issue.   You play who is on the field but to outright ask them to tank is counterproductive what you are trying to build within your organization.

Secondly, if we had to "tank" for draft position, to me the only acceptable tanking, it would be for a top 5 pick.  As the OP noted quality players, even better players can be had between 9 and 16.  While they aren't necessarily franchise players they most likely will be solid pros.  I can't speak exactly for the OP but from my take he is trying to show that you are going to get a talented player at 16 as you would 9.  

Just like us teams have holes to fill and a great player could slide well into the 20s because his position doesn't meet any teams top needs. AKA Aaron Rodgers.

For all those that bitch about Hurney and Gettleman,  I will say this. Hurney has nailed every first round pick.  Even when we traded away to get Otah.  He was a solid player until he gave up on football. And in comparison to Gettleman it isn't even close. I will take Hurney's first round pick and believe it will help the team. Gettleman, not so much. If he does as well as he did last year.  I think he'll do ok with 2019 draft.  (though some will bitch about every player drafted).

BOTTOM LINE. YOU DON'T TANK IF YOU ARE TRYING TO BUILD A WINNING CULTURE.  END OF STORY!!!!

 

Plenty of teams do it in the NBA. Tanking is talked about and shown to happen all the time there. For whatever reason its taboo in the NFL. Winning some game that is gonna hurt your team in the long vs getting a better player who could help you into the playoffs next year? That game was worth more to the panthers franchise losing than winning. your not building a winning culture by beating the saint 3rd string. you think winning a game without your starting qb vs there now released qb is helping? Hurny can nail every pick from now til he retires that doesn't mean they guy he could have had say at 9 is the same as the guy at 16. This is a really dumb debate to be having. derwin james went around 16-17 was pro bowl and while we were picking what 24-25 dj moore was good but not pro bowl. the same applies to to 10 picks vs picks 11-20.  The 76ers in the NBA openly tanked and now have arguably the best roster outside of golden state. there are in the title hunt because they did tank. 

[Jimmy]

We should trade down to pick #47. The results over the years make that look like a great place to get a player

[DaveThePanther2008]

3 hours ago, micnificent28 said:

Plenty of teams do it in the NBA. Tanking is talked about and shown to happen all the time there. For whatever reason its taboo in the NFL. Winning some game that is gonna hurt your team in the long vs getting a better player who could help you into the playoffs next year? That game was worth more to the panthers franchise losing than winning. your not building a winning culture by beating the saint 3rd string. you think winning a game without your starting qb vs there now released qb is helping? Hurny can nail every pick from now til he retires that doesn't mean they guy he could have had say at 9 is the same as the guy at 16. This is a really dumb debate to be having. derwin james went around 16-17 was pro bowl and while we were picking what 24-25 dj moore was good but not pro bowl. the same applies to to 10 picks vs picks 11-20.  The 76ers in the NBA openly tanked and now have arguably the best roster outside of golden state. there are in the title hunt because they did tank. 

This isn't the NBA.  So much easier to tank with 5 guys than 22. Furthermore the talent drop off from 1-5 in the NBA draft is much worse than the NFL.  As the opening post indicated that between 9 and 16 you can get a player of equal or greater talent at 16 as you can at 9.  Once again as the OP indicated, over the past 12 years you have had better talent at 16 as you did 9.  6 each way or 50% of the time.  Obviously you have a couple more players to choose from but when the talking heads say Sweat will fall to 15 or 16 that isn't a bad choice.

Comparing Derwin James to DJ Moore is a bad example because they are totally different positions.   You also have far too many veterans at the WR position that would be Pro Bowlers over a rookie regardless of how good a season he had. You could also argue that had our coaching staff used Moore from day one he would have been in the conversation.  

It also should be noted that the 76ers tanked for years before they got good.  As a GM and HC you wouldn't have a job if you did it over a course of many years in the NFL.  You can use the Browns as a prime example.  How many coaches have they had while tanking for a draft pick?

Lastly because I feel tanking is not the way to go in the NFL doesn't mean it's a dumb debate because you feel it is a viable move. 

[Icege]

52 minutes ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

This isn't the NBA.  So much easier to tank with 5 guys than 22. Furthermore the talent drop off from 1-5 in the NBA draft is much worse than the NFL.  As the opening post indicated that between 9 and 16 you can get a player of equal or greater talent at 16 as you can at 9.  Once again as the OP indicated, over the past 12 years you have had better talent at 16 as you did 9.  6 each way or 50% of the time.  Obviously you have a couple more players to choose from but when the talking heads say Sweat will fall to 15 or 16 that isn't a bad choice.

Comparing Derwin James to DJ Moore is a bad example because they are totally different positions.   You also have far too many veterans at the WR position that would be Pro Bowlers over a rookie regardless of how good a season he had. You could also argue that had our coaching staff used Moore from day one he would have been in the conversation.  

It also should be noted that the 76ers tanked for years before they got good.  As a GM and HC you wouldn't have a job if you did it over a course of many years in the NFL.  You can use the Browns as a prime example.  How many coaches have they had while tanking for a draft pick?

Lastly because I feel tanking is not the way to go in the NFL doesn't mean it's a dumb debate because you feel it is a viable move. 

I had my response typed with literally all of this only to see that you already mentioned all of the points I was going to make (quality will be there at 16, NBA roster size vs. NFL roster size, NBA bust rate vs. NFL bust rate, would the rather have James than Moore, length of careers in the NBA vs. NFL).

To show my appreciation, here's a taco:  

[DaveThePanther2008]

1 hour ago, Icege said:

I had my response typed with literally all of this only to see that you already mentioned all of the points I was going to make (quality will be there at 16, NBA roster size vs. NFL roster size, NBA bust rate vs. NFL bust rate, would the rather have James than Moore, length of careers in the NBA vs. NFL).

To show my appreciation, here's a taco:  

Not fair to mention taco to a man sitting in the middle of the desert....lol (of course my taco, in my mind doesn't look like that )

Thanks for the props

[Sub Zero]

How long will this be a topic?? Can we get a timeline when this poo ends??

[falconidae]

31 minutes ago, Sub Zero said:

How long will this be a topic?? Can we get a timeline when this poo ends??

Are you familiar with the concept of the heat death of the universe?

[Wyank]

3 hours ago, Sub Zero said:

How long will this be a topic?? Can we get a timeline when this poo ends??

It won't end.  If whoever we pick at 16 doesn't produce from the very first preseason game, the "glad we won that last game crowd" will be thrilled and continue the one line remark throughout next season.  If whoever we pick at 16 sets the NFL on fire, it will be replaced with "glad we won that last game" except it won't be sarcastic.  

[carpanfan96]

I posted this somewhere else, can't remember. Historically after the top 5, the NFL draft is a crap shoot with basically 50-50 odds of hitting on a player from pick 6-32. The most successful range after the top 5 is actually 10-17 with around 55%. 

[Chosen Newton]

“Vol 1”?! This makes me assume there are more volumes of this nonsense to come. This stupid thread does not warrant another post. 

9th pick > 16th pick. End of discussion 

[Icege]

On 3/7/2019 at 9:39 AM, Chosen Newton said:

“Vol 1”?! This makes me assume there are more volumes of this nonsense to come. This stupid thread does not warrant another post. 

9th pick > 16th pick. End of discussion 

Uh oh, sounds like somebody doesn't want their echo chamber to be disturbed because they've been listening to mindless narratives such as "YOU HAVE TO LOSE THE LAST GAME SO THAT WE CAN DRAFT A ONCE IN A LIFETIME PLAYER AT #9!" and "MARTY HURNEY BUILT THE 2015 TEAM!"

Stay tuned and we might even challenge other stupid poo some folks believe, such as "THE EARTH IS FLAT!", "VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM!", and "MY SISTER IS A GOOD KISSER!"

[Happy Panther]

On 3/7/2019 at 9:39 AM, Chosen Newton said:

 

9th pick > 16th pick. End of discussion 

We all agree 9>16. What the OP showed is that historically there is no difference in talent.

[Chosen Newton]

2 hours ago, Icege said:

Uh oh, sounds like somebody doesn't want their echo chamber to be disturbed because they've been listening to mindless narratives such as "YOU HAVE TO LOSE THE LAST GAME SO THAT WE CAN DRAFT A ONCE IN A LIFETIME PLAYER AT #9!" and "MARTY HURNEY BUILT THE 2015 TEAM!"

Stay tuned and we might even challenge other stupid poo some folks believe, such as "THE EARTH IS FLAT!", "VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM!", and "MY SISTER IS A GOOD KISSER!"

You sound butthurt you can’t convince people of your stupid analysis. You say Ross at 9 is equivalent to Humphrey at 16 yet you completely ignore Mahomes Watson and hooker who were picked before the 16th pick and could have been picked at 9 ya numbnut. Maybe you should put some more thought into your posts and making valid points rather than worrying about demeaning your critics *cue mic drop*