Pick 9 vs 16

[CBDellinger]

there’s not a good metric for this because there are so many factors in the development of a player.  The team, the scheme they run, the fit, the coaches, the city, etc... when a player is picked is just one part of that.  

It’s better to have a skilled gm and team of scouts/coaches making the pick than it is to have a high pick. 

 

[Lumps]

Lol this isn’t fluff these are facts

no one is arguing team draft eptitude of front offices and GMs or a pro bowler can’t be found in round 4 if picked wisely and he won’t be worth more than a first pick 

people who say this is fluff mama jama voodoo simply want to be blind and ignore the facts

having a 9 pick vs 16 makes a difference. Fact. Period. 

the what if’s buy this and would coulda are for those who don’t want to see 9 presents more options. If you have a top guy you want the likelihood of him being there at 9 vs. 16 is not the same 

 

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, AU-panther said:

so the highly skilled "picker"  has the same chance of finding a pro bowler at 20 as he does 1?

I'll put the results a different way and people can view them how they like

Historically speaking, over the last 8 years the seven players that have been available at pick at pick 9, but not pick 16 (so picks 9-15), have gone to more Pro Bowls and been named All Pro more than the first seven picks after 15 (picks 16-22).  As matter a fact,  a good bit more, twice as much for the All Pros. 

How you want to interpret that is up to you and anyone who chooses to read this thread.  Common sense would tell me the further down you go in the first round the less of a chance you have of finding an elite player.  I think most reasonable people would agree with that.  I was just trying to put a metric to it.

If you have a better way to quantify it go ahead.  Also I think the percentages of players actually turning out to be Pro Bowlers and All Pros is those ranges are a lot lower than most people think.

 

Historical trends are not predictive they are descriptive. They tell you what happened but not what is going to happen.  Secondly and this is important, when you bring it down to comparing 2 picks like you did, you yourself admitted there was not enough data to make the comparison. End of story. We are not picking 9 through 15 or 16 through 22 so group comparisons are irrelevant. Plus there is no control for who picked. So keep responding but honestly you have a whole bunch of irrelevant comparisons you are trying to make mean something they don't. And using faulty logic to make a point that is irrelevant. 

The reality is that outside of the top 5 there are plenty of busts up and down the first round. And data also shows some teams gets top 10 picks every year and blow it. Other teams have great luck with second rounders. So even if it is true that as a wide generality the lower the pick the better the evaluation of their ability, that doesn't mean they will succeed any more than someone picked later.  And it doesn't mean that picking at 9 versus 16 gives us a better chance to find a probowler which was your whole premise. 

[panthers55]

Just now, Lumps said:

Lol this isn’t fluff these are facts

no one is arguing team draft eptitude of front offices and GMs or a pro bowler can’t be found in round 4 if picked wisely and he won’t be worth more than a first pick 

people who say this is fluff mama jama voodoo simply want to be blind and ignore the facts

having a 9 pick vs 16 makes a difference. Fact. Period. 

the what if’s buy this and would coulda are for those who don’t want to see 9 presents more options. If you have a top guy you want the likelihood of him being there at 9 vs. 16 is not the same 

 

Prove it with facts. And the OP analysis isnt an adequate analysis to show that. He picked pods of players not individual ones. Again show me factually how picking at 9 is always or even mostly better than picking at 16.

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, CBDellinger said:

there’s not a good metric for this because there are so many factors in the development of a player.  The team, the scheme they run, the fit, the coaches, the city, etc... when a player is picked is just one part of that.  

It’s better to have a skilled gm and team of scouts/coaches making the pick than it is to have a high pick. 

 

Exactly. And what player position you pick matters also. How many QB have been picked in the top 10 and struggled? Versus how many running backs? At number 16 you might pick the 5th best DE or the best center. Which will likely make the probowl? Kalil was a second rounder but considered the best center in the draft that year  Multiple probowls not because of where he was drafted but because the best centers often aren't picked early and he was the best.

[CBDellinger]

23 minutes ago, Lumps said:

Lol this isn’t fluff these are facts

no one is arguing team draft eptitude of front offices and GMs or a pro bowler can’t be found in round 4 if picked wisely and he won’t be worth more than a first pick 

people who say this is fluff mama jama voodoo simply want to be blind and ignore the facts

having a 9 pick vs 16 makes a difference. Fact. Period. 

the what if’s buy this and would coulda are for those who don’t want to see 9 presents more options. If you have a top guy you want the likelihood of him being there at 9 vs. 16 is not the same 

 

That’s all it presents... more options.  And depending on the team needs and philosophy that may not even matter.  There’s no guarantee that the team picking at 9 or any other number will have the same draft board as a team picking at 16.  And if your board sucks... then it doesn’t matter anyways.  

And let’s not ignore the fact that tanking is a great way to lose a locker room and the trust of your players.  It would have been dumber than dumb tank vs NoLa for a better draft pick.  Those guys do not have losing in their DNA.  They are the top 1% of the 1%. You cannot underestimate the power of their pride.  Even old Ron Rivera is smart enough to realize that.  

[Pejorative Miscreant]

I like that I can come in this thread and whine and then go to the other threads and complain about NO fans whining. It’s a win win for me.   

[AU-panther]

55 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Historical trends are not predictive they are descriptive. They tell you what happened but not what is going to happen.  Secondly and this is important, when you bring it down to comparing 2 picks like you did, you yourself admitted there was not enough data to make the comparison. End of story. We are not picking 9 through 15 or 16 through 22 so group comparisons are irrelevant. Plus there is no control for who picked. So keep responding but honestly you have a whole bunch of irrelevant comparisons you are trying to make mean something they don't. And using faulty logic to make a point that is irrelevant. 

The reality is that outside of the top 5 there are plenty of busts up and down the first round. And data also shows some teams gets top 10 picks every year and blow it. Other teams have great luck with second rounders. So even if it is true that as a wide generality the lower the pick the better the evaluation of their ability, that doesn't mean they will succeed any more than someone picked later.  And it doesn't mean that picking at 9 versus 16 gives us a better chance to find a probowler which was your whole premise. 

Under your premise we should just trade back and acquire a lot of picks because we can find pro bowlers anywhere.

Would you prefer 9 or 16? 

[AU-panther]

59 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Prove it with facts. And the OP analysis isnt an adequate analysis to show that. He picked pods of players not individual ones. Again show me factually how picking at 9 is always or even mostly better than picking at 16.

Over the past 8 drafts 38% of the #9 picks have become Pro Bowlers, 25% of the 16th picks.

Over the past 8 drafts 25% of the #9 picks have become Pro Bowlers, 12.5% if the 16th picks.

Personally I'm not a big fan of just looking at one pick.  I'm sure there are other combinations that look different.

I'm not really sure what everyone is arguing about.  The fact, is as you move down in the draft, the chance of finding an elite player goes down.  That is why teams follow the trade value chart  That is why the pay scale is lower as you go down the draft.  This is why teams give up extra picks to trade up.  

[panthers55]

13 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Under your premise we should just trade back and acquire a lot of picks because we can find pro bowlers anywhere.

Would you prefer 9 or 16? 

Of course I want 9 over 16. It isn't  that I can't find a probowler either way. I want 9 because there are seven players I can choose that I won't have at 16. Of those 7 maybe 3 are high on my board. But not enough to throw a game and cheat my way to move 7 spots in the draft. I loved we kicked the Saints butt no matter who they played. I didn't see them feeling sorry for us when Cam was hurt. Seeing Peyton have that sour troll face he makes when he loses was good stuff . Nope. There is no justification for playing to.lose. it dishonors all the players who fought hard for a chance to play or got injured along the way. You play for each other and you play to win. Everyone knows that if they played competitive team sports. It gets drilled into you every day. 

[panthers55]

25 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Over the past 8 drafts 38% of the #9 picks have become Pro Bowlers, 25% of the 16th picks.

Over the past 8 drafts 25% of the #9 picks have become Pro Bowlers, 12.5% if the 16th picks.

Personally I'm not a big fan of just looking at one pick.  I'm sure there are other combinations that look different.

I'm not really sure what everyone is arguing about.  The fact, is as you move down in the draft, the chance of finding an elite player goes down.  That is why teams follow the trade value chart  That is why the pay scale is lower as you go down the draft.  This is why teams give up extra picks to trade up.  

Teams trade up for specific players they really value like Atlanta did with Julio Jones with the sixth pick in Cam"s draft. And there could be some real gems at 9 that aren't there at 16. But again the context has been that the difference between them justifies throwing a game and cheating the system and losing on purpose. 

So which is it? Your 38% versus 25 % comparison in the last 8 drafts is 3/8 versus 2/8  or is 25% versus 12.5% which is 2 versus 1.   So in either case one more probowler in 8 drafts justfies being dishonest.

And lastly, past drafts have no bearing on this draft. Who will we miss who goes between 9 and 16 that would justify throwing a game and dishonoring the sport they have dreamed for years of playing in the NFL.

[Manther]

9 is better than 16.  Anyone arguing otherwise does not understand the drafting process.  The W hurt.  We can go round and round about how much.   We won ONLY because the stains gave it to us.  That W had no upside.

BTW we also would have higher picks in the other rounds, heck we've traded up just a few spots in the in the later rounds in the past.

In the end,  RR was worried only about himself.  There is absolutely no way he was going to end that season setting the record for the greatest collapse in NFL history when the stains were bending over offering the win to us.  Even though we deserved the title of the greatest NFL collapse.

[Peppers90 NC]

What’s the point? Somebody still crying we didn’t lose last game?

[Wyank]

7 hours ago, Manther said:

In the end,  RR was worried only about himself.  There is absolutely no way he was going to end that season setting the record for the greatest collapse in NFL history when the stains were bending over offering the win to us.  Even though we deserved the title of the greatest NFL collapse.

I'm not really sure what people wanted RR to do.  Backups to backups were in.  Hell we were one hit to the QB away from CMC going in as QB.