Highest Roster Turnover in the NFL

[Stingray3030]

On 4/3/2024 at 10:37 AM, Leeroy Jenkins Ph.D. said:

There tends to be a strong correlation between roster retention and success in the NFL. There are many reasons for this correlation. Teams with above average players tend to hold on to those players, and consistency and familiarity go a long way towards improved performance. Most research done on roster retention/turnover look at the entire 53 man roster. Higher rates of roster retention are around 80%, while the lowest rates are around 40%. 

The Carolina Panthers are on their way to having one of the highest roster turnover rates in the past 5 years. Following the draft, where the Panthers have 6 picks in the top 5 rounds, it is expected that the Panthers may have an overall roster retention percentage in the 30's. 

On Offense, the Panthers are looking at possible new starters at 3 of 5 offensive line positions (LG, C, and RG), and 2 of 3 starting WRs. Possible additions at TE or RB in the draft may increase this turnover. This does not even account for an entirely new offensive scheme installed by a new HC and Offensive Coordinator. 

On Defense, the Panthers are looking at a new starters at  3 of 4 Linebacker positions, a new DE, a new FS, and at minimum one new CB starter. Again, these numbers are likely to increase following the draft. 

The biggest takeaway from this, IMO is that history is not on the Panthers side for a successful 2024 campaign. Bare minimum 9 out of 22 starting players will be different from the 2023 squad.  However, when you win 2 games in the season, sitting back and expecting different results from the same process is lunacy. With every new player and scheme there is an inherent risk or gamble.  We have rolled the dice an extremely large number of times. If by chance, these gambles pay off, we will have a chance to compete. However, there is an extremely high variability rate in our chance for success, higher than most teams in the NFL, which is, at a bare minimum, a cause for optimism. 

Define strong correlation - what was the coefficient?  Show the data.  I would ask which term was considered the Input and which the Output?  Did lack of success cause the turnover or did lack of success result after the turnover?  How about turnover vs year 2? 3? 4?  Which year was the strongest correlation?  What other factors were included in the study?  Let's see the details.  Blanket, vague "result" without details holds no weight my friend.

[Leeroy Jenkins Ph.D.]

25 minutes ago, Stingray3030 said:

Define strong correlation - what was the coefficient?  Show the data.  I would ask which term was considered the Input and which the Output?  Did lack of success cause the turnover or did lack of success result after the turnover?  How about turnover vs year 2? 3? 4?  Which year was the strongest correlation?  What other factors were included in the study?  Let's see the details.  Blanket, vague "result" without details holds no weight my friend.

[Stingray3030]

5 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins Ph.D. said:

Perfect - however this graph pretty clearly shows a fairly weak positive correlation - meaning other influences are much more impactful that retention.  I would bet the Correlation coefficient is no better than 0.2-0.3

[Leeroy Jenkins Ph.D.]

5 minutes ago, Stingray3030 said:

Perfect - however this graph pretty clearly shows a fairly weak positive correlation - meaning other influences are much more impactful that retention.  I would bet the Correlation coefficient is no better than 0.2-0.3

Right, not my study, and in no way does correlation = causation. I just know that the team this year has a higher number of unknown variables than is typical for most teams, which, while corollary data may suggest is a negative, I believe it creates room for optimism.  Which was the entire point of my post that I feel was somewhat lost. 
 

[Stingray3030]

5 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins Ph.D. said:

Right, not my study, and in no way does correlation = causation. I just know that the team this year has a higher number of unknown variables than is typical for most teams, which, while corollary data may suggest is a negative, I believe it creates room for optimism.  Which was the entire point of my post that I feel was somewhat lost. 
 

Fair enough - I was really just being a nerdy jerk.  I agree given our history this much change is reasonable and should give some hope at this point.  We are "Old" by normal standards, so if it didn't work there isn't much potential....those guys are who they are.  If we were a huge percentage young guys it would be different.  I am very optimistic for the next few years.  Maybe more so depending on the draft.

[Jackie Lee]

Dunno where else to put this, but I can't believe RGIII is actually speaking some truth on a team with a winning culture attitude, and it doesn't come from all the back stabbing and rats we've been dealing with since Tepper hired the team. I'm of the opinion of learning from mistakes, gotta suck before you're good at whatever you do instead of the constant reactionary moves we've seen the last 5 years

 

[toldozer]

I remember when Pete Caroll went in to Seattle and completely flipped the whole roster in 1 offseason. Hopefully Dave can have a much success as his old boss

 

In his first season, Carroll almost completely overturned the Seahawks roster, totaling over 200 transactions in the course of only one season.

Edited April 7 by toldozer

[Jackie Lee]

6 minutes ago, toldozer said:

I remember when Pete Caroll went in to Seattle and completely flipped the whole roster in 1 offseason. Hopefully Dave can have a much success as his old boss

 

In his first season, Carroll almost completely overturned the Seahawks roster, totaling over 200 transactions in the course of only one season.

I remember when the Houston Texans went from 3-13 in 2022 to the playoffs in 2023 because they took the right qb

[countryboi]

 

roster retention only matters when you’re good. Otherwise, you should be churing that roster till you become successful.

[WarHeel]

I’d generally agree but we don’t want to retain JAGs and busts. We sold all of our tenured talent before the 2023 season. 

[Montsta]

On 4/3/2024 at 7:45 AM, Daeavorn said:

Thats what happens when your roster sucks. We have a lot of people to replace that sucked.

Found our new GM. 

[WhoKnows]

9 hours ago, toldozer said:

I remember when Pete Caroll went in to Seattle and completely flipped the whole roster in 1 offseason. Hopefully Dave can have a much success as his old boss

 

In his first season, Carroll almost completely overturned the Seahawks roster, totaling over 200 transactions in the course of only one season.

Just like @Jackie Lee’s example, both situations ended with success due to two (possibly three) things:

1 - Great Drafts - We haven’t seen Houston’s second draft, but 2023 was like Seattle’s great couple drafts

2 - Great rookie QBs

3 - Because of 1 and 2, it’s a chicken and the egg scenario but there has to be some portion of solid coaching as well to mold that young roster. Hard to know how much credit because those drafts were fantastic and those teams went from mediocre talent to seriously talented right away.

My stance is still that until we have some solid to great drafting, we won’t be a contender even in our crap division. We need to hit this year so we can see the sparks and also most importantly prove whether Bryce can be the guy or we have to move on.

[toldozer]

4 hours ago, WhoKnows said:

Just like @Jackie Lee’s example, both situations ended with success due to two (possibly three) things:

1 - Great Drafts - We haven’t seen Houston’s second draft, but 2023 was like Seattle’s great couple drafts

2 - Great rookie QBs

3 - Because of 1 and 2, it’s a chicken and the egg scenario but there has to be some portion of solid coaching as well to mold that young roster. Hard to know how much credit because those drafts were fantastic and those teams went from mediocre talent to seriously talented right away.

My stance is still that until we have some solid to great drafting, we won’t be a contender even in our crap division. We need to hit this year so we can see the sparks and also most importantly prove whether Bryce can be the guy or we have to move on.

Agreed.  Seattle's 2010-2012 drafts were pretty fuging sick. Was shitterer there?  If so they probably did the opposite of what he thought was best. 

[WhoKnows]

5 hours ago, toldozer said:

Agreed.  Seattle's 2010-2012 drafts were pretty fuging sick. Was shitterer there?  If so they probably did the opposite of what he thought was best. 

He was right there although Schneider was the guy. Schneider has been quoted about how he was behind the Wilson selection. I think Fitterer took a lot from the Seahawks leading to Horn (legion of boom) and thinking a small Young would be fine, but clearly on his own he’s not a great scout.