Panthers Apparently "love" Luke Kuechly

[panthers55]

I'll tell you what 55.

You keep thinking that drafting 43 LB's is the way to success, and I will continue to think like successful NFL football front offices.

How many successful front offices have you worked in so you know how they think?? How many GMs have you interviewed lately.

What I think is that the Panthers need to upgrade their linebacker corps to account for Davis and Beason's issues. I m not ignorant enough to assume I know what all successful front offices think or need. In fact I am not even sure I know what Hurney an Rivera think or need. At least I am intelligent enough to know that. .

[thefuzz]

How many successful front offices have you worked in so you know how they think?? How many GMs have you interviewed lately.

What I think is that the Panthers need to upgrade their linebacker corps to account for Davis and Beason's issues. I m not ignorant enough to assume I know what all successful front offices think or need. In fact I am not even sure I know what Hurney an Rivera think or need. At least I am intelligent enough to know that. .

I know that you don't see many of the successful teams drafting RB and ILB high in the draft, especially not in the top 10.

Do I need to interview Jerry Reese to know that he does not value MLB nearly as much as you and Hurney seem to?

Nope....just look at his draft history.

[panthers55]

Kearse ws the NT and his job was to command double teams and clog up the middle, which he did a ok job at. he wasnt on the field to collect sacks.

Kearse ws the NT and his job was to command double teams and clog up the middle, which he did a ok job at. he wasnt on the field to collect sacks.

Actually Kearse played at the 1 and the 3 technique, they rotated guys in at both positions as they were trying to figure who gave them the best matchups. Shirley rotated in at NT as well but that didn't stop him from getting penetration. Kearse was fine I was just pointing out that he was not better than Shirley or Neblett.

[cotblock]

Then you should see plenty of ILB's going in the first, as there are 2 more ILB's when playing the 34.

What it means is that the positions value is diminishing in todays NFL.

Go back and take a look at how often RB was drafted really high in the past...like say 30 years, and compare it to today. Same can be said for LB.

Order of importance goes a little something like this: QB, DE, OT, DT, CB.

The positions that Hurney likes to draft high, and resign for major bucks is not high on that list. LB's and RB's that don't rush the passer are no longer "cogs" like they once were.

https://landof10klos...ricanalysis-nf/

Summary: A metric analysis drawn from a weighted scale whereby points are given for SB wins, SB appearances, playoff wins, playoff appearances, etc... and cross-referenced with players voted as All-pro. Conclusion: Most important positions in today's NFL are in order, QB, C, S, ILB, OLB, CB, OG, DT, WR, DE, OT, TE, RB.

[panthers55]

I know that you don't see many of the successful teams drafting RB and ILB high in the draft, especially not in the top 10.

Do I need to interview Jerry Reese to know that he does not value MLB nearly as much as you and Hurney seem to?

Nope....just look at his draft history.

Actually to say you know what successful front offices think, you would have to interview all of them or have at least worked in one.

And the argument about not drafting RBs and ILBs high in the draft is irrelevant to us and what we should do. So whoever drafts RIchardson in the first will be a bad franchise because they did that, right? And whoever drafts a linebacker n the first will be a bad team because of it right or only bad teams will do it right???

So I guess drafting Jamal Lewis in Baltimore in the first round in 2000 which propelled them to win the Super bowl was a mistake and they were a bad team.

I guess Shaun Alexander in 2000 which propelled the Seahawks to a string of NFC West titles was a mistake and they were a bd team.

I guess LaDainian Thomas for the Chargers in 2001 was a bad first round pickup because we know how he sucked nd ho bad they were.

I guess picking up Deuce McCalister in 2001 draft was a big mistake and while the Saints weren't great, they would have been much worse without him. He ended up as the all time leading rusher for them.

I guess picking up Larry Johnson was a real mistake for Kansas City as well. And he didn't help them improve at all right??

I guess Steven Jackson hasn't been a stud for St Louis and was a total waste of a pick in the first round in 2004.

I guess Wiliams and Stewart were wasted picks for us because after all they haven't helped us all and they ar reason we hhave struggled over the past 5 years right?

I guess Adrian Peterson was a bad pick for the Vikings and was a waste when he was drafted in 2007.

I could go on but that is enough right now. When I get the time or inclination I can do the linebackers picked in the first. But the bottom line to make a generalization that picking running backs in the first round is a bad idea is naive at best. Can you find good guys later on in the draft as well? Of course. But picking what is usually the best back in football is hardly a bad idea or a sign you are a crappy franchise.

[thefuzz]

https://landof10klos...ricanalysis-nf/

Summary: A metric analysis drawn from a weighted scale whereby points are given for SB wins, SB appearances, playoff wins, playoff appearances, etc... and cross-referenced with players voted as All-pro. Conclusion: Most important positions in today's NFL are in order, QB, C, S, ILB, OLB, CB, OG, DT, WR, DE, OT, TE, RB.

Are you really basing the importance of players to pro bowl appearances?

To say that C is more important to teams than DE or OT is one of the most foolish things I have ever heard.

I guess that's why S's are drafted so high every year.

[panthers55]

Are you really basing the importance of players to pro bowl appearances?

To say that C is more important to teams than DE or OT is one of the most foolish things I have ever heard.

I guess that's why S's are drafted so high every year.

Seems to me that is a better way to at least look at some metric versus what you have which is your own opinion. Oh that's right, you know what all the successful front offices think so your opinion trumps research and studies........

and it was all pro designations not pro-bowl appearances. You do know there is a difference right. I guess you didn't discuss that when you were analyzing all the front offices,,,,,,,

[Panthro]

Actually to say you know what successful front offices think, you would have to interview all of them or have at least worked in one.

And the argument about not drafting RBs and ILBs high in the draft is irrelevant to us and what we should do. So whoever drafts RIchardson in the first will be a bad franchise because they did that, right? And whoever drafts a linebacker n the first will be a bad team because of it right or only bad teams will do it right???

So I guess drafting Jamal Lewis in Baltimore in the first round in 2000 which propelled them to win the Super bowl was a mistake and they were a bad team.

I guess Shaun Alexander in 2000 which propelled the Seahawks to a string of NFC West titles was a mistake and they were a bd team.

I guess LaDainian Thomas for the Chargers in 2001 was a bad first round pickup because we know how he sucked nd ho bad they were.

I guess picking up Deuce McCalister in 2001 draft was a big mistake and while the Saints weren't great, they would have been much worse without him. He ended up as the all time leading rusher for them.

I guess picking up Larry Johnson was a real mistake for Kansas City as well. And he didn't help them improve at all right??

I guess Steven Jackson hasn't been a stud for St Louis and was a total waste of a pick in the first round in 2004.

I guess Wiliams and Stewart were wasted picks for us because after all they haven't helped us all and they ar reason we hhave struggled over the past 5 years right?

I guess Adrian Peterson was a bad pick for the Vikings and was a waste when he was drafted in 2007.

I could go on but that is enough right now. When I get the time or inclination I can do the linebackers picked in the first. But the bottom line to make a generalization that picking running backs in the first round is a bad idea is naive at best. Can you find good guys later on in the draft as well? Of course. But picking what is usually the best back in football is hardly a bad idea or a sign you are a crappy franchise.

Did they draft those RBs 2 years after drafting a successful rb in the first round?

[panthers55]

.

[panthers55]

Did they draft those RBs 2 years after drafting a successful rb in the first round?

http://www.easterfun.com/bunnytrail/index.html

[cotblock]

Are you really basing the importance of players to pro bowl appearances?

To say that C is more important to teams than DE or OT is one of the most foolish things I have ever heard.

I guess that's why S's are drafted so high every year.

1. I didn't say anything of the sort. All I did was post a link with a summary. Did you bother to click it and read the analysis that was done? Whether you agree or not, the numbers are solid.

2. It wasn't based on All-pro votes. All pro players were cross-referenced with a weighted scale which involved what is commonly understood as success in the NFL...that is, more points were awarded for winning the SB, then winning a conference championship, then winning playoff games, and so on. Do you understand what a metric analysis is? Since you referenced successful FO's, you should pay particular attention since this analysis was based solely on success and not on individual talent. The whole point of the analysis was to discover, rather than what people actually think are the most important positions, what the statistics actually show. All pro players were cross-referenced simply because they are often the highest paid players because they are generally the most successful at their positions.

So factual response to the numbers would be?

[csx]

Again anecdotal evidence is not worth anything. Go back and look at the facts. That is yards per carry. In the first 4 games we gave up 554 yards on 90 carries (didn't include quarterback numbers) for a yards per carry of 6.15. In the last 4 games with McClain And Fua on IR we gave up 472 yards on 91 carries for a yards per carry of 5.17 which is a yard per carry better.

You should know by now when I say something like that I have already done the research.

Two of the last three games (not against the Bucs) the Panthers gave up 6.3 yds/carry with the final game being one of the worst of the year at 6.7......that is not a significant improvement.

[cotblock]

https://landof10klos...ricanalysis-nf/

Summary: A metric analysis drawn from a weighted scale whereby points are given for SB wins, SB appearances, playoff wins, playoff appearances, etc... and cross-referenced with players voted as All-pro. Conclusion: Most important positions in today's NFL are in order, QB, C, S, ILB, OLB, CB, OG, DT, WR, DE, OT, TE, RB.

BTW, I post this not as my argument one way or the other, but as a very interesting perspective. I am a fan of metric analyses for the very reason that they often surprise the hell out of people. People often form their opinions on what they feel, rather than on anything particularly logical. It just seems like it should be a particular way and metric analyses often puncture holes in those "feelings."

I don't know if this particular analysis is completely accurate or not, but there's no doubt that it provides a good deal of material for thought and debate...and in typical mathematical style, it punctures the hell out of those "seems like" opinions...including mine. Trust me, I have never thought that C and G were both more important than OT. Maybe it's time to re-think that.

[panthers55]

They were only on IR for the last 3 games.

Two of the last three games (not against the Bucs) the Panthers gave up 6.3 yds/carry with the final game being one of the worst of the year at 6.7......that is not a significant improvement.

I didn't see any tackles made for either or them in the last 4 games which is why I started there. They didn't go on IR until after the Tampa game but neither played that game so I included it.

But seriously using 2 games either way as a basis for your analysis is ridiculous. You can cherry pick any one game or two and find whatever you want. At least 4 games or 1/4 of the season accounts for a good or bad game and doesn't over compensate for one performance like you just did.

If you want to cherry pick, lets try this one. SInce the worse game we had all year defending the run was against Chicago when Fua and MCClain were starters and Forte averaged 8 yards a carry. The New Orleans game which was the worst without them we gave just over 6 yards which was a big improvement.

Again your example was no better than that one. You can't cherry pick stats and expect to find any relevant data there.