DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Football guys did half the job, now it's up to numbers boys to finish the job...

re: Berry and the return of #analytics, I will say one thing (to be fair)

In hindsight, the analytics setup we had before was a kind of unholy marriage. You had DePo and Sashi, who were way on the analytics side (yes, DePo played football, but he came from the baseball world for pete's sake). And then you had Hue, who was way over on the football side. In hindsight, whether it be unwillingness or inability, nobody really seemed to bridge the divide.


This time around, however, each person embodies more of a healthy mix. DePo is still DePo, but it's been reported he'll remain out of the day-to-day. Berry and KS are "football guys" that are also "analytics guys" (or maybe the other way around). Point it, I don't think it'll be the same oil-and-vinegar effect as the last nerd FO, and I think we'll be better for it (hard to be worse).

I hope this somehow translates to better drafts and off-seasons than last time. I really wasn't a fan.

I already listed several reasons but...

He is literally making up events, on top of neglecting information or suppressing information that doesn't fit with his narrative.

Its biased based on the language he uses to describe the processes as well, so right off the bat I am skeptical.

He states that certain pics in the two years were "picks void any data" and the rest were data picks. Ok, how do you come to that conclusion? What evidence says the bad pics were not data picks? he doesn't give any. he just expects us to believe him. So we are to believe that the data department has specific pics and those wre the picks that turned out as decent players while the picks that did not turn out well were football minded picks? Lol.

Here:



Ok,. How so? Where is the evidence that this is true? There is none. How does he know these were compromised picks and not just the data picks? Lol

Conversely:


How does he know these were the data picks? Based on what?

I find it hilarious how this article is written.

There is literally nothing factual to base any of the examples this writer uses, let alone we have factual reports and statements from people during the draft that were present at the time disputing what he said about Watson. he said He also conveniently leaves out the fact they passed on Wentz.

Its absolutely trash, and my opinion on that has nothing to do with the fact its bashing the "football guys" over the "data guys", its based on the articles lack of sourcing and information to back any of the claims made.

Please don't read that article. It's a bunch of unsubstantiated rumors written as fact under the banner of Sports Illustrated.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

I read that article earlier today and was hoping it would not make its way to this site (even though I knew it would).

It is a garbage article.

That is my expectation as well...

What people are you talking about.


First, I, me, would never draft a receiver at the top of the draft.

I would almost always make it a different position. They almost always seems to be crybaby problem makers.

As for Coleman, I didn't like the pick as referenced above, but he was the #1 or #2 rated receiver in the draft. What we did was in line with all the "football" experts.

Face it, sometimes it just doesn't work out. Give me examples of a GM saying he blew that pick. They don't do that. They move on. It's time for you to move on....Corey Coleman...really?

I don't get into the data and watching players prior to draft picks, so that I can not speak of...

Hue with the power to determine the quarterback room has been a heated debate here. There's an article in the athletic that's been linked here before about Hue being in charge of the quarterbacks, which is one of the reasons he came to Cleveland.

I'm not surprised the people who choose not to believe that would think the article is garbage.

What factual reports?

It's been said numerous times Hue wanted Hooker at 12.

We also never passed on Mahomes like Hue once claimed. Hue wanted Garrett at 1. Mahomes was drafted at 10 before our 12th pick.

Im not sure what these "factual reports" are claiming...

Hue wanted every player that ended up looking good, after the fact.

Unfortunately, he had to help pick one on draft day and decided not to tie his cart to a QB by drafting one early after his top choice was gone. He wanted to save that trump card (or excuse) for later.

It could be that the coaching staff feels the current roster is best suited for that type of offense. Considering we have one of the best running-backs in the league, that might not be such a bad thing. "Changing the offense" isn't necessarily a sign of bad coaching. It's when they change the offense or defense, and then have to replace everyone on the roster to get guys that can run it, that's a problem.

Considering that we ran air-raid last year, and it failed miserably, it's probably a good idea to change the offense.