Because of his contract status, there is a lot of talk about Schobert. Will he stay?, how will we replace him if they don't reach a deal?, etc.

I'm not an expert by any stretch, but I thought Wilson looked pretty good for an under-aged rookie, and I expect that with a full year and off-season, he will be better this year.

Since I haven't seen any more experienced talent evaluators around here give their opinions, I'm asking for them now. How good are we expecting Mack Wilson to be this year and going forward?

I am a big Schobert fan and I want the Browns to sign him.

Wilson IMO had a good start. But we need a veteran back there and Schobert is that guy.

A lot depends on how Woods plans to play. Taki and Wilson and no veteran would make me nervous.

Wilson reacts well once he gets his read but at times seems to be lost.

He has good length. Plays hard. He does seem to shed blocks pretty well. He is able to take his drops and cover.

He was a good draft pick where we got him and I expect him to improve and be a solid player.

If you don't keep homegrown talent like Schobert, who do you keep? I think a reasonable deal is in the Browns best interest.

I thought Wilson flashed at certain spots over the course of the season but still think he has a ways to go. Not sure of the playing time he will get if Schobert is sign and if the team decides to keep Kirksey.

Every new FO that we've hired in January is faced with the same uphill battle, whether the pending FA is homegrown or not. Once the season is over and the player hits that new year, the market becomes more and more enticing to test and see where they stand re: value. Perhaps it is even more enticing for the agent who is also whispering in his ear and would like that big pay day as well.

The perfect scenario would have been to extend him some point last year to a reasonable deal, but according to reports, from what I recall, that was not even considered.

I guess the fall back would go to Mack and a couple other younger guys and possibly Kirksey, but even if Berry was part of the group that drafted Joe, I think with FA just around the corner it makes it more difficult to get something locked in, IMO. Although, it has happened before just before FA. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised because I'd like Joe to stay long-term.

We didn't extend Schobert because Dorsey wasn't all that high on the guy.

I think Berry will want to sign him, but with FA here you never know what another team might offer him. I guess it will boil down to what we are willing to spend v what some other team is willing to spend.

I like Schobert, but he isn't all that great, especially against the run.

Mack was one of the worst rated LB in the NFL last year, he's not a schobert replacement by any stretch.. Mack played way more than he should have. He's going to be better this year for sure, but if you're hitching your wagon to him as a reason to allowing Schobert to walk then we are going to be in a bad way. I don't think schobert will get as much as he thinks..hes just average overall. LB's hurt last year.. I think we address both FA/draft. I think if the price is ok you bring back Joe. He's a team guy and after last year, its obvious we need more of those guys

.

I liked what I saw from Wilson in flashes - especially in coverage. I thought as a LB his coverage and athleticism was very good. In stopping the run he definitely looked lost on many occasions. Hoping for a big step forward with the time he was given to play.

Schobert is interesting as I think he's very good - but he doesn't always get high grades. But if he is the glue and leader for the D - it would be very important to retain him. I hope we do.

Just a guess, but I bet you that our new DC will want us to keep him

Wilson was a steal. He'll only get better., I don't want to lose Shobert, but Cap Space hints at Wilson and Taki-Taki being the future.

According to PFF Mack Wilson was one of the worst linebackers in the league. With that said, he was a fifth round pick that was forced into playing time because of injury. I would not write him off. Given a full off-season with the team I expect him to improve dramatically.

Wilson gives us value for the future, worth keeping and developing to see how far he goes improving. Schobert's worth is immediate, player-coach type. We need yhat available. We can't bring in anybody to match that if he goes. But a reasonable one or two year contract seems fair. Dorsey wouldn't, but these guys should. JMO

J/c
Realistically Wilson should not have seen the field half as much as he was forced to. He should be a ST/replacement type LB. He probably played well considering. But I wouldn’t bank on him to be a good starter

Mack Wilson is soft right now in his career. Joe Mixon absolutely ate his lunch this season. He is more "Box Safety" than he is linebacker. He is listed as 240, there is absolutely no way that is true.

He is above average NFL player against the pass and as a late round rookie.....that is OUTSTANDING.

He is below a replacement level player against the run. Just absolutely awful against the run.


Time will tell, but if he can improve to an average NFL run stopper, he can be a quality starter for a while. If he cannot, he is Barkivious Mingo, too weak to play full time and will need to carve out special teams roles.

IMO, Schobert is not a good run stopping ML. Schobert is all over the field, defending passes and making tackles on the outside and downfield at times.

Mack Wilson might be better suited to play ML. Wilson did not have the horrible years some seem to suggest. Wilson ranked 59th in total tackles, against all his competition, regardless of experience and position.

Among all the 2019 rookies, Wilson ranked 6th.

That will be up to the LB coaches to decide which LBs play inside or outside.

I think the sticking point is whose version of reasonable.

I also think the fact that CBA negotiations are ongoing is slowing down re-signings. If the players' percentage of overall revenue goes up, individual contracts would likely follow. Both sides have known this was coming. The increased uncertainty is giving most people involved pause. Do they add a game, do league minimums go up, do guarantees need to be put in escrow, etc- lots of things are up in the air.

I might try to sell Joe on a one year deal while that gets sorted. Plus, it would let us see how he fits with the new scheme/staff. Maybe offer the same number as he'd get with a transition offer sheet.

As far as Wilson, I'm not sure what to expect. I like what I'm seeing on his Twitter feed. Seems to have the right attitude (as long as he doesn't overdo it.) I'd feel more confident if we had Pagac instead of Tarver as LB coach. How fast can he pick up the new scheme? He has nice tools.

Kirksey is due for a healthy year, too. I know he's had bad injury luck the past 2 seasons, but torn pecs are pretty rare and random. He was a tackling machine in '16 (3rd in NFL in tackles) and '17 (4th). A pec shouldn't effect explosiveness/athletecism. He'd played all 16 games his first 4 years in the league.

if we don't resign Schobert... I have no faith in the regime.

I think one has to consider the circumstances. Unless you have long standing ties to Ohio, why would a player want to stay here? Let's be realistic. Schobert will be on his third HC since he was drafted. A new HC and DC who have never had any experience at their respective jobs.

People can say what they like, but the fact is that if you are a successful player, why wouldn't you test the FA market? People may sign a "hometown discount" or a " reasonable contract" if they are tied to a coach or a system which has brought success. They may see a move as a risk if those circumstances exist. But that's not the case here.

I think the odds would be against Schobert not testing the FA market. I don't believe anything that was going on here last season, or even since he was drafted here would have caused him to sign a long term deal to stay before testing his options.

I'm not sure what the plan will be to replace him. I do not however see it being Mack or Takitaki. They may develop more but I've seen nothing to indicate they're ready for prime time.

meanwhile, Schobert ranked (compared to all other LB's):

9th in total tackles
10th in total tackles overall
4th in individual tackles
17th in assisted tackles
2nd in Ints
17th in Forced Fumbles

He has ranked top 10 in tackles in 2 of his 4 seasons.
- would have been 3 if he had not been injured.

He is really smart and the quarterback of the defense. Why in the heck wouldn't we pay the man?

I agree he is smart and the leader of the defense. I think the one big knock I would put on him is he is not the most athletic LB in the world. I think when guys like Garrett, Vernon, Kirksey went down/suspended, it did expose Schobert's lack thereof at times.
Still, I try to keep him.

Price tag matters. I think I sign Schobert to a contract similar to Jamie Collins a few years ago. He'll be solid for us for a couple of years until we can find someone better. Then we have the option of trading or cutting him. I don't know that he'll ever be an "elite" LB, but we could do far worse.

He may, and I want that

Schobert has better stats in all areas you mention but that does not make him a run stopping ML.

Like it or not, the Browns rank as one of the worst teams in the NFL in RUSH DEFENSE...giving up 5.0 yds per carry/145 yds per game.

One of the main responsibilities of the ML is to stop the run. At times Schobert has trouble shedding blockers and getting to the ball carrier, leaving holes in the run defense.

Just what the Browns do to solve their defensive problem, stopping the run...it is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Schobert was the "MLB", but he did not always l;ine up as a traditional MLB. We were often in a 4-2-5 alignment, which moved Schobert in or out.

I like Schobert, but I don't think he's worth any big money. If Wilson got as many reps as Show did, I don't think there would be any drop in production.

Obviously, we're keeping Wilson and Taki. FO will essentially need to make a decision on picking either Show or Kirko to give some kind of money to. My nod goes to Kirko.

What about the old regime that had a whole off-season and season to sign him and didn’t? At this point no player should re-sign. Free agency is a month away. Test the market.

j/c

I'm honestly just perplexed.

we have a top 10 LB( vs all inside and out) and we are complaining that he isn't good enough.

It's like complaining that we have Keenan Allan, Deandre Hopkins or Amari Cooper on a rookie contract and we really would like to get rid of them to find the next Larry Fitz, AJ Green, or Julio Jones.

ya'll are slightly crazy. lol

For the record, I was not suggesting a choice between Schobert or Mack. I was simply asking for opinions on Mack.

Is he really top ten though?

Bobby Wagner, Devin Bush, Deion Jones, Roquan Smith, Demario Davis, Shaq Thompson, Kwon Alexander, Eric Kendricks, Darius Leonard, Devin White.

I'm taking all of those guys over Schobert. And I would still re-sign him. But let's not overrate a guy just because we like him.

well, numbers... which one of these stands out?


Schobert 133 tackles 89 solo 2 sacks 2 ff 4 ints

Devin Bush 109 tackles 72 solo 1 sacks 1 ff 2 ints
Deion Jones 110 tackles 68 solo 0 sacks 0 FF 1 INT
Roquan Smith 101 tackles 66 solo 2 sacks 0 FF 1 INT
Demario Davis 111 tackles 87 solo 4 sacks 0 FF 0 INT
Shaq Thompson 109 tackles 75 solo 0 sacks 0 FF 0 INT
Kwon Alexander 109 tackles 75 solo 0 sacks 0 FF 0 INT
Eric Kendricks 110 tackles 70 solo.5 sacks 0 FF 0 INT
Darius Leonard 121 tackles 71 solo 5 sacks 2 FF 5 INT
Devin White(rook) 91 tackles 58 solo2.5sacks 3 FF 1 INT


that took way too long to type and lookup everyone's stats LOL

I'm confident Schobert can beat out multiple people on that list.

I think you are overrating the tackle stat.

You know what number would also stand out that you did not include? Snap counts.

Schobert was on the field for almost 100% of the defensive plays. Most of those other names were in the vicinity of 85%. I looked them up but didn't have the capacity to post them. No one on that list was really even close to the playing time of Schobert.

I love Schobert as much as the next guy and I'd very much enjoy it if he stays but we shouldn't get carried away. He's a great player, but there are better.

If we were simply analyzing a category that deals with "run stopping", I wonder where Schobert would rank?

Mack Wilson will get better and might help the Browns defense if he is a good-excellent run stopper. Gotta play him to find out...

The Browns defense ranks #30 in the NFL at stopping the run and the ML is a key element in the area of stopping the run. The Browns do need some upgrading on the DLine and better coaching to improve their run stopping capability.

While he has a lot of tackles, Schobert's also been near the league "lead" in missed tackles multiple years.

link

I like Mack (the linebacker) . He just wasn't very good.

Joe’s rookie year was sensational ... what were your thoughts on him after his rookie year ...

Just curious .... did Joe come out a year earlier than he should have? .... let me guess, that’s irrelevant ... ....

PFF Grading scale:
100-90 elite
89-85 Pro Bowler
84-70 starter
69-60 backup
59-0 replaceable.

2019 Joe Schobert Overall PFF Grade: 59.1

2019 Joe Schobert Run Defense Grade: 47.1

2019 Mack Wilson Overall PFF Grade: 42.9

2019 Mack Wilson Run Defense Grade: 41.7

Mildman...Good info, thanks...

Mack Wilson is just a rookie who will get better with experience. With 4 years of experience, Schobert improved to a replaceable/backup ranking of 59.

No way I'm saying Schobert needs to go, just that he might be playing out of position as a ML. Not sure where he might be better suited to play, but hopefully the analytics guys recognize his ability to be all over the field.

Get Schobert signed !!

Scho is definitely not Backup level, so I cannot agree with that rating, BUT he can be improved upon. Still... until you have better, you keep what you have. Mack is NOT an adequate replacement. Mack flashes, but in no way do I feel he has shown is is ready, or capable, of starting at a high level.

I advocate not only resigning Scho, but also drafting a LB in the first three rounds.

Our new OC has plenty of toys, and once we get him some quality Tackles, I feel that the rest of Free Agency and the Draft should be focused on getting the new DC some better toys.... and I would not be averse to us drafting Malik Harrison for this.

I agree that re-signing Schobert would be a positive. The only other LB in FA that could really replace Schobert would be Corey Littleton. However, they have similar skills sets in that Littleton is excellent in coverage (he had 90.6 Coverage grade per PFF, but a 50.8 Run Defense grade per PFF).

Schobert had a PFF Coverage grade of 67.6 in 2019, but a Coverage grade of 87.7 in 2018.

The Browns have to face Lamar Jackson twice a year. How much emphasis will be put on building to stop his running ability?

On the linebacker note, if Isaiah Simmons is there at #10, do you take him? It'd be hard to pass him up.

Take him and don't look back. He's a perfect fit for the way teams play now.

IMO, Mack will look way better this year. Give him a year in a NFL weight program, Another offseason for learning, and add in his forced into action play from last year, and I think many will be surprised at how good he will be.

In theory this is how it's supposed to work. Mack Wilson has already posted videos of himself working out getting ready for the season. That's what you want. Let's see if his knowledge on the field improves as much as his muscle mass. I hope it does. Getting a fifth round pick who can be even an average starter is a huge value.

Thought this was an interesting article. Joe Schobert's performance is broken down as well. Take a look.

Tackles Don’t Matter: Evaluating Run Defense Through Statistics

This is a great source of information, thank you for posting it!

Awesome stuff.

good stuff.

it basically says with data... Schobert is still a good LB and we should resign him.

I haven't seen anyone say we shouldn't re-sign Schobert.

(Note: Re-sign and resign are not the same thing. They are actually almost opposites.)

It actually says Schobert is a slightly below average run defender overall.

Doesn't say anything about re-signing.

He'd be great to bring back at the right price. What that price is is beyond me. How important would whatever position he'd best fit at be in the new scheme? How much cap room do we need for re-signing other people at harder to find positions going forward? What else are we trying to do in free agency? How much of a drop off would Kirksey/Mack/Takitaki/LB X be?

j/c

I don't know if the stats support this, but it seemed to me that when Schobert is playing, we don't give up too many plays to TEs in the underbelly of the defense. When he was out hurt, we got killed. His strength has been his pass coverage skills.

So for me the first question is: seeing as the defense as a whole sucked against the run, how much of it is him vs. the scheme. I think there' s enough consistent data to show that at least in part it's him.

Ok, so the second question for me is, how much do we value his pass coverage skills? Because if we let him walk, the way I see it, we also let our only player who can cover those TEs walk too.

Another thing to consider is if this whole 3 safety look is really viable? I know there's really no such thing as base defenses anymore. But would it be better for us to run with a 3 LB core... keep a coverage guy like Joe, get a legit run thumper, and the 3rd guy someone with exceptional pass rushing skills?


In any event, whether he leaves or stays, I think it would be great to be a fly on the wall when the Triumverate meet to discuss this very topic.

It seems we need to be in 3 LBs more or at least part of the time. Schobert's play had him making tackles after the ball was by him. His worth is how smart he is and I think it is a huge plus aas we change up again. We still could use some high motor thumpers as well.

I want to keep him reasonably.

I think we should re-sign him, but the article did not say that, nor did it say he was good, imo. I'll hold off on the soapbox for just a minute.... the article seemed to show that Schobert does a bunch of really good things in the run game (remember, this article just focused on defending the run). For some reason, however; their final advanced stat dropped him way down. I don't know why, and it would be nice if the author of the article went into a little more detail on how that final 'points saved' metric was calculated.

That's the thing with these advanced stats. They don't tell the whole story, but merely try to better quantify what is seen on the field. And the more 'advanced' a stat is (like the final table), the more important it is to verify what the stat is saying with the eye test. As a stat gets more complicated, there's a greater chance that the calculations are being influenced/twisted in ways that you don't intend (ex. one guy gets his stat boosted way up because he's a safety playing right behind the line and makes a ton of tackles at the LOS, boosting his tackle depth because he's a safety playing a weird role, and maybe he does that a bunch at the end of games (just spitballing) so that juices his points saved metric).

Stats aren't for losers. Misusing stats (intentionally or unintentionally) is for losers.

I hesitantly agree. Our defense was bad for most of the year, and it is a deep OT class. But part of me says you have to get your Left Tackle early, so I’m conflicted

Simmons, best tackle available, run stuffing Dlineman, I won’t complain

Very doubtful Simmons will be there at #10. He may go top 5.

oobs...you are so right about numbers not telling the whole story. If someone wants the whole story, you got to see it with your eyes and be experienced enough to know what you are looking at.

No individual statistic will ever tell an entire story, they merely measure and represent an aspect. You always need additional stats to give a larger context. It can help if you have a human eye to give that context, but it isn't necessarily required if the correct additional measurements are included.

Furthermore, many of the popular common statistics used are absolute garbage and only suitable for use by television commentators (passing yards, defensive yards, etc...).

I agree, but if he does fall, you say thank-you, select him and look for Oline in the next round or two.

LB and safety are also "needs". Just make the dang pick. Good gosh. He will improve the D more than some OT is going to improve the O.

We saw first hand. We had possibly one of the three best left tackles to ever play, and we sucked his entire career.

I love the guy, but Joe had little impact on wins and losses. Teams would just put their best pass rush on the other side.

Especially in todays NFL, LT is way over rated. You don't have statues standing back there at QB like you did even 8 years ago.

I agree. If Simmons is there, you take him.

Those who rely heavily on numbers to judge football players, rather than relying on their eyes...are simply lazy and uneducated when it comes to their knowledge of football. You have to know what you are looking at to be a good judge of talent.

Simmons is a tough call for me. I'm not sure how he'll do away from Venables.

Great athlete, but a tweener. I need to watch more of Woods' Defense when he was the coordinator in Denver. In the right situation, Simmons could be good. I'm not sure that would be the D we'll use.

I'd rather go OL. This looks like the year for it. OL generally last longer than safeties, career-wise. Plus, we've got to protect the investment in Baker. Baker getting pummeled could ruin him. Lacking a safety/LB is unlikely to have long-term franchise altering consequences.

The stats and your own eye should inform each other. That's what I meant. If the stats are telling you something that your eye isn't, you should have the humility to re-investigate with the idea that your eye could be wrong.

It's not lazy, it's efficiency. If you can develop a model of the data that can accurately give you what you want quickly, your answers are now available instantly.

That said, anyone that relies on only a single source of information when many are available, each with their own set of values, is a complete and utter fool.

I hope your right ... i have no clue how u use analytics to determine football players futures ... this isn’t baseball ... WAY TO MANY VARIABLES ....

I’ve asked MULTIPLE TIMES and have never received even a remotely decent reply ... and that question is ignored by most of your analytics rocks crowd ...

When it comes to evaluating talent .... ...

Lets do a few college examples ....

DeShaun Watson vs Pat Mahomes ...

They played in two entirely different systems .... against mutually exclusive defenses ... with totally different talent around them .... one stood in school for all 4 years and started all 4 and played in the biggest stage in college football twice .... the other I’m not sure how many years he stood in school and how many he started ... i know he didn’t sniff the big stage ...

Then lets do Bake vs Darnold ... one in school for 5 years ... one 3 years ... entirely different systems ... I’m not sure Sam played in the same one while at USC ... one played one game on the 2nd biggest stage the 2nd one played in the toilet bowl a few times ...

And your gonna tell me your gonna put a bunch of #’s in a computer and figure it out .... please please please .... EDUCATE ME on how that works .... I’d really love to know .... please show me its MY IGNORANCE and not just WISHFUL THINKING on your part and Peen and then the sashiettes (U nor Peen are sashiettes ... your just playing one on this subject ... *L* )

If I knew some of the answers you're asking for, I'd probably be employed by Berry & DePo instead of running a messageboard for a hobby, lol.... but, taking a simple stab: absolutely NO mathematical system will completely replace scouting. It is another tool in the toolbox that can give more meaningful context to the things you see... to either verify what you feel your eye saw or make you go back and look again because maybe you should question what you saw.

In the end, it is like the simple stats we see quoted all the time, but taken to ridiculous degrees. If it can be imagined and measured, it can be tracked. If it can be measured and tracked, it can be compared and used to help in decision making.

To attempt to tackle your example: almost no model is going to be able to spit out a complete answer for any of that. I don't say that as a definite however because given enough compute power and enough bored statisticians to construct a data model and you can do a lot of really weird stuff. In the end, you have to decide on what aspects you consider most important, then you have to decide how to measure them in a way that is meaningful and comparable within a given context. What you end up with is one piece in a puzzle. Same as a 3-cone drill or running a 40 or doing the standing broad jump... they are all just data points. Build enough of these data points... like a hundred or more, and you can start to get a pretty complete picture of who and what you have.

Now, if *I* was going to try to build a model to compare them, well, you COULD build models that build data on the average effectiveness of each of their systems versus the systems they each faced and do so for both the college and NFL levels. Then, you use those averages to compare how each did within their systems versus the systems they faced, and then use a comparison of how far above or below average each was when facing certain situations, systems, personnel, coverages, etc.. Again, if it can be measured, it can be tracked, and if it can be tracked it can be compared.

Take a piece of film where you see a guy who your eye tells you "plays fast", but when you time him at the combine, he runs slow. What gives?
It's a common problem... well, you can use film to measure REAL GAME SPEED. Given the size of any known object on e piece of film, you can extrapolate the size of anything on that field and the speed of movement. Forget cone drills, you can measure GAME SPEED and catalog how guys respond and react in real situations.

Literally, your imagination is your only limitation. EVERY aspect of the game is measurable now... it's just a matter of figuring out ways to pull & tease out the useful bits of information, and no model will ever be accurate right off the bat... but, when you get it wrong, you learn WHY and correct your model and it performs better going forward.

It isn't wishful thinking any more than stopwatches for a 40 or measuring QB arm strength is wishful thinking. They are tools and measurements used to HELP the decision, not MAKE the decision.

Here's a great article Diam. I'll just post the stuff about draft analysis since it is pretty long.

If I were to put things in a nutshell, I would say analytics does nothing more than set-up boundaries, it doesn't "choose" players. It will help you find sleepers who fit a prototypical profile... It will expose "red flags" for players that may jump off a highlight tape but doesn't really fit the mold of a top-tier pick. Either way, it's just a guardrail, one that leads to more research and making a weighted decision that accounts for all variables possible.


https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/06/27/nfl-an...ries-chip-kelly

* * *

Bill Parcells often told his assistants and scouts, “If you start making exceptions, you’ll wind up with a team full of them.” And therein is where analytics have most affected the most impactful area of player acquisition, the draft. The idea, with the boundaries that analytics set, isn’t to prevent teams from making those exceptions. It’s to ensure they know when they are making exceptions.

A decade ago, there was a contender that had a versatile, smallish back it wanted to complement with a bigger back. The scouts identified one with big college production—over 3,000 yards in a major conference. But the club had five physical parameters for the position, and the back was 0-for-5 on them. The team took him in the third round anyway. That back lasted less than two NFL seasons.

On the flip side, another contender found an offensive lineman deep in the draft, because the team’s “model” liked the conference he’d come from, that he’d started at multiple positions and because, though he wasn’t considered a great athlete, he had a good 10-yard split and vertical leap. That player wound becoming a multi-year starter and, recently, very, very rich.

In both cases, the tape played a role. In the first, it overruled the objective data. In the second, boundaries created a model, and that model sent them back to the tape to find an overlooked prospect that became an incredible value on Day 3 of the draft.

“Maybe your model doesn’t like a guy that your scouts like, so let’s find out why the model doesn’t like the player,” says an AFC personnel executive with a scouting background. “It may be something as simple as the 10-yard split or arm length or a combination of bench press and vertical. It could be position specific. It could be a stat. There’s lots of reasons why a scout may like a player and your model wouldn’t.

“The key is, why are there differences? In a perfect world, the scout and model both like the player, and you get justification. And that happens plenty, but it’s not always like that.”

It’s not an exact science. Advanced analytics, for example, would tell you that an elite pass-rusher needs a 10-yard split on his 40 time in the 1.6s or better. And in 2005, that helped the Eagles, long a leader in football analytics, conclude that University of Cincinnati defensive end Trent Cole (1.67) could carry his college production (19 sacks) into the NFL. A decade later, Cole left Philadelphia behind only Reggie White on the team’s all-time sack list.

This April, those same Eagles took University of Tennessee edge rusher Derek Barnett with the 14th pick, because they believed some of his pedestrian testing numbers weren’t as relevant as his 10 time and short shuttle.

Conversely, in 2014, with ex-Eagles exec Joe Banner in charge, the Browns saw Barkevious Mingo’s off-the-charts 10 time (1.57) and figured he could become an undersized pass-rushing dynamo along the lines of Dwight Freeney. They overlooked the issues with his playing strength and took him sixth overall. Three years later, they were trading him for what amounted to a JUGS machine.

“There are very, very few examples of an NFL player who produced a lot of sacks that wasn’t able to run a 10 time around 1.6,” says Banner, who established an analytics department in Philly in 1995. “Does that tell you who to pick? No. And if you use that solely, you won’t have much success. But if I pick a guy, and I want sacks from him, and I don’t put weight into that, then that’s just not smart.

“Analytics is 95% common sense. Then you have to add sophisticated people who can use it in complex ways.”

The idea of removing some degree of human error is good. To illustrate that point, one team analytics official pointed to a 2011 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that found judges were more lenient after lunch than before lunch. So in football terms, would a GM know if his Southeast area scout got a speeding ticket on his way to LSU before writing a report on their stud corner?

Along those lines, ex-Browns GM Phil Savage used to send his scouts out for school visits after they were in-house for training camp with the warning: Now, remember, you were just watching NFL players. He’d noticed grades on college kids tended to be harsh early, because watching pro athletes would cause scouts to subconsciously raise the bar.

“This information can make you more efficient, it can make you look at more players, and identify outliers, it’s a directional resource,” says Pollard. “But on top of that, it smooths out the emotions. We’re all human. We all develop biases.”

* * *

prp...call it what ever makes you feel better..a short cut, a secondary source, efficiency, laziness...the name really doesn't matter.

...those who do the numbers thing are not really into the eyes on the prize sort of scouting. They would rather feed numbers into their computers and hand out Psyc tests to determine if they are interested in a prospect.

Then there are those scouts who like to see it, touch it, smell it, hear it.

Combining the two methods seems to be the issue that most NFL franchises deal with in various degrees.
...the two teams in the Super Bowl this year use analytics to supplement the football side, their primary source of scout..for example the Chiefs are approx. 85% football and 15% analytics.

Thanks purp ... I’ll get back to u after i read it 5 - 10 more times ... lots to digest on a subject I’m ignorant on ...

Hope your up for more questions when I’m done ... *L* ...

I’ll be back after re-reading a few times and reading the article Fate posted more that likely a few times ...

Fate thanks .... appreciate it ...

I'm thinking a "football guy" came up with the 85/15 split, and he got there by eyeballing it and guessing using only his personal perspective.

The problem with scouts is that they often get tunnel vision. Analytics can help put things in context. As long as you're doing enough good scouting, you can never do too much good analytics. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

This is what I was trying to get at earlier. A disagreement between the eye and the numbers forces decision makers to dig into why. Stats, in general, are very complex and very educated guesses.

I think the analytics research was done by some guy named Breer, who works for Sports Illustrated..some kind of strategist.

I find it funny people who poo poo analytics, will post stats from PFF. I don't see a difference.

"Some kind of strategist"

Albert Breer is a reporter.

It’s simple. YOU are the one who is not either comprehending, or willfully ignoring the often-repeated information that the front office is going to use data AND scouting to draft and get free agent. It’s not, nor has it ever been an either/or situation.

Get it? Sorta? Maybe?

This argument has gotten to the point of absolute stupidity

JC...I don't get where some people think we are all analytics.

We are still going to be like KC. Most of our decisions are going to be heavily reliant on the scouting reports.

What's funny is that I feel like most scouts actually rely on "analytics" ... they just don't know it. And it's usually just a smaller subset of what they can really use. I remember in this one baseball movie about the Athletics in baseball, the scouts were in a room talking about the pros and cons of players. They were mentioning things like "the ball explodes off his bat" or "He has a great arm", and honestly those are analytic type metrics (exit velocity/throw velocity) that can be measured and tracked. Those types of data points can then be plugged into a system where you can see what "metrics" truly matter to having a good player or not, just based on history. And the more data the better. You will see that players with traits A, B, D, and not G tend to be great players 90% of the time. It's just a matter of finding those traits through data.

And for the most part, I think that's what scouts do. They see a guy that meets criteria A and B, and from past experience, they know that usually results in a successful player. All analytics do is put measurable values to those same attributes and track which ones actually matter based on actual history, and without involving biases. As the movie showed, scouts were getting hung up on attributes that didn't matter, probably because they had been burned by it in the past, even though it ultimately didn't matter. The point of analytics it to absorb all the data points that a single person would have a difficult time consuming by themselves, removing any preconceived biases from the process, and outputting results based on all historical results.

Many of the analytic data-points are still driven by a scout's personal estimation. It's probably not ideal when you want hard statistics to generate a model. But some things like "heart" just aren't measurable with any sort of statistic. It's still a slightly different way of scouting though, as you're looking to plot certain traits on a sliding scale. It's not a matter of, "This guy is going to be awesome because he's built solid and has a good looking girlfriend".

j/c:

I think using analytics is smart. As a math teacher who was in charge of our school's Data Analysis team, I made them a priority.

I believe they have a huge role in sports. Football is a bit tougher, but they should absolutely be used as a tool to help you in many areas w/in your organization.

My problem w/the Browns is that it seems that we had guys who relied on the tool, but didn't use it properly when it came to evaluating talent.

They took Myles, but reportedly were considering Trubisky and even favored him. They traded the pick away when they could have had D. Watson. Depo said Wentz wasn't a top 20 qb. They drafted an in-the-box safety in Peppers and played him at FS. They traded up for Njoku, who has a ton of athletic gifts, but doesn't understand the route tree, has inconsistent hands, and can't block. [Note: I am not positive they traded up for him, but I don't feel like looking it up. If I am incorrect about that, I apologize. I'm sure it will be pointed out if I am wrong, but not if I'm right....LOL...it's all good.] I know he was drafted later, but I never understood the DeValve pick. It was a reach. Ricardo Louis was a waste. I did like the Ogbah and Higgins picks. Corey Coleman? I think Ogunjobi was a decent pick, but guys, he is terrible against the run. He has a strong upper body, but he is light in the pants and gets manhandled far too often in the running game. But, I would say that was a pretty good pick. Schobert was a good pick. Their FA record is pathetic. And the weird thing is that Berry was a scout for pro players while in Indy, rather than the draft.

I think the perfect marriage would have been the team of Dorsey, Highsmith, and Wolf pared w/a new analytical team because I think the first three guys have a great eye for talent and analytics should absolutely be incorporated into a professional football organization. I just think the analytic guys we have/had suck at their jobs in regards to evaluating football players.

I think Mack Wilson is a ball player and he will have the biggest improvmenmt on the team from year 1 to year 2.

Sorry I’m not as intelligent as u and i want to educate myself on something that i have no clue how it works ...

And cause the FO says it I guess I should take it at face value ... ...

I’ll be getting back to your snarky ass when I’m done with me reading IF it don’t sway me at all ...

PS. Feel free to quit reading things u consider stupid .. its why i hardly read anything my more ... not sure why anyone would read things they think are stupid .... u should willfully ignore things u think are stupid .. i do ...

can u tell me how it works in evaluating talent ... i just don’t see it ... it very well may be my ignorance on the subject ... it’ll be interesting to see where i end up when I’m done learning about how it works ...

Exactly why the [censored] would the team lie about what they are going to do? Give me ONE valid reason how it benefits the team, THEIR EMPLOYER, to mislead people on what they want to do? The whole lunatic conspiracy theory of them playing some Machiavellian game in the shadows, is [censored] stupid. It’s a Goddamned football team!! People are going to pay for a product they put on the field!

All it is is statistical analysis. It’s been going on since people started compiling data on other teams tendencies. It was going on when you played football. Coaches watch film to see what a guy/ team does in a given situation. That’s all. They just call it “analytics” because it’s a new word.

Relative to drafting, the most obvious statistics are times in drill/dashes, vertical leap, long jump, etcetra. Just data. One dude runs a 40 in 4.5, one in 4.7. You analyze (look at) the numbers and decide you want the slower guy because he’s a bit bigger. It’s a very simplistic example, but it makes decisions a bit easier.

Hope u feel better after your rant ...

Thanks for the reply ...

I think not using analytics in game situations is flat out stupid ... i am shocked at hos Freddie appeared to use them for the scripted plays and not at all after that ... the more info u have on other teams tendencies the better off u are ... i believe Billicheck has been using some form of analytics on the other team since he was the DC for the Tuna and shut the bills prolific offense down ... granted the run game of the gnats played a big part but Bilicheck shut that O down ...

And to me ... the things u listed aren’t analytics ... if that’s analytics ... everyone’s been using it ... i gotta read more ... i really wanna understand how it helps u evaluate talent ... personally I could care less how fast a 40 they run in shorts and from a sprinters stance on a track in a straight line .... i wanna know if they have Jerry Rice speed ... i don’t believe he had a great 40 time .... i could be wrong ... but no one ever caught him ... ever ... i want football speed ...

I’ll read and ask more questions and when I’m done I’ll let u know where i stand .. we’ll see how that goes ... *L* ...

Thanks again for the reply ..

I do, a bit.

Did you happen to see the link for the YouTube clip “Ballad of Baker”? The guy who made it used some good analytic data to show how the Browns do much better in a (hopefully) Stefanski scheme than the Hue/early Freddy one. All he does is get some data points, like the one where BM is way better when he gets rid of the ball in 2.5 seconds or less, and examines them against the tape.

As to drafting, there’s a lot more muddy waters to navigate. We all know the draft is a roll of the dice. Let’s look at Corey Coleman for an example. Analytics-ly speaking, he had the goods. Really fast, decent size. On tape he had the goods. Really fast, good cuts, breakaway ability.

Now, all of the draft heads agreed, he needed to work on his hands, and learning to run correct routes/complicated schemes.

The thing neither analytics nor tape could show was what I believed was his biggest issue once he got to the NFL: heart. You can’t read it, measure it, or coach it up. He looked to me, like he just didn’t care all that much.

How do you scout inner drive? I don’t know.

I am not real high on Mack Wilson. This is NOT because of his talent. I think the kid is VERY talented, no question about that. However, its the brains department where he lacks.

Mack Wilson was out of position A LOT last year and he was responsible for us giving up a lot of big plays. He took many poor angles to the ball carrier, and did a very poor job of stringing the RB outside, and left quite a few holes for guys to cut back. An OLB MUST string the RB outside along with the DE setting the edge, and Wilson failed in that department numerous times last year. There were many times last year the DE had a perfect edge set and Wilson couldn't string him outside to be pushed out or tackled.

Wilson to me looks like a backup LB. He is a guy who could a few years down the road become a starting quality LB, but he needs a lot of work on his technique and needs to learn how to play zone coverage. He was abysmal last year in zone coverage.

We should certainly keep Wilson on the roster, he is a guy we can develop and he certainly could be a big help to us on special teams and as depth. He has shown enough that we most definitly should not give up on him.

Schobert needs to be re signed, he is our best player on defense not named Myles Garret and he should have been a Two Time Pro Bowler. If we don't sign him he will end up in NE playing for Bellichik. Schobert does all the things:

Excellent form tackling
Plays the Scheme
Rarely out of position
Can shed blocks
isn't afraid to plug a hole
Above average in zone coverage
Tackling machine

The guy is an All Pro, we would be foolish not to keep Schobert.

in 2 years, Mack Wilson will be a starting quality NFL LB as long as we don't give up on him.

I am not trying to say that analytics is the only way or even the best way to evaluate talent. I think analytics are more of a sure thing when you are using them in game situations, such as when to run a play to the boundary, when to go for it on 4th down, how to avoid 3rd and long situations, play calling by downs and time of the game, etc.

However, analytics can be a tool in evaluating talent. You take all the data, such as statistics, measurables, etc and match them w/them to the profile of your ideal player at a particular position.

You can probably appreciate how important closing speed is for a corner. I'm sure you understand that explosion is huge for an edge rusher. Straight line speed is huge for an X receiver while you want your slot receivers to get in and out of breaks quickly. Thus, the 40 time is more important for one and the cone drills more important for the other. In short, teams can use analytics to save time and be able to evaluate a larger pool of talent than they previously could.




Here are some links on the use of analytics in the NFL. They certainly can do a better job of explaining things than I can.

--This one ranks all 32 teams in how they were using analytics. They mentioned how the analytics guys for the Browns had Trubisky rated higher than Myles. https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/06/28/nfl-an...anning-charting

--This one is long and is rather speculative, but it should help educate a bit. This quote by the Steelers GM is an example of what I was talking about in my previous post when I said that analytics are a great tool, but it matters how you use them. Here is the quote from Colbert:
“The point we made with our coaches is: We have all this information but so does everyone else. What advantage does it give us to get it? None. It’s what we do with it, the way we use it.” —Kevin Colbert, Steelers general manage. Full article here: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2018/12/19/18148153/nfl-analytics-revolution

--This one provides some good information and is rather interesting. https://gazette.com/sports/do-the-number...876ff462a4.html

--This article is more of a personal story, but you can find some info in it that addresses how NFL teams use analytics to evaluate talent. https://qz.com/work/1701905/the-nfl-goes-to-extreme-measures-to-evaluate-draft-picks/

That Colbert quote is a good one.

Analytics is simply another tool. You have it in your toolbox, and you use it along with your other tools to do a job. Just like other tools, if you don't understand how it works, you can misuse it.

We definitely have a lot of tools in the toolbox.

It's hard to have heart when you have no faith in your coach, QB, and/or organization.

It's not just something you have or you don't. It's something you can gain and lose.

When a team is as bad as we've been (and were when he was here), it's hard to keep.

Once your confidence is shaken, it can be hard to get it back.

Sounds like your blaming the fact CC was an atrocious pick on Hue and the staff ... they ruined his confidence so badly when he was traded to the jills and they cut him weeks later ... then i believe the pats had him for a few weeks and he ended up with the gnats all in about a 6 week period i think ...

And I couldn’t disagree less on heart ... i agree confidence can come and go ... heart is always there ... its not a come and go thing ... u may dislike or hate the situation your in so your heart may not be all in like usual ... but heart isn’t a sometime thing ... u either have it or u don’t ...

thanks Vers ... appreciate it ... I’ll ask my questions in here in case anyone else is interested if that all right with u ... let mew know if u prefer a PM ...

I’ll have the when I’m done with all the research I have to do ...Driving back to SC this weekend and have some money matters I need to spend some time on so it may be a few weeks before I’m done ...

Ham thanks for the reply ... I’ll get back to U later today ... i think U and I actually pretty much agree on analytics .... I’m looking forward to educating myself over the next month or so ...

As I understand it, the biggest problem with the Coleman pick, unless I'm confusing him with someone else, is the report where we never actually scouted him - we never sent people to meet with him, talk with him, get to know what is inside his head.... so, he is the definition of a pure-numbers/analytics pick and a great way of highlighting what happens when you don't pay attention to detail and do the work that needs to be done.

It also would not surprise me if Hue simply waved it off and felt it was unnecessary, that he could handle whatever issues there were. He strikes me as the sort of persona that would do that.

I think you’re thinking of Justin Gilbert.

That was my first thought as well, but I wouldn't put it past any of the goofballs the Browns have employed.

Yes. Ray Farmer thought Pro Days were "overhyped."

Well, pro days probably are to a degree. Those are a lot of dog and pony show. The combine less so. That is run by the coaches, scouts.

Rays problem was just looking at tape and little else. You have to go talk to these guys. Are you talking to a young man or are you talking to a little kid or a hoodlum?

Pro days are like a mini combine. That in itself is valuable. They are also fact finding opportunities. Being on the campus where the player played and talking to all the coaches and people that have interacted with the guy during his time at school is even more valuable.

One thing I like about the combine over pro days is the athletes have to work with guys who they don’t know. Same with the Senior bowl. Much more akin to the NFL.

Thanks for the civil and informative discussion.

I think that only goes so far. Pre-draft most prospects are coached on what to say in meetings. How they do on the board can be important, but I think the "how they talk angle" is overblown.

You need to find a way to figure out how they act when they don't know they're being watched. Having reliable sources at schools on that stuff can help. Some teams use PIs.

No disagreement. You investigate.

Evaluating talent with Analytics seems unorthodox. Although seemingly it is simply using a tool. Lets first understand talent and what makes a person look talented.

First off what is talent ? Natural aptitude or skill.Okay what is aptitude ? A natural ability to do something. What is skill ? The ability to do something well.

Alright seems easy. Lets have some fun thinking about this. A person who can hit 20 home runs out of 30 pitches, is that Talent ? What about the guy who strikes out 20 times out of 30 pitches. Is that talent ?

It would seem both players are doing something well. Okay but is it fair to say that ? Yes it is. One can say it's bad to strike out 20 times but it's good to hit 20 home runs.. Why ? Well hitting home runs means your helping the team score runs... Okay.

Take the same two players.. The player who hit the 20 home runs missed 20 catches out of 30 chances to catch for an out.. The player who struck out 20 times out of 30 pitches caught 20 catches for outs to help a runner from scoring...

But wait... How many players besides those two had made it to base or had struck out ? Hitting a single run home run or hitting a Grand slam... Missing a catch with bases loaded or making a catch with the bases loaded and retiring the side... Who's play was considered the most talented ?

This is where Analytics come into play... The player is being considered talented by the results of his actions. I used Baseball because it's an easier way to show point the word. Back to both players. The home run hitter runs slower because he can hit more home runs and doesn't need to run as fast. But if he doesn't hit a home run how fast is he at running the bases ?

This all applies to anything. Football ? Lets start off with a kicker who can kick a 50 yard FG from the center hash line to the right hash line...But can only kick a 30 at the left hash line... The WR who can catch the ball looking over his right shoulder but not his left shoulder..The QB who can throw on a roll out to his right but not his left..it can go on and on...

Measuring talent is about what the situation was that puts that player in a position to show his talent. By using multiple situations events and actions, outcomes are how people measure someone for their talent.

OBJ can catch one handed passes...can he block ? Can he catch two handed passes ? can he run the right route ? This is what analytics do for a team and an opposing team. It gives them a look or vision of actions.

Then all those actions are put into situations and outcomes..What is the best action to help result in a positive outcome.That outcome is usually how most peoples talent is looked at. Artificial turf was made and lots of players said it made them faster...Turf made you look more talented...Analytics would show that.

In terms of Ray Farmer... He didn't want Manziel or Gilbert.. Manziel was on Haslam.. Gilbert was on Pettine. That explains why we didn't interview Gilbert.. Farmer didn't want him. There is an article floating out in cyberspace that this was the case, and both 1st round picks were forced on Farmer.

Bro, Farmer was a chump. He still should have taken the time to interview Gilber no matter who was championing him. He also was the idiot who was texting Shanny during games. Terrible GM.

Joe Schobert is reading this like.. I didnt get a call yet..

Analytics has been used for decades. Paul Brown was a analytics junkie.

Watching tape is analytics.

Wonder what that means?

"Be aware"

or

"Beware"?

mack is bought in with Stefanski and ready to go to work

Could be that 'be aware' is the next 'we battled', 'gotta look at the film', etc.

Maybe it means he gets coached up and understands better and feels he will perform better with Stefanski. Oddity, but it has been known to happen.

Wilson is young kid. IMO, he shows passion for the game. He comes across to me as someone with a goal and is realizing he's got a path to reach it. Enthusiasm would probably be a better word to use. You need that kind of drive to be good in this league.

Good coaches do that. Being a leader isn't a given. It is a gift and it is earned.

It seems our last few coaches were given the job. The problem many coaches face is being a head coach is more managerial than actual coaching. They set the tone and make the decisions. They don't do a whole lot of coaching. The assistants do that. They manage the game and the staff that coaches the players.

The engineer doesn't build the stair well and platform to hold 15 tons of equipment. They just draw it out as trained. S/he relies on the maintenance manager to get the maintenance people build it the way it was designed.


Here are your orders, get it done. They work as a team. If a mechanic comes back and says we can't do this before we do that, the engineer and the mechanics have to figure out something else. They work as a team. One is no good without the other. They need each other. One can't factor out the stress loads and the other can't weld.

Stefanski wasn't "given the job?"

Good God, man.

Of course he wasn't.

I'd be willing to bet that there was a lot more back ground info on Stefanski than what Dorsey had when he handed the job to Freddie.

I think he earned it having gone through a very detailed search.

Jimmy picked Hue and Dorsey bucked all and selected Freddie.

Stafanski's resume wasn't even close to Hue's. Also, Hue had other teams who were interested in him as a HC.

No disagreement there. I don't remember all the details, but Jimmy wanted Hue and the FO wanted someone else.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

It depends on the type of resume. Are you worried about a chronological listing of jobs or do you care more about traits and abilities?

I'm not trying to start an argument. Just putting something out there to consider.

Work history tells what you did, but not the how or why.

HC is a different animal and requires additional aptitudes that aren't necessarily tested in earlier positions.

I bet if you go back and watch the last season, you would find that Schobert is somehow involved in nearly 50% of turnovers. He gets a his share of interceptions and he seems like he is either stripping the ball or picking up most fumbles or creating the tip that leads to someone else's interception. He is not the strongest linebacker out there, but the guy has an incredible talent for being in the right position and making smart plays.

He does have talent. May not be strong. But when it counts, he comes down there. One of the very few bright spots.

I don’t think he was great, but he wasn’t awful either. Considering where he was drafted, he shouldn’t have had so much playing time obviously