DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum cont...The Browns Front Office...not ready for prime time...

This is like the 4th or 5th retread of mac's rant on the ownership which apparently is pure football.

Whether Josh Gordon plays this season or not is not pure football.

Only in Cleveland.

Well, when was the last time the Browns played "pure football?"

When Boyz II Men were crankin' out the hits!

I see both sides of things.

Skrine wanted to much money that we werent about to equal yet we then spend 10 mil a year on Truman Williams who was over the hill.

We want Gipson, he is a special player then we give him a 2nd round tender. Kid should have received a first round tender and we wouldnt be where we are.

Then we give Bowe 10 mil a year and wont even speak to a guy that damn near killed himself for us the year before.

I liked some of what Farmer did but he created a rift between FO and Players that is going to be very hard to repair. Do I blame Schwartz and his agent wanting more not trusting the Browns FO? not one damn bit.

Do i blame Mack for seeking greener pastures in Atlanta? not one damn bit, he fits their scheme better anyway adn do u want to be another joe thomas 10 year vet with no playoff appearances.

Doesnt really matter what side of the coin you are on, these moves created a major mistrust and waiting up until most of the FA money dried up to release Whitner doesnt help that mistrust between players and FO at all.

If I am a player, I do treat this place as a 4 year training program. I like what this FO is trying to do but this is not a good relationship and unless they start wrapping up our own very early, we arent gonna be able to keep any of these guys.

Keep in mind, corporations (such as the Cleveland Browns) will do what's in their own best interest..They may have feelings for certain players, but that's it. They will always do what the leadership deems as best for the Corporation..

just clicking ...

The more I read about this moneyball crap the worse I feel ... this FO org. is a disaster ...

Why didn't MORON just learn from the Stilers while he was there ...

there's 4 or 5 things in that article that SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF ME ...

1. Depo said he wants analytics to be 60% and scouting to be 40% .... and that the football people will have to make an OVERWHELMING CASE to override the analytics ...

talk about putting the cart in front of the horse ... this is a frickin disaster ..

2. it shows the most successful franchises spend the least in FA .... with NO CORRELATION or TAKING INTO ACCOUNT anything else ...

the conclusion of the analytical geeks is we had a GREAT FA period simply because we didn't spend much ... meanwhile I along with EVERY NFL EXEC (I could care less what they think 99% of the time .. but when its ALL OF THEM then I give it credence) think we MADE A MAJOR MISTAKE letting all 4 walk ...

and this to me is just one of the many reasons ANALYTICS WON'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO WORKING IN FOOTBALL ...

3. It basically says Hue is anti-analytics in that he KNOW using your eyes is the BEST WAY TO ANALYZE a player and then talk to those around him to find out WHO THEY ARE ...

point being ... it appears we could be heading for another COLLISION ... these guys can say what they want now .. when this years over and were picking in the top 3 again ... WE'LL SEE HOW THE KUMBAYA TEAM IS DOING ... finger pointing is NOT AS FAR AWAY AS WE THINK ...

this moneyball thing is just what I told Ddub the other day in a PM ...

HASLAM IS REACHING CAUSE HE HAS FAILED MISERABLY in his hires .. guys .. u can fool yourselves all u want .. but

BOTTOM LINE: this is a f'n EXPERIMENT ... Haslam has failed so MISERABLY he has turned our BELOVED BROWNS into a frickin SCIENCE EXPERIMENT!!!!!!

Some science experiments are fun and have extraordinary results.

I think analytics in football should be a tool. No problem w/that. But, a tool is not the end-all. It's simply part of the process.

And Haslam.........this "new" blow-up, followed by a "new" plan just buys him more time.

Yes!

My take (AKA not fact):

The analytics is for choosing where to spend money. The scouting is for choosing who to spend that money on.

Analytics are big picture: which positions to invest the most in, what traits to emphasize looking for, situational stat integration, tendencies, etc.

Scouting is more specific: looking at individual players.

We've actually been decent at finding good individual players (Thomas, Mack, Schwartz, Haden, Gipson, D. Bryant [decent might be a little strong]). The problem is we've sucked at finding them at impact positions and putting it all together.

Can this way be all that worse?

I hate to say but Haslam doesn't have borrowed time...he owns the team til he sells it or dies.

To be blunt and real here, all our non Moneyball approaches have landed us people like Weeden, Gilbert, Manziel and the list continues for eternity. Are we really diving deeper back than what we've been for years and years now?

If we can not pick people like Gilbert, Manziel, Weeden and the list continues - I'd say the experiment an instant success. Big word there is "if" though.

ut oh.......

I agree it should be a tool ... article states currently NFL teams are doing 70 - 30 scouting over analytics ...

were going 60 - 40 analytics over scouting ... and the Depo said the football folks will have to make an OVERWHELMING ARGUMENT to override the analytics ..

GOOD LUCK RUNNING A FOOTBALL PLAYER AQUISITION SYSTEM like that .. GOOD FRICKIN LUCK ...

I forgot the line where Depo said that ..

THE RESULTS ON THE FIELD DON'T MATTER .... I know what he meant by that ... and I get it .. but its just STUPID ... the results on the field are all that matter ...

Yeah boss............I was agreeing w/you.

I think they should be a tool rather than the end-all. Get it now?

or we could just HIRE GOOD FOOTBALL PEOPLE AND LET THEM DO THEIR JOBS ... that seems to have worked for the team he used to own but apparently learned nuttin from ...

and IF we do get better draftpicks that pan out .. then comes the MONEYBALL PROBLEM ... we have to RE-SIGN THEM and based off this year ... they best be willing to take a STEEP HOME TOWN DISCOUNT or there gonzo ...

Why does Moneyball mean we don't pay players?

I am assuming he is going off of the only data is out there. The Browns allowed four productive players to walk in free agency. Three of them were looking for their second contracts.

Hard to predict they will re-sign the next batch of free agents given their actions thus far.

Results on the field not mattering I think refers to Wins and losses. Good players can be on bad teams.

I interpret that to mean don't rule Goff out because his best season was around .500.

I think "scouting" won over the analytics in Bridgewater vs. Manziel. Which would you rather have now?

Is character classified as scouting or analytics?

*LOL* ... WOW .... Vers ... our PM convo ringing a bell here ... *L* ..

key words ... U THINK .... get back to me when u know ...

we commissioned a study ... we didn't use analytics .. HUGE DIFFERENCE between analytics and a study ...

ME THINKS ... we had someone BUTT IN AND CRAM HIM DOWN OUR FOOTBALL PEOPLES THROATS ....


I would think u have to take character into concern when putting together your analytics equation ... if u don't take character into account you can't have ACCURATE CONCLUSIONS drawn a players worth or chance to succeed or whatever the hell the outputs called .. *L* ..

and we now know .. we either didn't to any backround checking on Johhny Footballs character OR we did the research and JUST IGNORED IT!!!

that was not an analytics based decision ..

NICE TRY THOUGH ...

that's a good ASSumption ... that and the fact we signed NO ONE OF SIGNIFICANCE to fill those positions ...

and it becomes and even better ASSumption when u take ALL THE VARIABLES INTO ACCOUNT ... the main one being:

WERE WELL UNDER THE SALARY CAP and have no one (LITERALLY NO ONE) that were going to use SOME/ANY of that salary cap room money to re-sign in the next year or two ... or MAYBE EVEN LONGER THAN THAT ...

I was very heartened by that article. The idea that the new technology on the field will allow us to chart and break down plays and players like never before is a huge plus! The idea that we're going to use facts and figures to be the starting point for our decisions instead of hunches and gut feelings is awesome! That doesn't mean that there won't be room for the "football guys" to make their case but they will need to justify why we're going to draft a shorter than 6' tall QB that has marginal arm strength and a limited play book. No more "but look how exciting he was in college!" draft decisions.

I really hope Haslem has the patience to let this play out...

Right, but the term "Moneyball" isn't about being cheap. The New York Yankees use "Moneyball."

so you're all in on analytics I take it...meh why not the other why has been working so well the last decade and a half

Diam = Anti-Analytics

Grimm = ... I think u may have been asking if he's all in on analytics .. based off his response .... he seems to be leaning that way to me .. ..

DIAM DOES NOT THINK ANALYTICS WILL WORK IN FOOTBALL WHEN IT COMES TO AQUIRING TALENT!!!!!!!

JC

That Depo article has me convinced that we do one of two things.. we either take Wentz at 2 or we trade out of the pick, and my feeling tells me that Moneyball says that we can't have a winning record this year therefore we trade out and stockpile multiple picks which is more valuable than one pick.. knowing that we will have a high pick next April

I would be interested to see what % in the analytical equation is weighted to how drafting a QB at #2 has worked out ...

that has to be a major negative in taking a QB at #2 ...

What I've learned after reading the article is exactly what I had feared all along. It's the money ball man and his baseball experience that has all of the say. The football people have to overwhelmingly convince him of their opinions and conclusions about our FA players and the draft.

That he has the power of the decision making. The most ridiculous possibility of how things should work on an NFL team is our reality.

I've heard posters suggest that analytics would be a tool but not the final say. Now we see that analytics is the final say and football experience and knowledge is the tool.

Maybe people should look at how all of the successful people do it the opposite way? Nah, that makes too much sense and would point in a realistic direction they don't wish to hear nor admit.

Diam.. IMO.. thats a big big big factor in how all this shakes out, I think you have your finger squarely on the decision process that going on...

IMO Hue brings the football argument in favor or not in favor depending on how he see's Wentz.. that rest is the numbers for or against..

I just have to say I find it very worrisome that a guy with basically zero football experience has to be overwhelmingly convinced by football people in terms of football players.

Maybe we'll sign a few outfielders?

I think the guy who wrote that article is stating his opinion, judging the way DePosesta thinks, and assuming what he will do. Too many people on here are taking that guy's opinion as fact. Even to the degree of saying, "DePodesta is saying...", when he didn't. It's the writer of the article who is doing all the saying.

ddub.. thats a fair assessment, the thing is, everyone is trying to figure out what analytics says.. this is the closest thing we have so far

We will never know what the specific numbers say about specific players. Teams guard that information like Fort Knox (I don't really know if Fort Knox is heavily guarded).

We do know how analytics are used in other sports (in general). We can take that information and guess how it will be used with our team (which I think this writer is trying to do).

cfrs.. thats also a fair statement

He's not a guy with zero football experience.

Paul Depodesta: 'He was always a football guy'

This is an example. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAME FROM THE BROWNS IT'S JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA.


http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com...oyer-or-manziel

The Browns are sitting in 4th place in the tight AFC North, but have a winning record at 7-6. It's not unreasonable to think they could still qualify for the playoffs, but their journeyman QB's last two games were among the worst he has played. The team is wondering out loud if starting rookie Johnny Manziel gives them a better chance of winning.

At least one Cleveland "analyst" believes that analytics is pointing toward starting Manziel but that going with Hoyer is a victory for common sense. I'm not sure what analytics this guy might be referring to, though, as Manziel has almost no numbers under his belt to compare. And yet it's a worthwhile question, so let's look at Hoyer's production and compare that with a relevant sample of 1st round rookie production. It might not tell us anything at all, but if rookies tend to do measurably better or worse than how Hoyer has played, it might give the Browns' coaching staff some support for their decision.

I looked at Expected Points Added per Start and Win Probability Added per Start for Hoyer and for all 1st-round rookies since 2009. I chose 2009 simply to get over 5 years worth of QBs, and not for any systematic reason. We're not sure if Manziel will turn out to be a turnover machine or the playmaker the Browns hope he'll be, so I'm going to look at the entire range of rookie performances. This includes Bridgewater, Manuel, Luck, Griffin, Bortles, Luck, Freeman, Tannehill, Locker, Weeden, Newton, Gabbert, Ponder, Bradford, Sanchez, Tebow, Stafford, and Sanchez.

It would be fair to note that this list includes QBs who are dissimilar to Manziel. He'll almost certainly be far more accurate than Tebow and far more mobile than Weeden. But what matters is overall effectiveness, and in that department all we know is that he is drawn from a group not unlike other 1st rounders. You might be tempted to chuckle and think that of course Manziel will be better than Weeden/Tebow/Gabbert/etc. But lots of smart football people were just as confident that Weeden, Tebow, and Gabbert would be better than they were.

Here are the average production numbers limited to games in which a QB had 15 or more active plays.

QB EPA/G WPA/G
Hoyer 0.36 0.07
Rookies 0.69 0.04

The average production in terms of Expected Points Added and Win Probability Added show that the difference between Hoyer and a recent 1st-round rookie is very slight. The rookies appear to have an edge in EPA, while Hoyer has been a little more clutch with slightly higher WPA. That really doesn't tell us much.

Keep in mind that although these numbers are slightly positive, they are well below-average for a modern QB. EPA and WPA were originally modeled to make zero be the average, but it's not for two reasons. First, passing tends to have a consistently higher production value than running, so passers will naturally tend to have positive EPA and WPA. Second, the game has evolved even over the last few years to make offense--both running and passing--easier.

What we're really interested in is the full distribution of performances. We know what we're getting with Hoyer, but a rookie like Manziel is much more of an unknown and as such would come with a much wider variance. So here are how the distributions compare. The first chart is a histogram of EPA/G. It shows the frequency of poor, average, and good games for Hoyer and the reference set of rookies.



As expected, Hoyer's distribution is relatively narrow. He tends to have below-average output, but not too below-average. But take that with a grain of salt. With only 20 starts to evaluate, there's going to be a lot of noise in his distribution. The next chart plots WPA/G in the same way.



Similar results, but you can see Hoyer has had a few more clutch outings than we'd expect given his overall production. Still, not a lot to go on to distinguish Hoyer from an average 1st round rookie, which could just be the insight we're looking for.

There doesn't appear to be much risk going with Manziel over Hoyer if that's where the Browns want to go. By the same token, Hoyer isn't bad enough that there's an obvious upside to going with Manziel either. I suspect they're tempted to go with Manziel, which is why they're making those noises, and knowing that there isn't much downside to that alternative might embolden them. The Browns might want to think of things in terms of risk-reward tradeoffs. If they're going up against a team they are confident their defense can handle well, they should stick with Hoyer. But if they feel like they'll need more production than what Hoyer tends to give them, they should roll the dice with Manziel.

These are the kind of things that they will eventually be looking at.

I say eventually because right now I think they are spending all of their time scrambling to get systems like this in place for the draft. They've only had a few months since Depo was hired.

I didn't really pay attention as to weather Depo actually said the things ... so I went back and looked ..



that looks like he got it from Depo ... now .. 2 questions arise ..

1. when did he get that from Depo? .. was this what he wanted to do in baseball or is this how he wants it to work here ...

2. this may be what Depo wants ... doesn't mean he's going to get it ..

I would agree those two questions bring a TON OF DOUBT to what these "statements" actually mean ....

BUT ... I will go back to what I said yesterday ... WE DIDN'T HIRE AND SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY ON DEPO TO BE A BIT PLAYER ...

IMO ... before the end of FA next year Haslam will be faced with another decision ... its either gonna be the geeks or the football folks ...

THANKS FOR POINTING OUT THIS MAY NOT BE FROM DEPO ..

Part of what DePodesta does best is get everyone on the same page. My guess is that the traditional football scout and the numbers guys will all be on the same page in no time (if DePodesta is allowed to do his thing).

DePodesta values scouting. DePodesta also values analytics. These two things can work together.