DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum What did the Analytics know and when did they know it?

I want to try something different and I'd appreciate it if you all would play along..hopefully we can also have a civil discussion about it too.. please?

Ok.. I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that this FO is using Analytics to make decisions (yea the football guys are getting their input too.. at least I hope Hue is) I think that this was demonstrated last year with our trades out and acquisitions of picks.. and the point was further hammered home when we pulled the trade for BO and bought that 2nd round pick.. that was a PURE moneyball move. Make no mistake, these guys are playing moneyball.

What I'd like to see from you guys is to tell us all what you think THEY will do.. NOT NOT NOT what YOU would do.. BUT what MONEYBALL will do.. what do you think ANALYTICS will do for the remainder of FA and the upcoming draft.

Myself.. I think Analytics would normally say to trade out of the 1 pick and acquire more picks.. UNLESS the value of the person that they have in mind is worth more than the combined picks they would net by trading out... The same goes for the 12 pick. If you go strictly by Analytics I will be shocked if they don't trade out of the 12 pick.

In fact I think Sashi / Depo / Hue will value Garrett more than the combined net value of the picks they would get by trading down to say the 5 pick.

Play along.. PRETEND you are a pure analytics / moneyball guy and tell us what happens.. FA / Draft.. don't tell us what you want or what you think.. tell us what the moneyball says.

Honestly, I think some of the ideas here will get us further along the road to understanding whats gonna happen next month.

Haslam is not a crook?

Deep Throat was outed in the 90s?

Forrest Gump exposed watergate, not Woodward and the other guy?

Just having fun with the thread title. I don't know a lot about moneyball

Pay $16 million for a second round pick.

Also, "analytics" don't make every decision. They help inform decisions that are made.

I do agree that accumulating draft picks is probably the strategy that our front office values over most things. It seems like they have figured out that teams undervalue future picks. I would expect we trade down a few times and acquire picks for 18 and 19.

At some point in time you have to stop collecting picks and trading for future considerations and begin the work about building a team.

This is why Garrett is unlikely to be traded.

The Browns can only collect so many picks and effectively incorporate 12 plus players onto a team each year.

Last year was a tear down we all saw it. I take no comfort in my 1-15 prediction, but it was obvious to me.

This seems appropriate....

Cian Fahey Verified account
@Cianaf
Browns are working free of the constraint that is built into football culture people. They don't care about conventional wisdom.

Tweet

cfrs and Charger...

I don't suspect y'all mean it this way, but I do believe that some people are of the mind that this FO trading down and collecting picks is THE most important thing for them to do, above all else. I don't believe it's as arbitrary as all that.

cfrs, look at where we are amassing most of our picks... 1st and 2nd rds with a smattering of 4ths. Where do you find most of your starters and future pro bowl talent? 1st and 2nd rds right? 4th rd picks seem to be those add on picks used to sweeten a trade. IMO it's short sighted for some to think we're only stockpiling picks... I view it as stockpiling future starters.

Charger, yes, you make a great point about integrating 10-12 new players every year as being unsustainable. It would lead to too much turnover and not enough player development. My feeling is that once we establish an ability or system to garner multiple draft picks each year, we'll start seeing us being a bit more aggressive with trade ups and downs, targeting and going after players we want.

I do think we'll take Garrett at #1. The only way I see us trading out is if we stay within the top 5 and get some crazy other high picks. #12 I think there's a good chance we play with that one a little.

I believe the end goal for us is to develop a franchise that operates like New England's. They never reach in the Draft, they identify and develop talent, and are able to turn that in to a perennial playoff team. BB certainly deserves the credit for putting together such a genius 'plug and play' system. But he wouldn't be able to do that if the team and roster structure wasn't so solid. By having a complete team, you can put in guys drafted in later rounds and they will experience success.

How about Brady? 6th rd pick, ends up GOAT. Was that success all Brady? Was it all BB? Or was it a combination whereby a seemingly average QB was able to go to a 'complete team' and be developed and have his talent maximized in to what he's become today?

Did everybody not recognize Dak's talent, or does Dallas having a complete team allow him to maximize and develop that talent?

I know this gets in to the whole which comes first: the franchise QB or the team debate. But I think it's a relevant concept because that is where I see analytics taking us and I think at this point it's taking us in the direction of building that complete team first. This isn't to say the FO isn't on the lookout for that franchise QB, but if he isn't there, they aren't going to panic.

I think this goes beyond a personal preference and more into a pragmatic way to approach a certain reality, and that reality being the scarcity of franchise level QBs.

In any given year there are what, between 8 and 12 teams that need a legit QB? But even in a 'stacked' QB class there are what, like 5 in the Draft? So not only do teams have the problem of availability (how many good QB's come out in any given year) but also accessibility (jockeying with other QB needy teams.

Everybody remember when Pettine talked about minimizing the importance of the QB position and we were all like WTH? He's crazy! Well, maybe not. Shortly after is when we start seeing sports articles quoting GM's and HC's about the lack of college QB's with basic NFL skill sets.

The odds are that a team is much more likely to enter a season with an average QB than they are with "the guy". I don't think I'm making any new revelations there.

But at what point does a team stop panicking, stop reaching, stop going all in on guys they aren't all in on, and stop letting their wait for an elite QB impede the development of the rest of the team?

When do teams start accepting the fact (and maybe embracing) that they have a mid round QB and need to support him just as much as that 1st rd guy? Call and design the offense to his strengths? You can do this and be successful. Maybe not deep playoff or Super Bowl bound, but you can be right there in the middle.

And the key with this is: you don't have to give up looking for that elite QB while doing it. Legit QB coming out this year? Yeah, you can trade up because you've built a roster that will survive without next years 1st rd pick. Peyton Manning leaving the Colts, has a few good years left looking for a legit team to take to the SB? Throw stupid $$ at him.

So right now analytics is driving us in a direction where we are stockpiling future starters, to use them on players who play positions with not as steep a learning curve as QB, who can play immediately vs. holding a clipboard, so that over the next couple of seasons we will have built a more complete team, one that will be able to support the development of whatever QB (hopefully THE guy) we have behind center.



Sorry for the wall post

If they like one of the QBs they might trade out of the number one spot to target a qb before #12 and gain picks. Other than that I can not see them letting Garrett get away from them.

Personally I'm fine with what they are doing.

Moneyball says look at the BPA, weigh that against gains in trade downs, and try to execute whichever scenario is best for the team long term.

I think the hardest part is getting the metrics right on players. Finding the real gems in the rough can't be done with pure number crunching, so you have to find the right football guys putting in the right input for the math to work.

I also won't be surprised if we are actively trying to acquire players via FA and Trades much more often. Analytics works much better when you have more data to work with. Young vets that have quantifiable talents are good moves to plug holes and build depth. Sometimes you can even find a quality complete starter, usually at a higher price but cheaper than the cost of developing them.

So cap management and always having room to acquire available talent becomes a huge part of the strategy from now on. We won't overspend on most players but we will aggressively hunt FA's and good trades at all times.

I think we do go with Garrett. He checks all the boxes as a football player. To me the object of moneyball is to get value picks. His value on the field should be much greater than what we will be paying him.

I too think we will be very open to trading down from 16, unless a qb does catch our eye this year, we could look to trade up.

In the end I think we see the value in next years QB class and will probably trade down. I think we want another 1st rounder nest year. That would give is two 1st rounders and three 2nd rounders.

As for FA, any signings will be value signing. We aren't going to go overboard at this point.

I do see us possibly moving up from the 4th round in to the 3rd round. We aren't accumulating all these picks to pick that many players. If we see value in moving up, we will, if not, we trade down again to gain picks next year.

It's all about having the ammo to get the players we want. Some times you spend it, sometimes you bank it for next year.

I like it.

Garrett
Maximize pick #12 (via draft or trade back)
Maximize pick #33 (via draft or trade back)
Get as much playmaking ability in the defensive backfield and rushing the passer
Let Kessler start (unless the Pats cool on the demands for Jimmy G)
Draft the franchise QB in 2018 with a stacked team and a plethora of picks to acquire him

Would packaging Osweiler with a pick in a trade down qualify as a moneyball move? Particularly if putting him in the deal returned us one additional pick?

Is that moneyball? I have no idea.

Accumulating picks can't be an end unto itself. At some time you exchange for impact and value. It defines itself. Time to cash out some of the bounty this draft. MG is a great start.

This might be fun if anyone actually understood the whole money ball thing. I won't pretend I do...

Interesting question. I won't pretend to know their thinking, and I haven't a clue what they'll do the remainder of FA (though I believe they're looking to fill holes with value to go into the draft without ALL the needs they started the off season with) but I was playing First Pick this morning and I asked myself a similar question when #5 & #18 were offered for the #1. I've told myself all along that I wouldn't trade out of one for anything less than a #1 next year, but when the trade was offered, I felt that it would be the type of trade the FO might seriously take. Also, a trade down from #12 to #15 for an additional middle second round pick was hard to pass up too. In short, trades will depends on what's on the table and who's on the board. My trades gave a draft like this:

Round 1 Pick 5 (TENN): Solomon Thomas, DE, Stanford (A+)
Round 1 Pick 15 (IND): Jamal Adams, SS, LSU (A)
Round 1 Pick 18 (TENN): Marlon Humphrey, CB, Alabama (B)
Round 2 Pick 1: Mike Williams, WR, Clemson (A)
Round 2 Pick 14 (IND): David Njoku, TE, Miami (Fla.) (A+)
Round 2 Pick 20: Patrick Mahomes II, QB, Texas Tech (A)
Round 3 Pick 1: Marcus Williams, FS, Utah (A)
Round 4 Pick 1: Chad Wheeler, OT, Southern California (A+)
Round 5 Pick 1: D'Onta Foreman, RB, Texas (A-)
Round 5 Pick 31: Jon Toth, C, Kentucky (A-)
Round 5 Pick 37 (COMP): Jarron Jones, DT, Notre Dame (A)
Round 6 Pick 1: Stacy Coley, WR, Miami (Fla.) (C+)
Round 6 Pick 4: Channing Stribling, CB, Michigan (C)

Of course who knows what the real situation will be, and Williams & Njoku lasting that long is a stretch, as is Adams at 15, but the point is, under the right circumstances, I can see them trading out of the #1. I don't know that I'll like it, but I can see it happening.

Ain't that the truth.

Last season I made no attempt to hide my displeasure with the FO or Hue ! I thought there moves were ill thought out and Hue as QB whisper was garbage ..Now so far this year I am very please at the moves by the FO so far .. I feel like we are positioned very well for the Draft ( and over during the draft ) as well as a eye on 2018 .. I can see different moves at #12 and 33

.. We move up or down for a player , try to navigate for a 1st next year and so on ..

.. But most important is being spot on with the first handful picks we DO make this season //

In my opinion people think analytics is just putting numbers in a computer and it spitting out what it believes is the right answer. In a simplistic view this is correct I suppose, but it isn't really how it works. Analytics is about measuring risks and opportunities at its core.....figuring out the odds for success.

think Garrett will be a no brainer as he meets every metric both production and athletic wise, and is thus probably the player with the best odds of being a highly productive player.

At QB is where it gets interesting. I see no way that they take a guy like Watson who doesn't meet the athletic metrics (velocity), but the football guys supposedly love Trubs. He doesn't meet the conventional data metrics either (13 starts) and I want to see who wins that battle. A guy to keep an eye is Pat Mahomes who should meet every analytical metric there is and if Hue likes him this could be the compromise pick. It would also allow them to take another impact pick at 12 and not spend it on a QB. The more I think about this PM might be the guy we end up targeting. From an analytical standpoint picking PM at 33 is a much better gamble than picking Trubs at 12 imo, because the amount of risk involved will have been mitigated.

I would also think guys like the FS out of Utah Williams will be looked at hard becuase of the production on the field and the value of where you can select him. Conversely, a guy like Marlon Humphries will probably be passed upon because his PD metric is not what you would expect.


Just a guess because I don't work in football analytics, but I would expect that we will want productive guys who also meet the athletic metrics because the studies I've read on football analytics says that these individuals have the most opportunity for success.

Analytics will never be used as the sole reason for a decision. It's just a tool that helps you filter what information you need to know vs what you don't need to know.

For example, when looking to draft a QB you find certain physical traits increase your probability of finding a better QB. Hue mentions he likes them at least 6'2" and most of the NFL agree with that I think. Will they ignore a QB who is shorter? No, but they won't focus on him as much because he doesn't meet their criteria. It's not that much different than traditional ways of doing things. It's just that they know WHY they are doing it more often than just going by a gut feeling. If anything it's probably the tool they use to confirm or deny those gut feelings.

I honestly think people make way too much of a big deal about it. It's not even new. Paul Brown practically invented the use of it for the Championship Browns.

I agree with this. We've talked about the "Parcell's metric" a lot over the past few days, and while not a traditional analytics project it is the same principal......criteria used to predict future success. This is all analytics is and is just another tool to be used.

I would hope they would not trade down but take Garrett @ #1 and Trubisky @ #12 ... But I will play with what I think these guys will do ...

These guys love picks and are looking to get that franchise QB, and if they don't see that QB in this draft I look for them to trade out of #1, and I look for them to deal with as you suggested,Tennessee, Now I believe if they do this they are looking towards next years draft and Acquiring Sam Darnold, now if they do this they will be asking for this years #5 pick, this years 2 #3's 19 and 36 along with next years #1, which means IMO they will take the best Defensive player available among Solomon Thomas, Malik Hooker, Derek Barnett, and Jamal Adams, and they will take OJ Howard at #12, (unless one of those 4 fall to 12), Which will help Cody Kessler who will be our starter in 2017, remember what Hue said "TRUST ME "...

Exactly. Hue, Sashi and etc have publicly made this known too. It's one piece, one tool to help our decision making. Utlizing data and information that's already available, some act we're the only NFL team using analytics. We're definitely not. One could maybe say all NFL teams use it in some aspect or degree.

I would add that if they really like a guy...and he doesn't measure up on a particular analytic...they might STILL take that guy. It's not an all or nothing philosophy.

I'm tired of trading down/around and am ready to get that impact guy...but what you say there is intriguing.

Edromeo had some really good earlier posts about the possibility that there is greater difference/distance between the interior studs (like J Allen) than the edge rusher studs (like Garrett). Meaning that you can get a guy "like" Garrett in Solomon...but it's harder to get a guy "like" J Allen. (That was before the shoulder thing came out...but still interesting nonetheless.)

I am tired of trading down too, but you asked what I thought these guys would do soooooo ...

Remember also that if they would make such a trade they could take Trubisky @ #5 ...

Moneyball is finding inefficiencies in the market and then exploiting them. Like paying $16 million for a second round pick. Basically, find things that teams haven't discovered yet and do them.

Yep and now with the release of RGIII that 2nd rounder is costing us $8 Million less ...

Regarding the #1 pick...

The one thing I could see happening is a team coming in at the last minute and offering up a ton. These guys are all about value, but I could see another team making an 11th hour desperation move that gets the FO's attention.

I think information from sites sch as Pro Football Focus and Sparq might help us understand what they may do. If I'm not mistaken, someone correlated some of the draft picks last year to high scores on these two sites (or one of them, I can't recall).

Frankly I won't be surprised if they traded out of #1 if they got what they'd think is a top 10 pick next year and another this year (Jets, Jags, Bears), or maybe even both of Tenn's first rounders this year. If the perceived value is greater than what they think Garrett is worth, it could happen.

@12 is where I think it might be interesting. I know most of us seem to like Adams & Hooker, with others liking OJ Howard, Foster, one of the top 3 QB, etc... but I wouldn't be surprised if we pick someone that none of us expect at that spot. Someone like Alvin Kamara, Zach Cunningham, Fabian Moreau, or Davis Webb.

Beyond that, I think a varying combination of traditional scouting and analytics will play a role in each pick - with analytics making a larger impact later in the draft. Just a hunch.

This. If they want to get better than 1-15, they need to stop kicking the can down the road.

I believe there are many facets of analytics and money ball that most posters are unaware of. I include myself in that group. However, I do believe that I have some of the basic concepts and will throw my opinion out here.

I believe that any possibility is open and that trading down is a fluid situation. Now if a QB had actually separated themselves from the pack there would be a strong possibility of another team offering a bevy of picks to move up to #1. That however is not the situation we face. As such, I believe that Myles Garrett will outweigh any possible trade down scenario. There are enough starts, film and measurables that I believe the analytics will show selecting him at #1 to be the best investment.

At #12 I don't see the selection so obvious depending who is left on the board. Once again, who is left on the board combined with the possible trade scenario available to us makes this a very fluid situation. If we feel that five or six players are closely valued at this point, a trade down could be very likely.

I will say that I don't believe Mtrub will be a part of this process. With only 13 starts I don't believe there is enough evidence to base such a high selection on. Too many times we've witnessed a QB which looks great at first, only to find with a second year as a starter their stock goes down a lot. Therefore I simply feel that analytics would point that out and find the risk too great.

I agree with many who say that we simply can't draft 12 rookies every year and think things will get better. At some point we have to take the better talent and build a team with playmakers.

I will say that I don't believe Mtrub will be a part of this process. With only 13 starts I don't believe there is enough evidence to base such a high selection on. Too many times we've witnessed a QB which looks great at first, only to find with a second year as a starter their stock goes down a lot. Therefore I simply feel that analytics would point that out and find the risk too great.

I agree with this as well, but Hue supposedly loves him. It would be interesting to see what they do if he falls to 12, because that would go along way in showing who is picking QBs/and how much power Hue has in the FO.

That imo is the most interesting Browns storyline in the draft, because I think Garrett is a foregone conclusion considering Williams has publicly given that away...lol.

Hue also "loved" a bunch of QBs that were never signed/traded for/kept on our roster..

Coincidently Hue always "loves" a certain number of QBs every offseason.

This winter I read the Moneyball book by Michael Lewis to get an idea on DePodesta and his thinking might be like. One thing they cared a lot about was on base percentage. The theory being that the more often you are on base then you are more likely to earn runs. They would put this stat up against more glamorous stats like homeruns. Then they could find undervalued players to capitalize on. Likewise they wouldn't overspend chasing for players.

Baseball is different than football in many ways but a primary way is the salary cap. In the case of the Oakland A's they didn't have a lot of money so they had to find a way to win cheap. In football all teams have the same cap max. The use of cap space with baseball mindset in football is an interesting idea. This will likely lead to other future moves similar to the Osweiler trade.

In general I imagine stats that could be a concern to the Browns could be something like "average yards gained per target" or "average of distance from line of scrimmage for a tackle" or "catches allowed". These stats are less sexy than TDs, sacks or INT's but would probably give a look into their minds.

Doubt it. Wouldn't be surprised if "unofficially" the league told us to knock that crap off.

I would not be surprised if they began to analyze film and begin to create their own stats.

With film,some known values,and some creative software you could easily create measurements for "average gap on a defender" for WR's - for example - and then run that new tool against any ALL-22 film you can get your hands on - college and pro. You could churn through film and quickly identify guys that know how to get open.

Big Data can answer questions you didn't even think to ask.

Considering the volume of picks we have, if both of those are true, then I think Moneyball says you take Garrett at #1 and use the #12 pick and something lower to move up to the get the QB if you have placed that high of a value on one. Considering the two most important positions on an NFL team these days is QB and pass rusher and you have a chance to get them both in one draft. Then, as it always does, it comes down to whether you valued the player correctly.

Kind of what I was saying but accumulating picks is a ends we seek.

Then we use those picks to select talent. If we don't like what we see, we try to trade down and push those picks to next year.

Until we have to spend a bunch to maybe move up big for a QB, I can see us pretty much always having extra picks every draft. That you you can do pretty much anything you want....to me, that is also money ball.

Last year was nothing. It was just the start. This year we are seeing how the FO wants to operate. It's a thing of beauty...as long as we also select good players, which I believe we will.

Depo wasn't involved last year. He has started moving his chess pieces, and it is paying off.

I liked the trade for Brock. Masterful.

Even if we are unsucessful in trading him, he is going to sign somewhere, and what ever he signs for will be deducted from the 16 mil. Add in the fact we probably needed to spend the money to get up towards the NFL minimum over a 3 year average.


And just to say, I am not totally sold on the idea the guy can't play. If it was me I'd take him in to camp before thinking of cutting him. If someone offers a trade, Id trade him and eat 60% of the salary for this year and gain another pick next year. I still think something like that will happen. It just won't happen until we get past the draft

When you pointed out on base percentage as a key baseball stat in analytics I almost immediately thought the football equivalent stat would be 3rd down conversion percentage, maybe.

After the draft will be key for a Brock trade if there is one.

Some team isn't ganna (or does) get the QB they want. And might consider rolling with Brock as a bridge to next year. Or as a backup (at half his salary)

I'm to the point that I'm "ok" with him starting this year if we aren't ganna start a Rookie.

I'd rather Brock throwing (slightly innacurate) bombs to Coleman then Kessler dink and dunking until we punt.

How hilarious would it be though if Houston paid us a 2nd rounder and Brock came here and wasn't terrible?