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

Agree, best player available WITH need in mind some...would not be upset IF we have 2rd guys marked and traded down for those guys....end result making whole team stronger....good news...it trust this FO lot more than Farmer/etc....we at least are talking to guys/ bringing them in for interviews...GO Browns!!!!

I agree.

The only two real question marks on the line are the 2 tackle sport.

Who backs up Joe. and the RT spot.

I think Coleman can be the RT. I also think we might draft a tackle fairly early. Someone who maybe played LT in college to be Joes back-up and also compete for the RT position.

I suppose it's early to let Cam go, but I can't see him making the team.

I dont really put a whole lot into this Browns analytics thing like others. It's a tool/piece of the puzzle that they use, and that's it.

I am interested in how analytics is used on our current players.. more specifically o-line. more specifically Erving.

Please cut this guy and lets move forward.

I've asked about Joe's backup for years when everyone stated the OL is in decent shape. Now they turn things over retooling people take notice.

My belief is the o-line crisis was finally given some attention. Drango, Coleman, and Erving will create much needed competition. I'm paying close attention who sees time behind Joe this training camp. I see Coleman moving back and fourth from LT to RT. I think Drango makes a serious push at RG. Everyone's whipping post Erving may surprise people at RT.

If fans looked back when Browns had Cousins as a backup and compare today, Drango, Coleman, and Erving are a tremendous upgrade.

Cool thread Saint.. I have enjoyed reading the reply's.

Long post ahead, but I post only once or twice a year.

If I’m an analytics guy, I accumulate draft capital. I don’t offer opinions on drafting specific players or specific positions. Instead, I provide the football guys the most flexibility to do what they want in the draft. So what actions do I take and why?

#1 Make the Brock Osweiler trade. It starts by paying $16MM for a QB and a 2nd round draft pick.

Plan A: Cut RGIII and trade BO

• With RGIII’s contract off the books, the draft pick cost us only $8MM net.
• If the trade of BO is made before the draft, I ask the trading partner to pick up some or all of BO’s contract. If they balk, I make the trade for a draft pick. After the draft, it’s all about the money. What am I left with? A 2nd round pick, (and maybe more) for less than $8MM, possibly way less.

Plan B: Cannot trade BO. Offer him to football guys. If they want him in camp then you have a potential starter, backup or placeholder until another QB (Kessler, Hogan, or draft pick) is deemed ready. If they don’t want him, analytics says release him and then you’ve paid $8MM for a 2nd rounder (capital) that can be used to trade for a QB (JimmyG?) or draft, hopefully, a potential starter.

Yeah, yeah, yeah—old news, I know. What’s next?

#2 Consider Trading Down from #1

While the football guys may have a strong opinion that you take the consensus best player available with the #1 pick and don’t look back, analytics acknowledges there are a variety of opinions ranging from Myles Garrett being a game changer to something considerably less. Analytics also says always consider alternatives and look for the option with the greatest value. Since this is a draft class very strong on the defensive side should you consider the following?

Trade #1 and 2018 3rd round pick to SF for #2 and #34
Trade #2 and 2018 2nd round pick from Houston to Chicago for #3, #35, and #67

If you were able to pull off both trades, the Browns have #3 #12 #33 #34 #36 #52 #65 and #67. Think of the possibilities.

• There is a decent chance either SF or Chicago drafts a QB #1 or #2 leaving the (slim) possibility of Garrett being available or choosing the #2 or #3 defensive lineman (Allen or Thomas) or the top DB (Hooker) or SS (Adams)
• Draft a QB at #12 or pick BPA (Howard? Barnett? Foster?) and trade for QB
• Package two or possibly three picks among #12 - #36 and/or a 2018 2nd round pick we traded for (Philadelphia, Houston)) for a QB (Jimmy G?) and still have two picks at the top of the 2nd round for a CB, Safety and/or WR. If you didn’t draft QB at #12 or make the trade for QB then perhaps you go developmental QB here.
• And you still have a mid 2nd round pick and two top 3rd round picks to address other positions of weakness.
• Final alternative, package some of your accumulated picks with lower round picks to trade back up, if warranted.

#3) Draft picks are cheap to sign and starters are more likely to be found early in the draft. So if you can get six or seven picks in the first three rounds, then be willing to trade away lower round picks to achieve this. If the picks pan out then pay up and extend them a few years later. If not, no big $$$ lost as they might be with FA signings.

This is what 100% analytics tells me.

As a fan this potential scenario makes me salivate. And even though you prefer to keep the "what you want" out of this, my preference is:

1) trade (at a reasonable price) for Jimmy G
2) draft Myles Garrett at #1, but if you can trade down no further than #3 and pick up some top 2nd round picks then I would settle for 2nd or 3rd best defensive lineman with the hopes of drafting some additional starters/depth

Of course, all this assumes the football guys know how to draft well...a very big IF indeed.

That us a well thought out post.

Post more.

I wish I didn't feel this way.

I had the same thought the other day. Based on NFL.com which doesn't appear to take into account Goff last year, since we drafted Tim Couch there have been 98 seasons played by number one draft picks and only 21 pro-bowls, 14 of which were by 4 guys. I'm not saying that they can't succeed, but that the chance for success is much higher the more top picks we take.

If we can draft 2 first rounders a year and hit on one of them who develops into what a mid first rounder should I think we're going to be good really fast. If they both hit at that level, we'll be really good, really fast. If one or both of them is elite, we'll be setting ourselves up for a dynasty.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'd trade down from #1 if we didn't fall out of the top 10 and grabbed another 1st rounder for next year...

It seems everyone in football is expecting the Browns to draft Garrett. The only reason SF would trade up from #2 to #1 is if 1) they want Garrett, or 2) they believe someone else is going to jump over them to get the guy they want (if not Garrett.) Trading down from 1 to 2, then 2 to 3, and still getting Garrett is extremely unlikely to happen.

I have no problem with a trade down scenario, especially if it nets us some very good talent. This draft is loaded on defense and even if Garrett is the consensus I believe the production he would bring us can be had from other guys in this draft, plus add some other guys at other positions with the capital acquired with the trade down. I think it could be an interesting draft.