DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Free Agency

http://grantland.com/features/the-economics-moneyball/

You are out of your depth.

Diam

Zeitler may not have any Pro-Bowls but if you check out the PFF's rankings only 3 other OGs have a higher average ranking over the last 3 seasons, that being Zach Martin (Cowboys), Kelechi Osemele (Raiders) and Marshal Yanda (Ravens). Yanda makes $8 mill a year, Martin is still on his rookie contract, and Osemele makes $11.7 mill a year.

You mean like paying a G huge money on the FA market? That defies your description.

Just because you are buying an undervalued asset doesn't mean you have to be cheap. As I said earlier, it is a stretch, but I can make the point that offensive linemen are coming into the league less prepared than ever before. That makes veteran offensive linemen more valuable than ever. I don't know if they are undervalued or properly valued. I don't even know if that was the strategy in acquiring Zeitler and Tretter. I am just throwing out an idea (that has been discussed before on here).

I think it is clear that the front office has determined that future draft picks are undervalued and that's where the Osweiler trade comes in.

(I discussed these exact points above and am basically repeating myself.)

Yeah but we spent money.

So that means it's obviously not money ball.

Nothing about that Zeitler contract had anything to do with Moneyball. You are not finding value in making a good G who is certainly not the #1 G in the league and giving him the highest paid contract in the league.

Unless you're signing second tier players, you're not getting any actual value on the FA market. You're overpaying in the FA market. You're bidding against 31 other teams to land a FA. That's the opposite of value.

And when it comes to Brock? I not only feel they got a second round pick, but also a band aid at the QB position. A bridge QB. I don't actually believe they paid 16 mil. for a 2nd round pick which only nets you a 50/50 shot in the draft of landing a player that will be on your roster 4 years from now.

If you can't figure out the difference that's your problem.

j/c

It should not be overlooked that Hue is quite familiar with Zeitler...more so really than any other coach except Marvin Lewis. I think that also factored in how the FO "valued" Zeitler.

I think their plan this offseason (and maybe from here on out) was to target positions that are not of strength in the draft (this year it was OL) and focus on that in FA. Try to sign young-ish guys at that position and then draft the BPA at the others.

It's a good way to continue to replenish the roster and keep it young

I think folks, ESPECIALLY journalists, who are throwing around the Moneyball phrase when describing our current offseason are being lazy.

Our FO is thinking creatively, assessing the draft and FA market. They're doing that so they won't spend money frivolously, but they identify what they need, who they want to fill that need. Once they do that, then they're going out and getting those guys.

The "Moneyball" (if that's what you want to call it) part of the offseason was the identification of what we were going to address this offseason (priorities) and when (FA or draft), and then who they wanted to get to fill those needs. After that, Moneyball went by the wayside, and they did what they needed to do to get those guys. For the people that want to argue over Pryor, they ID'd him as someone to keep, and offered him an above-market offer. Pryor just chose not to accept.


That's how I understand the situation(s), and how you can reconcile our "Moneyball" FO with overpaying for Zeitler and others in FA.

Who says that paying more on our offensive line isn't money ball? Moneyball in the NFL is all about the allocation of cap space. I think people are confusing how money management works in baseball and football. In football, you are required to spend 90% of the cap. So it's not just looking to be cheap, you also have to comply with league rules and maintain your cap. If we're being super real with ourselves, there's two ways the Browns can get a franchise QB, draft him (QB will have rookie contract at 4/5 years) or sign him in free agency (prone to oversigning, but doesn't matter if QB is worth it). Since franchise QB's are so hard to come by in Free agency, it would seem that building the best team for a rookie contract QB is our best bet at winning/acquiring a franchise QB. So building a high price team around a cheap QB would be a money ball move.

With hindsight, yes, they may have gotten a band-aid. I don't believe that was the intention. The intention, as I see it, was get the pick and deal with Osweiler later.

Almost all of the trades we have done we have gotten picks more than a year down the road. It is clear that our front office values those picks.

How many times did the Browns trade down in the 2017 NFL draft and how many times did they move up in that same draft?

I thought we traded down once and up twice. Is that incorrect?

If it is correct, what does that tell us? If it is incorrect, never mind. LOL

"Money Ball" does not mean frugal. In baseball, on-base-percentage linked to scoring. Creating a lineup containing high OBP batters produced more runs. Term "Money Ball" described Oakland dumping high priced HR hitters signing low price single/double hitters.

In Browns case, it appears, to me anyway, emphasis is on time of possession. Looking at last year and this year Browns drafted possession receivers and tight-ends. We also saw heavy concentration toward the OL and DL. From a defensive perspective, turnover production seems key. I get this is a normal way building a team. Just as Oakland and Cleveland did in baseball, they simply keyed on a specific fundamental. The Patriots used this concept for years. It really boils down to patience building an infrastructure and sticking to it.

j/c

Why do so many have to twist the meaning of moneyball in order to try to insist that controls all of our moves? Moneyball has zero to do with a lot of the moves we make.

But that's how it works when moneyball is a part of your arsenal but not the only weapon in your arsenal.

I don't think "so many" are twisting the meaning of Moneyball-- at least from what I've read on here. I do think many people misunderstand it (both ways maybe). I do think what people don't understand they ridicule. Hell, just last year, many people bashed this new FO simply because Paul DePodesta was attached to it and they didn't like a baseball analytics guy seemingly replacing "football people", which hasn't been the case. Not just this board, but even in the NFL community as well. Now, people are beginning to understand it better. That's not to say it'll work out or even justify someone like myself that was hopeful knew what was going on before anyone else--but I definitely understood the drastic purge of the roster and acquiring draft assets model. Anyways.....


I think the Moneyball mindset has a ton to do with this organization, but it's not a copy and paste job from baseball, IMO. I think the Brock Osweiler deal is a clear indication of "moneyball". The path to accumulate draft pics as well, which has been a huge focus. I also think flyers taken on both Pryors are an example of it too. I hope moving forward, based on activity trends of this FO, we'll begin to see where they allocate resources, and perhaps, that'll indicate where they value personnel decisions one way or another. I think it is important to keep in mind that, allegedly, Paul DePo isn't here JUST for personnel but also in ways that help build systems in other departments, which I would assume include diet/training, sales practices/efficiencies, etc. I think that was communicated early upon being hired.

Not that you asked me directly, but do I think Moneyball impacts every football move?....No. And I will assume other people who mildly understand Moneyball know that too. I think there are tons of unknowns or incompletes for those Browns' staff charged with looking for opportunities that get an edge in football. Analytics has been around for some time in the NFL but I get the sense that, here, it's been put on steroids in so many ways organizationally. Still, they are learning on the fly for what might work, IMO.

Is anyone going to answer?

sounds about right...I'll have to double check it tho.

What about the previous draft (and multiple other trades)?

I was asking a serious question that I hoped you would answer. I have repeatedly admitted that this part of football is not my forte. I was hoping to be educated.

When people ask me a football question, for example about mechanics or schemes, I try to answer them to educate them.

I am assuming by the way you answered the question that I was right about how many times we traded down and up. I don't know what moneyball is and don't claim to, but that doesn't sound like the moneyball y'all have tried to define.

Is it possible that the plan has been tweaked?

Btw-------if the plan has been tweaked......I see it as a good thing. Learn from your mistakes and adjust the plan accordingly.

The thing I think they do is acquire future picks. Traditionally teams do not value future picks. I believe on Jimmy Johnson's trade chart they are downgraded by a full round. Our front office realizes this and is trading for them like crazy.

Just because a team trades up doesn't mean they don't value picks, it means they value the player they are getting more than the picks they are giving up.

The Osweiler trade is the ultimate example of the team valuing future picks. They basically bought a second round pick in the next year's draft.

I got you. This is more about posturing than reality.

Thanks for answering.

The answer is we moved down once and up three times.
I'm having operator issues posting the link-LOL

Oh wow. Thanks, man.

Considering that information and the money we spent in free agency, I believe that the plan has been tweaked.

I think that is a wonderful thing!!!

Not really tweaked - we're just in a different phase of the plan than we were last year. The first part of the plan was to load us up on picks and kinda position us to keep loading, and to get as many players picked as possible, because more picks is more chances. However, that isn't sustainable to do year after year because you can only have so many guys on the roster, so with this year, the extra picks become currency to let us move around and do as we please, as well as give us the ability to trade picks to next year to keep the following year stacked.

So, the plan is still the plan - Draft picks are our currency. It's what we value because when you build through the Draft, picks are more valuable than anything - the only thing that has changed is that we laid a foundation or base layer last year, and this year we started to put some REAL talent in place.

I see that point, meaning the trading would evidently show the team didn't value those future picks. But.

Is it fair to only include 2017 and not include all the extra picks the teams been adding going back to when the Haslems bought the team.

We didn't really give up anything significant to trade up. If we trade a future first or second to move up, then I will agree the plan has changed.

I didn't say that it changed. I said it was tweaked. I think it's pretty obvious.

Now, I get how some people will wanna deny that because they had so much invested in "the plan," but I prefer to deal in reality.

And again, I applaud them for making adjustments. It's not a criticism at all.

I think good teams are constantly tweaking their plan. They are consistently evaluating what works and what doesn't then adjusting appropriately.

I don't think it was tweaked. The plan was to accumulate assets in year one (tank). We did this by playing a ton of rookies, not signing our own free agents (and not signing any others that would cost us compensatory picks), trading for future picks (even though it would hamper us on the field in the short term), and rolling over a ton of cap space.

This year we weren't going to get many compensatory picks because none of our free agents were all that good (besides Pryor, who I think the front office thought they were going to be able to re-sign), so were able to invest in free agency on players that will help for the long term. We tanked successfully which earned us the first pick (and Myles Garrett). We also gave up present day assets (the pick we traded to the Texans in the trade down and the cap space used to absorb Osweiler's contract) for future assets (the future first and second round picks we acquire).


(Sorry if this is incoherent, I am trying to post and watch the basketball game at the same time.)

General comment on trading picks.

On the other hand .....

Farmer traded all around the 2014 draft. I seem to recall that he had 10 picks that e turned into 6. He traded down from #4 overall to the Bills 8th. (Sammy Watkins) He then gave up the 9th overall, along with a 5th, to move up one spot to grab Gilbert. (big fail) Then he moved from 26th overall to 22, giving up a 3rd round pick, to get Manziel. Ugh.

He then traded into the 3rd,(#95 overall) giving up 106 (4th) and a 6th to draft Terrence West. bleh.

He then traded a 7th to the Ravens for a 2015 5th.

In between these moves, he also drafted Bitonio and Kirksey, both of whom appear to have upper level talent and ability.

I think that was Banner's influence on Farmer.

(I know Banner wasn't around, but I believe he would have made similar trades but not similar picks.)

I don't mind moving around in a draft. In fact, I believe that if you have several players rated the same, and have a chance to move down a couple of spots, then you should do it. Likewise, if you have a chance to move up for a player you really like, I don't have a problem with that either. The only thing is .... get good to great players.

The Steelers have been so good for so long by drafting wisely, and replacing their players with their pwn players when they must. They have had 8, 7, and 8 picks in their last 3 picks. They can sit players, not needing to forcing them into the lineup, and actually allow them to learn and grow.

The Pats are more willing to trade down in drafts, trading for future picks, and also to trade draft picks for players. In their last 3 drafts, they have had 11, 9, and 4 picks.

Both ways can work, but you have to get that base of talent first. Neither the Pats nor the Steelers are typically desperate to force a bunch of draft picks into the lineup as rookies.

We have lacked that talent base, but I do think that we are building one.

I think it is pretty obvious that it was tweaked, but I also understand that those who bought into the plan would never admit to that.

No one knows what was the plan or what is now the plan. Those who hated the plan (originally) can now say that the plan has changed...because it just might be working. It's a CYA thing. I called it out weeks ago.

This is a re-post from March 2017 for those posters who want to educate themselves on what is truly happening in Berea. I posted this then SPECIFICALLY for those posters who were going to try and claim that the "plan" somehow changed ( aka got-tweaked) once it became apparent that it was starting to actually work.


Quote:
No one outside Berea really knows what-is the plan.

They said they believe the best way to re-build a team is through the draft. They did NOT say they wouldn't entertain FA signings.

They acquired a boatload of picks for their first two years on the job - see the first sentence in the preceding paragraph. They knew they were losing Mack...they had no interest in Gipson...they weren't going to overpay Benji. So...when the Schwartz deal went south, they understood what all those losses meant for comp picks (see first sentence in preceding paragraph again) and free agency so they played the comp pick game and stayed away from free agency- see second sentence in preceding paragraph.

THEN...they scooped up a bunch of players that were low-cost, low-risk guys who didn't use up any draft capital in Boddy-Calhoun, Paea, even RG3. They got a good corner for a 7th Rd pick and a very good LB for the Mack comp pick. Good work there.

THIS year they have NO players of the same impact of Mack and Schwartz...and maybe a guy or two in the lesser category. They understand what that means for comp picks and FA. Hence, we are throwing around some serious $$$ to land some guys THIS year. To me...that is all part of "The Plan". When we (hopefully) sign a few upper-tier guys, we will hear about how the FO has "finally" decided to adjust their plan...when what they have-done and are doing has been part of "The Plan" all along.

"They" stated that they want continuity but they also stated that they will improve the team whenever and wherever possible. Hence the coaching changes.

"They" stated that they want to reward their own players and try to keep them. If they've offered TP 6+ million a year, I'd say they kept that promise. That's a lot of $$$. Maybe they need(ed) to offer him more...but that's a lot of $$$ for an unproven, improving 27 year-old guy new to his position. They let it be known publicly that they want him back...so no silly posturing is in play.

I'll sit back and chuckle when posters start claiming that the Browns finally 'figured it out', 'learned that the plan wasn't going to work', and my favorite...'they adjusted the plan to save their jobs'...when they have done exactly what they said they'd do.

The only real question is whether they got/get it right.

JC


As I said earlier, in the NFL, you have a salary floor. At some point you can't stick to the valuation process as closely as you can in baseball. At some point you are going to have to spend the money or you will be fined.

So the question becomes would you rather be fined and simply send a check to the NFLPA to meet the salary cap minimum, or would you rather spend the money on actual players you sign to your roster?

I am not sure where we stood/stand towards meeting the minimum cap number, but as far under the cap as we have been the last few years, it had to be fairly close.

I think that is a big reason why we took on the Brock salary. If Brocks plays fairly well for us this year, expect to see us work to bring his numbers down.

j/c:

I find it amusing how some posters are so concerned w/being right about their previous claims that they refuse to acknowledge what is right in front of their faces.

I'll sit back and now chuckle at their outrage to my quote.