DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum John Dorsey's Cleveland Browns making use of analytics after all

John Dorsey's Cleveland Browns making use of analytics after all


By Cynthia Frelund
NFL Network Analytics Expert

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...ytics-after-all

The Cleveland Browns' new general manager, John Dorsey, might be teaching us more about analytics than he planned.

A proud traditionalist and self-avowed "football guy," Dorsey inherited 12 picks in the 2018 NFL Draft -- a parting gift from fired executive VP of football operations Sashi Brown, whose tenure included the Browns' controversial hiring of renowned analytics-minded former baseball executive Paul DePodesta -- when he took the job at the end of last season. Earlier this month, Dorsey relinquished a few of the mid- and late-round picks from the stockpile accumulated under Brown in order to acquire veterans who will presumably be immediate on-field contributors in 2018.

Here's where analytics -- real analytics -- come into play. Contrary to popular opinion, analytics are not about nerds trying to ruin sports. They're not a means for one person (or group) working in a silo to prescribe outcomes for others. In the NFL specifically, analytics are not defined by hoarding draft picks. The best definition of analytics I have found is this: They're about the practice of creating and refining processes to make decisions of the highest possible quality using historical, contextual and situational data.

Context and situation are especially key in the NFL, magnified by the relatively small number of games and strict spending floors and ceilings. On the field, these are things like: how close the game actually was (did the team lose on a missed field goal or by 20 points?); if it was, say, Deshaun Watson's first start or fifth; and -- this is a biggie -- if there were injured or missing players. One off-the-field example: Has this free agent played in a system like ours before, making for a potentially shorter learning curve?

In short, take lots of data, organize it so everyone who makes decisions can meaningfully use it, then work together to create the most overall value. Value can include not over-drafting a player or acquiring additional draft picks, but there is no way to define NFL value without including on-field results. And the search for value is pointless when the coaching staff and front office aren't on the same page.

Using both Hue Jackson's and Dorsey's past league experiences as reference, the number and speed of trades and free-agent acquisitions this offseason suggests they are executing a unified plan. Here's how the Browns' moves show us a cohesive front-office and coaching definition of value, which starts to reveal Cleveland's potential 2018 strategy on the field ...
Snag some proven playmakers in high-need areas

Say what you will about Tyrod Taylor, but there's absolutely no question the Browns have upgraded at the all-important QB1 spot.

With seven years of pro film on Taylor -- including three full starting campaigns -- the quarterback's production and style are far more known quantities than those of the other veteran options in his price range. The Browns gave up a third-round pick and will spend $16 million this season for a signal-caller who posted the NFL's lowest interception rate last year (1.0 percent; he threw just four picks) and logged just 21 total turnovers in the past three years (the fewest in the NFL among quarterbacks with at least six starts in each season). Last season, Browns rookie DeShone Kizer, who started 15 games, threw a league-high 22 interceptions.

Taylor has also averaged 5.6 yards per rush since becoming a starter in 2015, with no fewer than 427 rushing yards in each season over that span. Not to mention, 14 additional scores on the ground. Digging a little deeper shows Taylor ranked in the top 10 among all QBs in rushing average on first and second down during those seasons. This is important, as a team is more likely to call designed quarterback runs on those downs. Defenses have to respect Taylor's ability to extend plays, as he threw eight touchdown passes (against three picks) last season when holding the ball for 2.6 or more seconds. Under the same circumstances, Kizer threw two TD passes and 12 interceptions in 2017.

While Taylor hasn't cracked the top 26 in terms of passing attempts per game in any of the past three years, his results in critical throwing situations are strong positive indicators. Taylor ranked in the top six last season in both completion percentage and passer rating when under pressure. And when he was forced to scramble and make a play on third down, his accompanying completion percentage led the NFL.

"Polarizing" is a word often used to describe Tyrod Taylor, because he's taken the third-most sacks (124) over the past three seasons combined, and -- most importantly -- he is inconsistent in the red zone. Taylor threw half of his four INTs last season in the red zone, while ranking 25th out of 31 qualifying quarterbacks in yards per attempt (2.9) within this crucial area of the field.

Using the quarterback rubric I created by enlisting 22 NFL-level coaches to help define performance clusters (there are only five: elite, above average, average, below average and well below average), Taylor's production in each of the past three years has rated between QB12 and QB16. Not a bad return for the 65th overall pick, which would have been the Browns' sixth selection in next month's draft. They still have five picks in the top 64, with four occurring in the top 35. The value this year's Browns receive from Taylor projects to far exceed a single third-round pick.

The opportunity for Taylor in 2018 was sweetened through the Browns' acquisition of Jarvis Landry from Miami for a pair of Day 3 picks. The 25-year-old wideout caught a whopping 81 percent of his red-zone targets last season, resulting in nine touchdowns (most among WRs in this area). He also had only one red-zone drop.

Let's look over Landry's four years of overall NFL experience, with an additional focus on the past two. Landry has ranked in the top four in yards generated from the slot and in the top five in broken tackles over the past two seasons. Last year, he had 60 receptions that earned first downs, which is more than three times the number any single Browns wide receiver earned. For a team that ranked 31st in time of possession last season, moving the chains is an attribute Cleveland must improve upon this season.

Further, by trading for the franchise-tagged Landry two weeks ago, the Browns avoided uncertainty in the WR free agency market by merely giving up a fourth-round pick in 2018 and a seventh-rounder in 2019. They didn't burn any of their high-value selections. And this is key when it comes to Cleveland's most vital task of this entire offseason ...
Formulate a long-term plan at the game's most important position

Taylor and Landry not only provide the potential to win this year, but also create the space for Cleveland to optimize its draft/free agency strategy. Given that the Browns possess pick Nos. 1, 4, 33 and 35, they are in the unique position of being able to draft an instant-impact player like Penn State running back Saquon Barkley AND a highly touted QB prospect to develop behind Taylor.

Based on the on-field strengths Taylor brings to the team, a logical fit at quarterback -- in terms of someone Hue Jackson could cultivate for maximum upside potential -- could be reigning Heisman Trophy winner Baker Mayfield. The Oklahoma product checks in at 6 feet and 5/8 inches tall (or 6005, as scouts term it) and 215 pounds. That's approximately the same size as Taylor, who is 6 feet and 3/4 inches tall (or 6006) and 215 pounds. Mayfield also averaged 6.9 rushing attempts per game last year (averaging 3.2 yards per attempt) and had the best passer rating under pressure in college football (111.6, according to Pro Football Focus). The strategy Cleveland implements for Taylor has natural extensions to Mayfield -- based on their similarities in stature and certain attributes -- and would give the Browns the time to develop Mayfield from a college-spread QB to an NFL-caliber signal-caller.

The analytically defined value here lies in past data showing that developing a quarterback in a system (and with a playbook) optimized for his best attributes leads to greater NFL success as measured by wins (SEE: Jimmy Garoppolo). Broadly speaking, the data works out like this: In critical areas that are correlated with greater win percentages -- limiting turnovers, producing on third down and in the red zone -- QBs who get to add complexity to the playbook as their experience level increases win more often, while QBs who have to be more productive immediately do not win as often. Yes, the teams that immediately start rookie quarterbacks are often "worse" overall, but fit and play calling impact execution and results (SEE: Dak Prescott, Jared Goff). It also just makes sense.
Don't stop wheeling and dealing

With structure around the quarterback position, the Browns were able to extract value from a QB who didn't fit their plans by trading away Kizer in order to acquire corner Damarious Randall. Additionally, parting ways with nose tackle Danny Shelton (and a 2018 fifth-round pick) for a third-round pick in 2019 shows that the Browns' current strategy is not all about "spending" draft equity, but about a shared definition of current and future value.

Between signing potential impact free agents like RB Carlos Hyde and DE Chris Smith, tendering wide receiver Josh Gordon and creating a plan to soften the blow of 10-time Pro Bowl LT Joe Thomas' retirement (Cleveland signed tackles Chris Hubbard and Donald Stephenson), the Browns are also using their league-leading cap space to round out their roster. An additional consequence of addressing so many positions with free agents is the creation of uncertainty about whom they will be targeting with the first and fourth overall picks. This generates value if other teams believe Cleveland is targeting a player they wish to draft, allowing the Browns to be in a position to trade down and earn even more draft picks.

Given the pick trades we've already seen -- notably, the Jets jumping up to No. 3 and the Bills vaulting to 12 with the potential to move up further -- Cleveland's decisions will shape the entire draft. It's a safe bet we're not done re-shuffling the Round 1 deck.

Win today ... and tomorrow

I would never say Dorsey and Jackson aren't "football guys." That said, I believe they're using the resources amassed by past "analytics" -- in terms of both draft equity and cap space -- in a way that improves their potential to win now and, so far, follows some of the most important data-driven insights that have led to sustained success for teams in this league.

Collaboration between the front office and coaching staff -- with all this capital -- could be a one-year fluke. Or it could be a sign that analytics have indeed changed things in Berea ...

We really need a football guy.

I find it funny people are even trying to make this an issue. There's no doubt every team in the NFL uses analytics. It's a wonderful tool to have in your tool box. That's never really been an issue.

The question becomes how much of a factor does it play? Is it the overriding factor in the decision making process or is it simply an ingredient in the decision making process?

But you all go on with your bad selves. lmao

Analytics or not this guy (John Dorsey) knows football and how to get the right players in the right situation ...

The issue was never analytics per se. It was the overemphasis on analytics by non-football people.

Ideally you want your key football people to have a strong background in football while also being open to analytics. Bellichick would be a good example. He doesn't talk about it much but it's been fairly well-known over the years that the Patriots rely heavily on analytics.

There's a flip side to what we've witnessed play out the last couple years, as can be the case with controversial issues (trading down, going for it more often on 4th downs, etc.)

Super Bowl!

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how any team or individual could possibly have managed to win SuperBowls, year after year, without analytics. Just mind-blowing.

What a bunch of nonsense. Has a place; it is a tool. Not divine oracle or some such.

What a bunch of horse do do ! lol

Here's where it became an issue, and hiring DePodesta did a lot to not only kick it off but to put it on the forefront. It became an issue when so many people, fans and NFL people alike, determined that the Browns would be making all their decisions based on analytics, (this is where DePodesta figures in). It was never going to be that way at all.

In fact, the Browns already had an analytics department beefed up by Joe Banner. Analytics were nothing new to the Browns. The addition of DePodesta put outsiders opinions over the top.

To add to the rhetoric was making Sashi Brown the man with final say on the 53-man roster. So what was perceived was two Harvard educated men, Sashi and DePodesta, were in charge of evaluating player talent. Neither had any experience in that area, but that didn't stop the prevailing opinions of outsiders. Even though DePodesta stayed out of the first draft altogether saying he knew nothing about the process. Still, he was credited with building the roster along with Sashi.

Neither did Sashi have any real experience in player evaluation. Even though he worked for an NFL team for years, player evaluation was never part of his job description. Yet, the outsider opinions were based around these two "Harvard Boys" were controlling all evaluations and since the only tool either one had was analytics then it was surmised that analytics was the driving force behind all decisions.

In contrast, when Dorsey was hired as GM the rhetoric changed. Since Dorsey made his mark as a "football man" the idea of analytics were assumed to be something he played no part in. Again, outsiders opinions based on his perceived background as a football guy. This change in rhetoric is what spawned articles such as the one Vambo posted. So, the Browns and Dorsey do actually use some analytics in their decision-making. Well, of course, all teams do. Just not as much as was said Sashi did and a lot more than was assumed Dorsey did.

The article thinks it's making news but it's not.

j/c:

Analytics are a useful tool. If you are in control of a roster that goes 1 and 31, analytics will tell you that you should be fired.

And it worked.

Fixed!

Keep the blinders on my friend. Hubert is a problem.



I am glad we have Dorsey, so don't try to paint me in to a group that worshiped Sashi and hated Hue.



You perplex me.

How many games would Hue have to win next season for you to change your mind?

I know peen is trying to change the narrative, but this is not a Hue thread. It's a thread that was started to celebrate how great Sashi was. You know, the same Sashi who is still unemployed and who has not been mentioned as a candidate for any job in the NFL.

Maybe you could take your question to the Fire Hue thread?

I have said I think we can win 9.

That isn't the number for Hue......maybe 6-7 low end. It just depends. I do look at situations.....it could even go lower if people are dropping touchdown passes. It might nudge a bit higher

LOL............and you pulled off yet another hijacking of a thread. Kudos!!!!

At this point I thought every thread was a fire Hue thread. 😂


That said I don’t really think Hue was the problem. I don’t think any coach could have done much with the hand he was dealt. I am treating this like a clean slate. Let’s see how he does if they give him a little talent to work with.

John Dorsey would have to be a special kind of stubborn to avoid all the analytics guys in the front office.

I think there is a succinct difference between words such as "avoid," "ignore," or "rely on" in regards to analytics.

Successful franchises like NE and Philly use them, but do not rely on them like Sashi did.

That's why they still have jobs and Sashi does not.

I knew when he didn't out right fire Depodesta he was going to use him.

versatile, I had to go back and reread that article to see if it was the same one. I read that article twice and and at no point did it seem like a “celebration of sashi Brown” . unless I missed something his name was mentioned once almost in passing. the vast majority was discussing the moves Dorsey is making to improve the Browns. I have no idea what your gripe is with that.

Hahaha

I'm not so sure I agree with you ddub. I sort of doubt it was rhetoric. DePodeta had zero football experience and Sashi lacked any sort of resume' that indicated he should be put in charge of an NFL team. When the FO is solidly an analytic group with very little football experience, I don't believe that you can get a balance out of something that isn't balanced.

I didn't see a FO there that had the balance between football experience and analytics we have now.

All teams use "analytics" aka math and logic. If they didn't they'd be incredibly stupid.

Rhetoric, as the definition as I'm using it is... "language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

The rhetoric was that DePodesta and Sashi were in charge of player evaluation. But that was not true. It became the rhetoric because DePodesta had a history of player evaluation in baseball using analytics and so everyone assumed that he was going to attempt the same tactics in football. He was not.

DePodesta was hired as Chief Strategy Officer. Again, the rhetoric was that he was in charge of talent and roster strategies. He was not. His hiring was for Strategy policy over the entire organization in an attempt to streamline the whole business so that it could run more smoothly and to define responsibilities that would keep everyone in their own lanes.

Since he was so familiar with baseball analytics he helped with applying his experience onto the football realm. But he was not intricate in talent evaluation or roster evaluation per se, at least that was not one of his responsibilities. His responsibility was assisting in the analytic side but not as a decision maker on talent.

In fact, you'll remember, he bowed out on participating in the first draft because he said he didn't know how that worked in football. He was on the sideline watching. But the rhetoric was that he was an integral part of talent evaluation and the draft. He was not.

He was trying to learn how to transfer his baseball knowledge, and what worked there, into the football methods. But he didn't get much time to actually do that seeing as how he had less than two years to work on it.

The one baseball-like method was to gut the roster getting rid of aging, overpaid, ineffective players thus building a large cap space and acquiring extra draft picks. It is nothing new to football to rebuild by starting over. The difference in Cleveland was that rarely had any team gutted the roster to that degree.

The fact that Sashi was fired but DePodesta stayed on is testiment that he had no responsibilities on talent evaluation or the roster. He was kept on to do the job he was hired to do as Chief Strategy Officer of the Browns business model. He also, very likely, still applies his analytic knowledge as an aid to Dorsey the same way he did for Sashi.

It's just that Dorsey and Sashi use/used it in a different manner.

Sashi, having no football player evaluation experience, but still being responsible for the 53 man roster. It was his job to take a consensus of all opinions from football people. I believe when no consensus could be reached Sashi likely made the final decision using the numbers. He had nothing else. And when the numbers didn't settle it to his satisfaction he stood pat, (not drafting a FQ for two years as an example).

The importance of analytics, as described by the rhetoric being discussed league-wide, was overblown to the point that the Browns were said to be taking a 180 degree opposition to the way the football guys had been doing things forever. While analytics were being used, and in the example I gave of Sashi freezing on drafting a FQ, they were used badly at times.

DePodesta is still here even though the rhetoric was held that he was trying to convert football into baseball-like analytics tactics. It never happened. If anything DePodesta should have been the one fired if the rhetoric of him being the driving force behind it were true.

Anyway, this whole conversation hurts my brain, and I don't have much of it left. I tell people I have 3 brain cells left. I use one to eat, one to take a crap and the other one for everything else.

We're just going to have to disagree here. I don't believe you can put a guy like Sashi in charge of being the decision maker and not believe that analytics isn't the overriding determining factor in the decision making process.

Now I will agree that the voices claiming every decision was solely based on analytics were wrong. But I actually don't believe that's what most people were saying. They were seeing direct overwhelming evidence that the people in charge were much more experienced in analytics than they were football. At least that's where I was at.

The scouting department works for the FO. The HC works for the FO. They're not equals but employees. The hierarchy dictated to me who made the final calls and what was the overriding factor was in those decisions.

Just tell everyone that you are going to jump in the lake and then blame your players. You'll be good for another year.

You used too much logic there dub. Their eyes glazed over by the second sentence.

Gotta review the tape...

j/c

And people talk about the usual suspects. lmao

Yep third post...




The article as I read it shows how well the FO was working together then the usual suspects started pointing fingers .

Yes ddub and I were having an actual discussion about our beliefs on how much the former FO used analytics verses how much we think the new one will.

I know it's very disruptive when people have rational discussions without others coming in and trashing it up. And people wonder why we can't have nice things anymore.

minus him getting fleeced by NE on those trades.

There were a few others posted before mine but you ignored them. Why is that?

I put j/c. Which means a general reply. Not intended to a specific poster. Now is there any way we can get back to discussing the topic rather than sidetrack another thread?

Sure don't side track any more I'm good with it.

Heaven forbid we discuss analytics on an analytics thread.

You see, good back and forth respectful debates used to be very common on this board without people trashing it up. ddub and I actually used to do that quite a bit.

Not so much anymore.

Quit keeping it going then. Let it go if someone posts something you don't deem worthy PASS IT BY, it was posted as a FO doing good things thread but people had to add their agenda to it. But you blame everyone else for trashing the board when you are one of the biggest offenders. Have a wonderful day!

Are you willing to let it go or must you continue this?

I don't think it's a malice thing so much as people not understanding the science.