DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Ogbah

Just stop.

U mean like u IGNORED THIS in the link u TRIED TO BELITTLE ME WITH BELOW ... and i’m Fine with that .. unlike u I could care less why someone posts something i can learn from ... i was like ... COOL ... i can learn ... witch I WILL go back and read and ask questions about and LEARN FROM ... but u just IGNORED this ... talk about NOT PROVING YOUR POINT and showing just how BAD U ARE are at being honest in your posts ..

THIS SNIPPET is from the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs right at the start of the article .. read it CAREFULLY ... is starts SKEWED AS ALL HELL ... would Sam Darnold even be included in the study ... how do u compare Watson vs Mahommes w/o taking the running portion of their games into account ... would Mahomes even be in it? ... good luck doing a comparision between Kyler Murray and Dwayne Haskins this year ...

To allow some time for development, QBASE projects a quarterback's efficiency (passing only) in Years 3 to 5 of his career according to Football Outsiders' Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement (DYAR) metric. 50,000 simulations produce a range of potential outcomes for each prospect, with players drafted later generally having a larger range of possibilities.

QBASE favors quarterbacks expected to go high in the draft who also have a relatively long resume of college success according to the stats.

Even the list in Memph’s post after the tweet leaves out two of the greatest drafted since 97 ... Tom Brady and Drew Brees ... at least Memph doesn’t just try and deceive to prove his point ...

I bet Joe Montana wasn’t evenclose to an analytics dream ... not that he was any good ...

There’s no room for HEE HEE in the equation ... LEADERSHIP DON’T COUNT THOUGH ... right? ...

NICE JOB ... ...

In other words, you don't have any inside information and are completely ignoring the guy who did.

How about you stop making things up? Then, I will stop. You have ZERO proof that we our picks were chosen by the analytics department. I have some proof that the opposite occurred.

My problem w/you making these things up is that people read it and believe it. It's all about deception w/you because you can't let it go.

I agree with that.

I think also that the 4th pick could have gone in a few different directions. The reasoning for the Ward selection, which I quoted earlier directly from the Browns, suggests the use of analytics.

I think the final sentence you highlighted explains why Brees and Brady didn't score high.

If the model predicts success more times than not while having some wild outliers (like Brady) then the model is doing PRECISELY what it is intended to do.

I called ward from day 1 BASED ON NEED ... i still don’t know squat about analytics ...

MEMPH and I agree here ... and he don’t like me no more but at least i can trust what he posts as he’s way more objective than U are ...

Truth is ... NONE OF HAS A CLUE HOW USEFUL ANALYTICS IS IN PLAYER AQUISTION OR HOW MUCH DORSEY USES IT ...

Its all specualation ...

Now ... i’ll Wait for Pete to get back to teaching me and wait for ANYONE to tell me how an equation can determine how making player aquistions (thanks lamp, now i don’t even want to try and spell that other word ... *L*) helps in determining one player over another ...

I’ll look forward to both ....

I don't make things up. You and Diam's obsession with trying to out me as some sort of liar is ridiculous. I'm sorry I don't kiss rear ends and praise you guys as football gods. If you have issues with me bring it to me in PM. You don't need to ruin threads because heaven forbid I don't agree with your opinions.

I would agree with that ... the Brady part ... he only started for 1 year and split time with i think it was d/few Henson his other year or maybe two as a co-starter ...

It also leaves off drew Brees ... so of the top 4 QB’s it left off two of them ... Rodgers and Payton are on it and Brady and Brees aren’t ...

Mahomes isn’t on it either ... nor is /Watson and i believe those two and Bake are the three best young QB’s ...

Its also way to narrow in scope for me ... its passing only and doesn’t take leadership into account ...

I hope u talk more about this ... you know way more about it than me and my guess is way more than most on here ...

I was going to walk away and even said so. Then you come back w/some BS about me leaving because I can't deal with "facts."

So, one more time. Do you have inside information about the draft? If not, do you have a link from someone who does? Are you calling Seth Wickersham [who did have inside access] a liar?

I don't have a problem w/your opinions, but don't try and belittle me by saying I can't deal w/facts. And if you want to say such a thing...........back it up!!!

I do not ask others to look things up for me, I am comfortable with the Google.

I was thinking of the quote that Vers mentioned:



It's out there.

All of this on an Ogbah thread.

You're trying to manipulate what I said. Yes, there were some people who predicted Ward, congrats on being one of them. It was posted that we were steering away from analytics in the draft.

I merely posted a quote giving one of the reasons why we drafted Ward. They also praised his athleticism and football acumen... but said they drafted Ward to give the pass rushers an extra second to get to the quarterback thinking an improved secondary would help the defensive line.

Im not saying they didn't use analytics or they only used analytics... just that they were present.

I posted the quote for you. It's in this thread.

Okay.............how about we all drop it and let the thread return to it's rightful course?

I think the four of us should probably ignore one another. LOL

Over/Under on the "Like" counter for the above post is 6.5.

I don't think we necessarily need to ignore each other. We've had fine discussions in the past. I just don't get the calling out of my name or others when I'm not even in a discussion. That would bother you, wouldn't it? Im sure, so why do it?

[sigh]

[sigh]

Dorsey did a great job of drafting talent in KC to build a very competitive team. He has repeated that process here in Cleveland. He didn't have Depo in K.C. The math here is pretty obvious without an in depth discussion.

There may have been very little to no appearance of "analytics" in the room on draft day. However,I don't think that necessarily means they weren't "baked in" to the process.

Analytics/Studies are often long term undertakings and not really something you'd likely bring up spur of the moment in a war room. The studies/findings won't have changed on that day.

Once you get to the day(s) of the draft the analytics hay should be in the barn already. Any processes in place (emplaced?) wouldn't need DePodesta's active presence.

In the room it probably looked and felt like a "scout's draft."

Just saying, both can kind of be true.

Came across this article when looking for more info on DePodesta's role:

Link

Won't post the whole text because I don't want to sidetrack things any more than they already are. Curious as to your thoughts on it, though. I tend to think that both "sides" are a little extreme and it's probably more collaborative than either the Wickersham or Robinson(/Axelrod) stories make out.

I think both Vers and his source have problems understanding what an analytics department is and what they do..

Now just imagine going to a draft, where you have all kind of information about hundreds of players without anyone making sense of it...

I don't think that. Vers knows what it is and some of the ways it can work.

Just like me, he can get stuck on a specific point at times. DePodesta (sometimes interchangeable with analytics) wasn't very active in the room on draft day if he was even there at all, which appears to be accurate. His work may have been there beneath the surface, though.

I guess since you brought it up... I understand it was a few years back, but Dorsey's first two drafts include 8 players who are still in the NFL. And from the two drafts before he arrived here there are 17 players still in the NFL. And sure, that number will dwindle after 2 more years, but Dorsey didn't even draft 17 players his first two seasons with the Chiefs. I trust soon, some will realize how this all actually worked out...

Yeah....I definitely think I will start a new Analytics thread. Hopefully I can keep it away from the argument of whether the Browns are using it or not and how much...because frankly none of us know. But I think it can be a good introduction to analytics and some possibilities of its use within the sport of Football and the NFL.

If I don't have it up by tomorrow...Someone please go ahead and start it...(I mean I am sure I am not the only person on this board with knowledge of Analytics...lol)

I take it you haven't watched the Chiefs.

Nevermind. Im not interested in playing your games....

I really don't want to discuss it. People have their minds made up and it can't be a rational discussion. I do find it mind-boggling that people can't see the difference in what Dorsey has done in a couple of years and what the analytics department did w/out him.

It's actually laughable that some stick to their guns when all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

And now Pete is going to start another Analytics thread. There will be even more arguing, posturing, and made-up BS.

I have to wonder if these people exist and where are they?




Kinda like your post.

OMG.

Experience is important. You have to be able to adapt to changes, though. Sometimes experience can be a bad thing when one gets set in their ways and their reasoning for something becomes "this is the way we've always done it."

Dorsey seems to be a believer in "continuing education" and exceptions to rules. He does have a wealth of experience to draw from, but he seems to follow the get better every day mantra he and Kitchens are trying to (further) instill in the team.

NOT ONE U has even attempted to answer one of my questions ... wonder why that is ... ...

Are those of us that agree that VG isn't overpaid supposed to answer?

This is just an off the top of the head example, but say they crunched a lot of numbers and came to the conclusion that a 2nd CB is more valuable than a 2nd DE. Myles can get to the QB at an average of 2.whatever seconds. Our #1 corner can cover that long, but the 2nd can't. Unless a player better than Myles is available, we're probably better off taking a 2nd corner because another DE isn't likely to get to the QB any faster than Myles.

Of course the numbers could be different. They could show that the blocking opposite a stud DE is often inferior and a lesser DE can get to the QB faster. They'd have to try crunching the numbers.

2 players could have the same numerical grade, but their value to the team could differ.

What you're calling a "Need" could also have a numerical basis derived using analytics.

They could also have players graded by numerical values of each trait as the scouts have in the past, but how those scores are weighted could vary based upon analytical studies to come to an overall grade.

You can also give non-numerical items like scheme fit a number value and incorporate it into the formula. Something like Perfect fit= 10, Possible fit= 5, Non-fit= 1.

You'd have to play with the weights and criteria and go back through past draft reports and player careers and see what numbers seem to be the best.

You'd probably have to run multi-variable regressions and try to find the highest coefficients of correlation (r^2). Play with the formula until you get that/those r^2 as close to 1 as possible.

Then you'd do that for each position. Possibly do sub-types.

As far as how much Dorsey uses it, it's hard to tell. Depo probably gives him the info and Dorsey weighs it against his gut. They might push him one way or the other if he's on the fence.

Lol, I'm sure that was as clear as mud. Basically you plug a bunch of numbers into Excel or a program like it and play with the numbers and variables until you find something that shows a high degree of correlation. You'll (probably) never find a perfect formula, but you may be able to figure out some commonalities. Refine things over time.

Some traits might be more predictive than others (and they'll vary between positions). Some might not even be traits per se. You could assign values to Parcell's QB rules or something along those lines. You'd have to crunch a ton of numbers. And they'd still rely on information coming from the scouts.

If it were me..............I'd use analytics in a far more reasonable and logical manner than grading collegiate or professional players.

There are a ton of things where analytics can help your team. Down and distance, training, rest days, field position, injuries, strength and conditioning, trade values, draft positioning, 4th down decisions, when to punt, when to go for 2, scheduling of practices, traveling procedures, use of zone vs man against certain offenses, when to blitz and not to blitz, how often to play nickel, dime, or base, use of max protection, salary structure, on and on and on.

I would use analytics to help supplement talent evaluation, but it would be a supplement and wouldn't even come close to watching the game tape.

I might try use them there, too. The question I was responding to specifically asked about player acquisition.

I wasn't getting on your case. I thought you did a great job of trying to answer Diam's question. I should have acknowledged that. I was just stating my own opinion on how I believe analytics are most helpful. Of course, I left a lot of stuff out. Just a brief and not complete opinion.

This is precisely what I posted earlier in this thread and even included a quote from Williams and I was told I was making things up.