I don't know how it doesn't make sense. One of the biggest knocks on Baker was his height. Go back and read the board this time last year. 90% of the people were saying a short quarterback won't go #1. (yes, there were other reasons) But this is just one thing that people kept driving home. Baker didn't pass the eyeball test, he was too short. That's not analytics, but him being 6'0" was a fact.
So the short kid who played in a conference that didn't have any defense was the analytics pick?
I guess if that's how you want to label him, then precisely.
Pointing out just two qualities as reasoning that someone isn't an analytics favorite is hilarious.
Quote:
Why are you hearing about the AIQ now? One of the two teams that subscribes fully to the testing service already has its franchise quarterback. The other team is not a perennial winner, picks in the top half of the first round this year and is one of the handful of teams most interested in drafting Baker Mayfield, the subject of The MMQB’s ongoing series. Goldman declined to confirm the performance of specific players, but did acknowledge a QB prospect this year scored in the Top 100 on the AIQ all-time—out of more than 4,000 tests—and is the second-highest scoring quarterback out of 63 who have taken the test since 2012. Two league sources, who asked for anonymity to discuss the testing results of a prospect, confirmed it was Mayfield.
^ Some overlap on intelligence testing from another article.
--------
To simply call out size and conference when there are so many other (and more significant) measureables as reasoning that someone isn't an analytics favorite is hysterical. "Size" is even referenced as something that is essentially incorrectly weighted. And the analytics dream from 2017 draft?.... Pat Mahomes. And the conference he played in was?
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
I want to add something because it's been bugging me a little bit. There is this back-and-forth about how much the Browns are leaning on analytics. I think a lot of the moves are not good examples of analytics having a significant role in what we are doing.
It was also mentioned that Baker was an analytic's dream or something like that. I question that line of thinking. Sorry Cap, I know you said no one would question it......but, I kinda do question it.
Wouldn't analytics make use of certain measurables? Let's look at a couple:
Height? Age? Type of collegiate offense? Conference? Speed? Questionable incidents?
I don't think that Baker is at the top of the analytical charts. In fact, I think the opposite is true.
Leadership. Moxy. Confidence. Inner-drive. Plays faster than his times suggest.
I think that Baker was chosen by Dorsey and his football guys and not the analytics department.
You can apply values to leadership, moxy, confidence, etc. and incorporate them into an analytical formula. You'd have to have the "football guys" help in assigning weights and values.
The "knocks" on Baker could be things that Dorsey (and by extension "the formula") places less weight on.
The analytics aren't working in a vacuum. With regards to player acquisition, they are still working for Dorsey.
In the words of Dorsey, it's a "collaborative effort." All hands on deck.
This is a good back and forth. I bolded the above because, to me, this is where people seem to get lost in "the process". Analytics is the precursor to the decision making process. Gather the data and it becomes the tool to help evaluate the rest. The weight each GM places on the data creates the decision, not the data itself.
Look at what may seem like negatives that Vers posted "Height? Age? Type of collegiate offense? Conference? Speed? Questionable incidents?" How do analytics apply?
Height: History says he's too short. I think we were through about 40 Superbowls before a QB under 6'2" had won one. Advanced analytics will show the areas where that is the biggest hindrance (against a fierce inside rush, on short passes over the middle, etc). I guess one may weigh Baker vs. the average (mean) of similar sized QBs to see if it a problem that warrants more attention.
Age: Personally? I'm more concerned with younger QBs if it reduces data and sample size - it certainly did with both Allen and Darnold. It would be different if we were saying "Man, Mayfield is 23 and he still doesn't seem to get it." In Baker's case, I think age and experience pointed to him being a faster translation to the NFL field. It's a factor with Brandon Weedon because it dictates lifespan, not with Baker in that regard. People were looking at all of Darnold's turnovers and bad decisions and using age as the excuse, that seems like throwing away good data in lieu of data that doesn't really carry much weight.
Type of collegiate offense / Conference: I'm sure there is some advanced data to tell you what kind of weight his data deserves, but that's about it. Other than that, you'll look at case by case examples with existing NFL QBs.
Speed: A simple analysis says "he's not fast, but he's not slow". I think there is a large range a QB can fall into and still not cause concern. If he's at the low end, you're looking at elusiveness and instincts... more of an "eye test" type situation, but still measurable with stats like completion pct when under pressure and the whole tree of breakdowns behind that data.
Questionable incidents: I don't think there is any advanced data to tell what kind of person they will turn out to be. Even if you're convinced certain things won't change - there is no crystal ball to tell you how it may effect their NFL career... There is only history and another man's view of how easily the problem(s) can be corrected. I think violence and drug/alcohol abuse are the real judgment headaches, behind those, it's what the "brass" takes away from the conversations and reactions to questions.
Then there are the characteristics are are more of a "litmus test" than something that you're going to measure with simple analytics: "Leadership. Moxy. Confidence. Inner-drive. Plays faster than his times suggest." This is where a GM makes his money. This is where he decides how much weight to place on all of the above and advanced analytics as a whole.
Baker jumped off the page in these categories, Baker jumped of the page at the whiteboard. Sitting down with Baker made Dorsey's decision easier and easier as the conversations went on.
These guys aren't robots, so "analytics" will never tell the whole story. But IMO, make no mistake, analytics is where it all begins - in Dorsey's office and every other office in the NFL.
That's the conclusion people come to when using raw stats. Great numbers can be compiled by playing against terrible defenses. I though analytics were better than that.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
That's the conclusion people come to when using raw stats. Great numbers can be compiled by playing against terrible defenses. I though analytics were better than that.
I thought your arguments were better than that. Maybe next time...
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
People are talking like they know the answers. Some are saying things that can't be proven. I have asked if someone had inside information. I have asked if someone had a source that had inside information. I have asked if Seth Wickersham is a liar.
Those questions remain unanswered and instead I am said to have lied. Lied about what, exactly? I've been on this board a long, long time. I've had many battles w/many folks, but I don't think any of the long-time members would say that I resort to "lying" to win an argument. They might not like me, but they know I am NOT a freaking liar!
Here is the quote I was referencing earlier. Wickersham had inside access to the Browns. Please provide a more reliable source if you can find one on what went down in this last draft.
Quote:
Mayfield pick was Dorsey's pick. For once, Haslam didn't parade in friends to watch last year's draft. It was a scout's draft.The analytics team had limited influence. Dorsey was skeptical of their helpfulness when he first got the job. He told an associate that he didn't need "f---ing nerds" to tell him how to evaluate players. He's since warmed up, sources say. Today, Dorsey not only got his preferred coach but also his preferred structure. Kitchens will report to Dorsey, forcing collaboration and eliminating the appeals court to Haslam. Nobody knows if it will matter, given how Haslam operates. But for one day, at least, it feels good to be a Brown. As Dorsey privately told an associate: "I flexed my muscles and got what I wanted."
Does anyone have quotes from someone else who had inside access that proves Wickersham' information is bogus?
Like I said, I am NOT the one telling lies or making things up.
I just think people put way too much weight into Baker's school and the big 12.
I don't think the ranking of the defenses Baker faced has an impact. People shied away from Wentz because of his competition and we see how that worked out the year prior.
I don't think analytics ignores them, I just don't think there's a correlation.
I don't understand how or why you would think that. Playing against easier defenses makes it easier to pad your stats. That much is only obvious. It skews stats in one direction. Now that certainly doesn't mean a QB coming from such a division can't or won't succeed. Both Baker and Wentz show that's true. But it has to be looked at with a note of caution and using their college stats as an indication of reality based on playing inferior competition must use a caviat.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I put some quotes out there from someone who had inside access. I am asking if anyone has quotes from an inside source that refutes those comments, such as the one that said the analytics department had limited influence.
They sure bend over backwards to make it look like an analytics pick.
No, they do not. The argument is being made that Mayfield checks almost all of the boxes that analytics uses, at least now, to determine the best possible QB from that draft. Then there are posters, and frankly, you are one of them, that feel the need to manufacture it into this faux argument that those same posters reference analytics are inferring (directly or indirectly) that Dorsey didn't make the pick, DePodesta did. It's ridiculous.
If anything, people are making the argument that analytics has proven to be a worthwhile and tested process with the output is has created. Dorsey's decision to select him, although possibly being just "I trust my eyes/gut/etc." doesnt change the conclusion that anayltics has come to regarding Baker Mayfield.
Added:
I think there have been posts, including some from myself, that hopes analytics is still being leveraged when it comes to player evals, draft pick strategy, etc. Even moreso in this instance, that DePo spin is used even more.
Last edited by MemphisBrownie; 04/08/1901:37 PM. Reason: More information
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
I know, I know, analytics doesn't use measurables.
It doesn't use the ranking of the defenses you played against.
Analytics ignores the obvious signs.
I don't think rankings is a great example. Quality of defenses might be a more apt signifier.
Rankings are arbitrary. The distance between 1&2 might be different than the distance between 3&4 from a qualitative standpoint. To have much value from an analytics sense, the "data" would have to be converted to a standard scale. I.e, Alabama is a 10 difficulty defense, Ohio State was a 5, UConn is a 1, etc.)
Analytics can use almost anything. Whether the results have any value depends.
Which things actually matter can be hard to figure out. The purpose of the coefficient of correlation is to signify what amount of change in one variable is explained by the change in a 2nd variable.
Using the color of a team's jersey as an indicator of the player's future success would probably have a low correlation. Height might also not have a strong correlation. One would have to try different variables and find out which were the best indicators.
Last edited by GrimmBrown; 04/08/1901:36 PM. Reason: changed word choice for clarity. didn't want to use indicator with two different meanings
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
No. Not that I've seen... and what he keeps quoting doesn't disprove anything I've said about Dorsey using analytics. "The team" didn't have any influence, but who is to say Dorsey didn't use analytics or what the analytics team may have given him. It even hints that he uses analytics now even though at first he wasn't keen on them when he arrived. However, the assumption that Dorsey doesn't use analytics keeps being made despite the "quote" not saying it.
Here's something that maybe we can all agree upon...
Despite what some have said, we've drafted some very good players with our "analytics team." However, they missed on Wentz and perhaps Watson... The marriage of Dorsey with our analytics team has proven to be pretty effective.
So the short kid who played in a conference that didn't have any defense was the analytics pick?
I guess if that's how you want to label him, then precisely.
Pointing out just two qualities as reasoning that someone isn't an analytics favorite is hilarious.
Quote:
Why are you hearing about the AIQ now? One of the two teams that subscribes fully to the testing service already has its franchise quarterback. The other team is not a perennial winner, picks in the top half of the first round this year and is one of the handful of teams most interested in drafting Baker Mayfield, the subject of The MMQB’s ongoing series. Goldman declined to confirm the performance of specific players, but did acknowledge a QB prospect this year scored in the Top 100 on the AIQ all-time—out of more than 4,000 tests—and is the second-highest scoring quarterback out of 63 who have taken the test since 2012. Two league sources, who asked for anonymity to discuss the testing results of a prospect, confirmed it was Mayfield.
^ Some overlap on intelligence testing from another article.
--------
To simply call out size and conference when there are so many other (and more significant) measureables as reasoning that someone isn't an analytics favorite is hysterical. "Size" is even referenced as something that is essentially incorrectly weighted. And the analytics dream from 2017 draft?.... Pat Mahomes. And the conference he played in was?
Also to add, the highest graded QB this year according to PFF by a wide margin compared to the other QBs is also small and from the Big 12. Hmmmm.
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
So I provide information from a guy who had inside access to the Browns and he said that the analytics department had very little input in the draft and device and Memphis turn that into yet another character attack.
And somehow..........they continue to get away w/this BS time after time after time.
So I provide information from a guy who had inside access to the Browns and he said that the analytics department had very little input in the draft and device and Memphis turn that into yet another character attack.
And somehow..........they continue to get away w/this BS time after time after time.
Sounds like someone should ask the "official Browns mailbag" how involved analytics were/are in the draft. Not that you should necessarily be the one, but it would shed some further light on the situation.
I agree, Wickersham didn't see much on that day. That's what he saw. There are 364 other days in a year, though. I also wonder how much access he actually had. How do you know if someone is talking about analytics from a distance? It's not like they're going to be scrawling out equations on a whiteboard during the draft. The works been done by that point I would hope.
lol, I'm not sure why we keep ending up back here.
I love you Vers, but we don't always extrapolate the same things from articles.
I'll try to continue to stay out of the name calling.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
Grimm, I think you are misreading it. Wickersham was there for an extended period of time.
I at least provide some evidence to support my position while the other two guys don't bring anything other than BS insults. I didn't spin a damn thing. I provided a quote from a dude who had access to the team!!!
The crazy thing is that you question me, but don't say a word to them.
You don't know he failed in NY...baseball takes some time. Jake DeGrom might be the best pitcher in the game.
I agree nothing was going to pull Dorsey off Baker. I am glad, I was one of a handful who actually wanted to draft him.
As I said earlier, I think analytics helps a ton on those middle round guys. If anything, it helps steer you towards players who have a high chance to shine.
I didn't know we were arguing.
Ok, you are right, I don't know if we have the best analytics guys in the business, but you don't know that we don't. I will rephrase, I know we have very competent people in that area. Depo being very high profile in that arena.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Do you have inside information? If not, do you have a link from someone who had inside access to the draft process? And are you calling Seth Wickersham [who did have inside access] a liar?
I want to hear these "facts."
You keep bringing up Seth Wickershame. How do you know he had "inside" access? I'd say Mary Kay and Tony have more access then that guy.
I am not bickering with you. What makes you feel he had access? I'd like to know.
Again, it is a honest question. I am not shaking or pointing my finger at you. I value your opinion.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Do you have inside information? If not, do you have a link from someone who had inside access to the draft process? And are you calling Seth Wickersham [who did have inside access] a liar?
I want to hear these "facts."
You keep bringing up Seth Wickershame. How do you know he had "inside" access? I'd say Mary Kay and Tony have more access then that guy.
I am not bickering with you. What makes you feel he had access? I'd like to know.
Again, it is a honest question. I am not shaking or pointing my finger at you. I value your opinion.
He's referring to the scathing article Seth wrote about the Brown's dysfunction. From the article, it's length and detail, it was obvious Seth spent a lot of time and had a lot of access (especially to former personnel) to the team's inner-workings.
For once, Haslam didn't parade in friends to watch last year's draft. It was a scout's draft. The analytics team had limited influence. Dorsey was skeptical of their helpfulness when he first got the job. He told an associate that he didn't need "f---ing nerds" to tell him how to evaluate players. He's since warmed up, sources say.
peen, you are the one who first posted the article. There was a ton of information in there because it covered a span of six years. Of course, most of the thread focused on guys arguing back and forth over the parts that covered Sashi and Hue.
It was a very long article and perhaps you didn't take the time to read the entire article you posted. I think that there were a lot of people who didn't take the time to read it all. I have to admit it took me awhile because it was really long.
Now, I have a question for you. Why aren't you questioning some of the things being said who claim they know how much of a roll analytics is playing. I am the only one who provided quotes from someone who had inside intel.
Btw..............this might refresh your memory. Remember when Hue said to get the f out of my office? That was from the same article.
Last edited by Versatile Dog; 04/08/1907:20 PM. Reason: Something you might remember
Grimm, I think you are misreading it. Wickersham was there for an extended period of time.
I at least provide some evidence to support my position while the other two guys don't bring anything other than BS insults. I didn't spin a damn thing. I provided a quote from a dude who had access to the team!!!
The crazy thing is that you question me, but don't say a word to them.
I question you to probe for more information. I don't question them because I have better things to waste my time on. lol
"There" is a somewhat amorphous term. Was he in the room during the draft or in the hallway outside? I want to say Peter King has intimated that it is usually the latter on draft day. The fact that "The analytics team had limited influence" is also a little vague. Limited compared to what?
He could have been in the parking lot in Berea for all we really know for most of the time.
Then there is the I heard from a guy who heard from a guy type quotes.
Example:
Quote:
As Dorsey privately told an associate: "I flexed my muscles and got what I wanted."
If he told him "privately," how'd the reporter hear about it? What was the context?
I'm not sure how much "artistic license" Wickersham took to paint his tale of dysfunction.
There is definitely a seed of truth there, but I've noticed that stories often seem to take on lives of there own and the media has a tendency to get carried away any more. Why let the straight truth get in the way of a good story?
Of course my distrust of the media could be coloring my interpretation. I think you'd admit the news/journalism often ain't what it used to be now, though.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
I don't think he was in the draft room. I think he was permitted to interview people who were involved w/the Browns. It wasn't just that news about the draft. Wickersham also reported how Hue told Dorsey to get the f out of his office. How the leaders of the Brown's braintrust didn't want Hue to be the HC. They also said Hue threw a fit when we traded Lee.
Are those things true and the limited role of the analytic's department in this last draft false? You're intelligent. We can't pick and choose what is true and untrue based off of our feelings. We either accept the legitimacy of the report or we don't.
Btw----I think the "flexing of the muscles" thing was about hiring Freddie. It was reported that the analytics guys wanted that dude from the Vikings. I simply included the entire paragraph because a poster accused me of misleading others when I left the last half of the paragraph off last time I posted it.
My bottom line is that I want to pursue the truth. Earlier, I made a claim about I doubted Baker was an analytical dream. peen posted an article where Baker was PFF's highest rated college qb. I didn't try to twist the words around. I didn't insult him. I didn't accuse him of telling a lie. I said that it was a good article and that it had good points. If I am wrong............I'm wrong.
I don't think he was in the draft room. I think he was permitted to interview people who were involved w/the Browns. It wasn't just that news about the draft. Wickersham also reported how Hue told Dorsey to get the f out of his office. How the leaders of the Brown's braintrust didn't want Hue to be the HC. They also said Hue threw a fit when we traded Lee.
Are those things true and the limited role of the analytic's department in this last draft false? You're intelligent. We can't pick and choose what is true and untrue based off of our feelings. We either accept the legitimacy of the report or we don't.
Btw----I think the "flexing of the muscles" thing was about hiring Freddie. It was reported that the analytics guys wanted that dude from the Vikings. I simply included the entire paragraph because a poster accused me of misleading others when I left the last half of the paragraph off last time I posted it.
My bottom line is that I want to pursue the truth. Earlier, I made a claim about I doubted Baker was an analytical dream. peen posted an article where Baker was PFF's highest rated college qb. I didn't try to twist the words around. I didn't insult him. I didn't accuse him of telling a lie. I said that it was a good article and that it had good points. If I am wrong............I'm wrong.
I think the whole thing is mostly gossip. Undoubtedly there are grains of truth here and there. Many of them had probably grown in the telling.
I'm with you on pursuing the truth. We just come at it from different directions at times.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
So a guy who has inside access to the Browns is putting out "gossip," but a couple of guys on a Brown's message board making unsubstantiated statements are legit?
Perhaps you think you and I are discussing this in isolation, but we are not. I have been accused of telling lies and spinning things. That is far from the truth and I have provided a source to back-up my claims while the other side just hurls personal insults w/out and questions from you and others.
So a guy who has inside access to the Browns is putting out "gossip," but a couple of guys on a Brown's message board making unsubstantiated statements are legit?
Perhaps you think you and I are discussing this in isolation, but we are not. I have been accused of telling lies and spinning things. That is far from the truth and I have provided a source to back-up my claims while the other side just hurls personal insults w/out and questions from you and others.
I'm sorry.........but that is wrong.
I'm sorry, but inside access can be "inside access" like hard knocks (which still has limitations) or "inside access" like they'll let you in the halls, but not around the work being done. He might hear things, but they'd be 2nd or 3rd hand, etc (in effect "gossip"). I tend to think the latter as Dorsey supposedly had been trying to plug leaks. I don't see Dorsey letting someone from ESPN near anything important.
I also don't see anyone taking 99% of the stuff that is "said" here on the boards as being legit (at least I don't.)
You might not mean it that way, but you come off like you think Wickersham was in the draft room leaning over Dorsey's shoulder, pointing things out, and in the midst of everything. I "know" you don't think that, but it seems kind of that way based on how hard you're defending/"promoting" the article.
I take it as ESPN wanted some "on site coverage," and the Browns' business side let them pay for the dubious privilege of being on the grounds (or at least didn't overly encourage it). I'm not sure what the team is contractually obligated to allow.
If he'd had good access, he'd probably have written a more complimentary piece with hopes of maintaining that good relationship. I don't have much faith in journalistic integrity in general. Less in ESPN's.
You're just coming kind of strong in defense of an ESPN hit piece.
Yes, there are some interesting nuggets there. Yes, some make sense. I'm not taking the whole thing as Gospel, though. I look for the truth on a "line by line" basis. I'm the guy that reads the fine print (sometimes lol)
Occasionally I'll call people out for making things personal, but it's about as effective as throwing handfulls of sand at a burst dam, and I'd rather not get pulled into it.
Some people are not worth continuing to fight with. Some are. Just my $0.02.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/fkjZc8B/Bull-Dawg-Sig-smaller.jpg)
... 
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)