DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum ANALYTICS... how 'bout some more??

I can never get enough of some home-cooked analytics!


NFL analytics survey 2022: Teams that use advanced metrics most, least

7:00 AM ET
Seth Walder
ESPN Analytics

The Cleveland Browns are still the most analytically advanced organization in the NFL, according to an ESPN poll of analytics staffers around the league.

The Browns took the mantle from the Baltimore Ravens in 2021 and kept it this season after receiving a plurality of votes, though their margin is smaller than a year ago. The Browns were voted as the most analytically advanced team by staffers from 10 of 21 teams this year after receiving 17 of 22 votes in 2021.

This is the third year we've surveyed NFL teams' analytics groups to better understand the landscape of quantitative analysis in the league and get their opinions on questions facing teams. Some questions have remained consistent, and some are new. (Check out the 2021 and 2020 versions.)

The survey was sent to a member of each team's analytics group, and 21 responded. Survey recipients were permitted to collaborate with other members of their analytics group as long as they submitted only one ballot per team. Some staffers left comments, and ESPN called others for contextual follow-ups. Participants were allowed to weigh in on information about their own team in some, but not all, of the questions (designated below). All were granted anonymity so they could speak freely, and although there were 21 responses, some abstained from some questions.

Survey responses took place between August and November.


Which NFL team is the most analytically advanced?
Voting for your own team was permitted for these first three questions.

1. Cleveland Browns (10)
2. Baltimore Ravens (4)
3. Philadelphia Eagles (3)
T-4. Atlanta Falcons (1)
T-4. Buffalo Bills (1)
T-4. Houston Texans (1)
T-4. Minnesota Vikings (1)


Which team produces the highest level of analytics work?
1. Cleveland Browns (7)
2. Baltimore Ravens (4)
3. Philadelphia Eagles (3)
T-4. Atlanta Falcons (1)
T-4. Buffalo Bills (1)
T-4. Dallas Cowboys (1)
T-4. Houston Texans (1)
T-4. Jacksonville Jaguars (1)
T-4. Los Angeles Rams (1)
T-4. Miami Dolphins (1)


Which team most incorporates analytics into its decision-making?
1. Cleveland Browns (9)
2. Philadelphia Eagles (3)
T-3. Baltimore Ravens (2)
T-3. Indianapolis Colts (2)
T-5. Arizona Cardinals (1)
T-5. Atlanta Falcons (1)
T-5. Buffalo Bills (1)
T-5. Los Angeles Chargers (1)
T-5. Minnesota Vikings (1)

The Browns swept the three categories again. The most analytically advanced question is framed as a combination of the other two: the level of analytics work a team produces and how well it integrates its quantitative analysis into the team's decision-making.

"From what I understand, all their decision-making takes a scouting or coaching perspective and then marries that with some kind of quantitative analysis or quantitative investigation," an NFC analytics staffer said.

"[The Browns] have an analytically minded GM -- they have leadership all the way, director level and above, who is quantitatively inclined," an AFC staffer said, referencing Cleveland general manager Andrew Berry, who came up in scouting but is believed to embrace a data-centric approach.



Which teams are among the five most analytically inclined?
Baltimore Ravens (21), Cleveland Browns (19), Philadelphia Eagles (16), Buffalo Bills (8), Minnesota Vikings (7), Los Angeles Chargers (5), Los Angeles Rams (4), Denver Broncos (3), Indianapolis Colts (3), New York Giants (3), San Francisco 49ers (3), Dallas Cowboys (2), Green Bay Packers (2), Houston Texans (2), Miami Dolphins (2), Arizona Cardinals (1), Atlanta Falcons (1), Chicago Bears (1), Jacksonville Jaguars (1), Kansas City Chiefs (1), Las Vegas Raiders (1)

One voter selected six teams.

After the Browns, we see a clear tier of two right behind them -- the Ravens and Eagles, as has been the case the past few seasons. Both teams have large analytics staffs.

One analytics consultant highlighted the Ravens (along with the Colts) as leaders in the coaching side of analytics and cited offensive assistant Daniel Stern -- a former football research coach who assists with game management -- being part of the coaching staff as evidence.

The Ravens appear to be one of the most analytically inclined game-management teams under John Harbaugh.

"You continuously see Baltimore make analytically sound decisions," one survey taker wrote.

One respondent cited organizations or leadership that highlight their quantitative analysts, calling out the Ravens and Rams specifically.

"If the team is willing to give a public shoutout to their [analytics] team, they really do value their people," they said.

The same staffer said the Ravens are usually aligned with consensus opinion in the draft, another indicator of their quantitative-leaning mindset.

The Eagles are annually thought of as one of the most analytically inclined organizations. They received notoriety for their 2017 Super Bowl run, which was in part fueled by analytically driven game-management decisions, but the reputation has sustained since the Doug Pederson era.

That same staffer thought the promotions of Alec Halaby and Jon Ferrari to assistant GM were indicators of a data-driven approach in Philadelphia. Halaby is a longtime Eagles analytics staffer and was vice president of football operations and strategy before becoming assistant GM. While Ferrari doesn't have the same analytics titles, the staffer in question said, "When I think analytics, that's just evidence-based decision-making, right? [Ferrari's] not necessarily considered an 'analytics' guy, but he's very, very sharp."

The Bills received the fourth-most top-five votes like last year, but the Vikings and Chargers both moved up. The reasons are fairly obvious: Chargers coach Brandon Staley was far more inclined to go for it on fourth down than most coaches in 2021, though he has significantly slowed down in 2022. And the Vikings hired Kwesi Adofo-Mensah, the first GM to have experience as an analytics staffer.

"Incorporation of analytics lags behind work quality, so Minnesota has a big advantage just because they are so bought in," wrote one survey taker.



Which NFL team is the least analytically advanced?
Tennessee Titans (7), Washington Commanders (5), Chicago Bears (2), New Orleans Saints (2), Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2), Detroit Lions (1), Pittsburgh Steelers (1)

One voter abstained.

In this category, staffers often vote based on what they don't hear.

"I don't know much about [the Commanders and Titans]," one staffer said. Which is sort of the point -- analytics staffers often know each other and talk, the same way coaches know coaches and scouts know scouts.

That Tennessee and Washington have small analytics groups -- just one staffer each, to the best of my knowledge -- and their work isn't well known to their peers is a negative indicator. It doesn't rule out heavier quantitative involvement that isn't known to the outside, but when asked which teams are further behind from a data-analysis standpoint, those two teams are consistently brought up.



Does momentum exist within an NFL game?
Yes (15)
No (5)

One voter abstained.

Analytically inclined people have often dismissed the idea of momentum, so it was surprising to see three-quarters of respondents believe in its existence.

"I am aware that I have no way to prove it," said a veteran analytics staffer who voted yes. "I've built the win probability models, when you look back at how you got to a spot it doesn't matter at all, I'm aware of all that. It's kind of like me taking off my statistician hat, putting on my football hat, I feel like you can feel it.

"Just because we can't measure it, or we aren't capable of measuring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

Several people noted that they felt that while momentum might be real, the effect is ultimately small.

"Momentum and hot hands do exist, but you can make money by betting against them," wrote one survey taker. "So my answer isn't literally no, it can even affect certain players differently. But yes, momentum is still overrated and used retroactively as part of a narrative where it sounds good but ultimately is hand waving."

If momentum does exist, the question becomes: Does it or should it affect decision-making within a game?

"Yes, but my job is to not treat it as if it exists," said one staffer, who is on the coaching headset during games.

Another, who also felt momentum is real, felt differently. "Is it something tangibly usable? I don't think so."

A third felt that momentum exists and should affect decision-making but is often misused by coaches. They gave an example of a team moving the ball well and reaching field goal range, with the defense on its heels and getting tired.

"Take advantage of that edge!" the staffer said. "But it's more like they kill their own momentum by saying we're in field goal range, no negative yards, don't take any big sacks, throw the ball away. You end up with a midrange field goal, where you should have pressed the accelerator and scored."



Which position is the most difficult to evaluate quantitatively?
Safety (8)
Cornerback (5)
Offensive line (5)
Quarterback (2)

One voter abstained.

Defensive backs dominated this question, with safety taking the top spot.

"A lot of what you're actually trying to measure with safeties are things that don't happen as a result of them," an AFC staffer said. "It's tough to measure a counterfactual.

"Scouts will say the same thing. There's so many plays at safety where nothing happens and they have minimal impact."

One survey taker who selected offensive line felt there was nothing truly objective to measure individual linemen.

"People are trying now to get better at the objective with player-tracking data, but I don't think that's there yet," the staffer said, noting that how one measures an O-lineman's performance using that tracking data was subjective.

Both survey takers who selected quarterback felt like the context around the position was crucial in its evaluation, making the process more difficult.

"The value that a quarterback contributes to a game is so heavily dependent on the other 21 players on the field," an NFC staffer said.

"You have the most information on quarterback, but it's hard to isolate the skill of the quarterback outside of the system he's operating in," the other quarterback voter added, also noting that the hit rate on QBs is lower than other positions, as well.



Which position is the easiest to evaluate quantitatively?
Edge (6)
Running back (6)
Wide receiver (4)
Quarterback (2)
Cornerback (1)
Linebacker (1)

One voter abstained.

Edge rushers and running backs led the way in terms of ease to evaluate. As one staffer put it regarding edge defenders -- their responsibilities are very clear.

"They're rushing the passer, so you can evaluate if they are creating pressure or beating blocks and in the run game, it's kind of the same thing: Are they getting off blocks, are they getting to the ball? For most edge players, that's it," they said.

An NFC staffer who selected wide receiver noted receivers' performance with the ball or when receiving targets is fairly easy to measure but added there is room for development when quantifying receivers' off-ball work.



Does your team have an analytics staffer on a coaching headset during games?
Yes (13)
No (8)

This is a slightly lower ratio than last year (when the split was 15-6), which could be a result of changing regimes but more likely is because different teams responded this year compared to last.

As a follow-up, I asked: What difference does it make having an analytics staffer on headset to assist with game management, as opposed to someone else?

"You want to get as much of the game-management stuff [prepared] pregame as possible," said one survey taker. "But every game there's going to be situations that come up that we didn't have a pregame plan for. And just having someone that can mentally think analytically at that moment has a lot of value."

"That discourse between coaches and analytics staffer is more efficient if your analytics staffer [is the one] communicating information they know most intimately," another added.

A third felt it doesn't have to be an analytics staffer on headset, but at least someone deeply familiar with the quantitative side of game management.

"Having a coach who has a full understanding of the analytics is just as good, but at that point I think we're just messing around with titles," they said.



When your team makes a decision you disagree with, which area is that most likely to occur in?
Positional value (7)
Trade value (3)
Game strategy (e.g., playcalling, scheme) (3)
Pro player evaluation (3)
College player evaluation (1)
Game management (e.g. fourth down, 2-point) (0)

Four voters abstained.

One voter who selected positional value was not surprised to hear it was the most common response. But they couldn't quite put their finger on why, and said that was kind of the point. If they understood why they weren't able to align with decision-makers on positional value, it probably wouldn't be a subject of frequent disagreement.

Running backs are the most obvious example of a position-value disconnect.

"The whole idea of the first-round running back, the big contract to the running back. People see the production coming from the running backs and give it to the back when he might not deserve the credit," they said.

Though running backs' market values have dropped across the league, quantitative analysts still see the position as overvalued.

Asked for a position that was undervalued by traditionalists, the staffer said safety, pointing to the 2021 Bills defense that was dominant in large part because of Jordan Poyer and Micah Hyde.

One survey taker who selected game strategy said it was hard making inroads with the coaching staff.

"We'll get more buy-in from our personnel department and our front office as far as being open-minded to research that we can provide," they said.

Another staffer who chose pro personnel evaluation said players at the bottom of the roster were harder to evaluate.

"I might not agree [with the decision], but I have enough respect to realize I'm wrong a lot when it comes to pro players, especially down on the roster -- 45th through 53rd man I don't have any data on those players playing in the NFL."



Name a player you believe to be generally underrated, based on your quantitatively informed opinion.
Excluding players from your own team.

Vikings QB Kirk Cousins (2), Seahawks WR Tyler Lockett (2), Titans DT Jeffery Simmons (2), Cowboys P Bryan Anger, Patriots WR Kendrick Bourne, Chargers CB Bryce Callahan, Jets TE Tyler Conklin, Bills OT Dion Dawkins, Broncos WR Tim Patrick, Vikings DE Harrison Phillips, Lions WR Amon-Ra St. Brown, Falcons CB A.J. Terrell, Seahawks CB Tariq Woolen

Five voters abstained.

Despite the plethora of voting options, it was notable that three players received more than one selection. In this section more than any, it's important to note that the responses came in over a large range of time -- from before the season to early November.

"Cousins probably isn't the most undervalued controlling for his position, but he probably generates the most value compared to how much people think he does. He's easily a well-above-average QB," one survey taker wrote before the season.

"Jeffery Simmons is proving it now too, he's proving all those guys right. That's a good one," said one voter upon hearing the overall results. "Tyler Lockett, he gets so much credit from the analytics community that I feel like he's where he should be, but I get it from the non-analytics community; that makes sense."

Simmons and Lockett are putting up serious numbers this season. Simmons has 6.5 sacks on the year and ranks third in run stop win rate. Lockett, entering Week 13, ranked fourth among all wide receivers and tight ends in Receiver Tracking Metrics' overall score.

Multiple survey takers mentioned how surprised they were that Callahan didn't generate more interest in the offseason, when he signed a one-year, $1.3 million deal with the Chargers.

"The last couple of years his coverage grades, his separation, his tackling have all been really good. I think the nickelback is still a bit undervalued," said the staffer that voted for him.

"No one seems interested in him even though he seems to always play well? He also gets hurt a lot," said another.



Name a player you believe to be generally overrated, based on your quantitatively informed opinion.
Excluding players from your own team.

Cowboys CB Trevon Diggs (2), Broncos QB Russell Wilson (2), Raiders QB Derek Carr, Cardinals RB James Conner, Cowboys RB Ezekiel Elliott, Steelers S Minkah Fitzpatrick, Titans RB Derrick Henry, Chargers S Derwin James Jr., Texans QB Davis Mills, Colts G Quenton Nelson, Steelers OLB T.J. Watt, Commanders DE Chase Young

Six voters abstained.

Perhaps it's unsurprising to see Diggs receive multiple votes in this category, considering his value has been the subject of significant debate after his notable 2021 campaign in which he recorded 11 picks but the rest of his game was questioned. That was the crux of the response from one survey taker, who said picks can certainly make up for allowed yards but that those interceptions last year inflated perception of his performance.

As for Wilson, he received one vote before the season and one well into his disappointing 2022 campaign. Wilson has a QBR of 35.0 this season, 28th out of 31 qualifying quarterbacks.


Trevon Diggs is a polarizing figure among analytics staffers, as he gives up yards to go along with his interceptions. Matthew Pearce/Icon Sportswire
The staffer who selected Fitzpatrick compared him to Seahawks safety Jamal Adams.

"He's better than Adams but I feel like Fitzpatrick is just very chaotic. He has a lot of great flash plays, but I think he's out of position and making mistakes too much. I think his grades are always ... a lot lower than what the scouts are saying about him," a staffer said, referencing their team's in-house quantitative grades.

The voter who selected Young referenced Browns edge rusher Jadeveon Clowney as a comparison.

"Incredible athlete, he just hasn't produced to match his ability yet. I've always had a problem with people getting credit [and being] considered great players before they actually produce and prove they are great players," they said.

Upon hearing some of the other results, one staffer was stunned at one name.

"Wow, Derwin James?! My goodness," they said. "I like Derwin James. The rest make sense to me, Derwin James is a surprise."

Yes! Give me more!

So far, yes... definitely.

233.33% more wins when analyzing the last ten years.

I think that's a question that those who seems to think analytics are the be all end all wish to avoid. Analytics is a wonderful tool. It's a great thing to have in your tool box. But building and keeping a team competitive requires that you use many tools in that tool box, not rely heavily on only one. After years of having a heavily weighted analytics team running things I haven't seen the results one would think they should see if that was the answer. I mean as an example when a FO thinks they have to buy a QB because they don't think they can draft and develop one the way most successful franchises do speaks volumes IMO.

FATE, maybe you should compare the Browns to the other 31 teams instead. I mean after all, that's who the Browns are actually competing against.

I'm fully in favor of migrating to a model where we make decisions with absolutely zero data/input/stats/metrics/knowledge.

Seriously... could the results be worse?

Does the Browns analysis department have a way to grade
A players willingness to prepare to be his best on game day?

Probably. But analytics in football isn't going to end, not since Moneyball worked for the As. However, there also has to be a modicum of common sense applied to the analytics approach. I think our FO lacks that common sense tweak. Hell, they weren't even ready for the DW backlash; that shows how much common sense they have.

OR... maybe I can just respond to someone's comment without moving goalposts. Although I know that practice is frowned upon.

Were #1, were #1, were #1.

Great Post Mac

To add some additional substance to the conversation, during this 7-year period (up to and including this year's records), the top 3 teams most heavily invested in analytics compared to the rest of the league has produced the following results on the field during that time period:

1. Cleveland Browns Regular Season:____W = 38____L = 70____T = 1____AVG = 5.4/10/.1
2. Baltimore Ravens Regular Season:____W = 68____L = 41____T = 0____AVG = 9.7/5.8/0
3. Philadelphia Eagles Regular Season:___W = 62____L = 46____T = 1____AVG = 8.9/6.5/.1

1. Philadelphia Eagles Playoff(s):____4 appearances____W = 4____L = 3____Super Bowl Champs 2017-2018 Season
2. Baltimore Ravens Playoff(s):_____3 appearances____W = 1____L = 3
3. Cleveland Browns Playoff(s):_____1 appearance_____W = 1____L = 1

Current 2022 NFL Post Season Round 1 Probability (PlayoffStatus.com):

1. Philadelphia Eagles >99%
2. Baltimore Ravens 90%
3. Cleveland Browns 2%

The 2 least analytically advanced teams in the entire NFL the last 7-years:

1. Washington Commanders Regular Season:__W = 46____L = 62____T = 1____AVG = 6.6/8.8/.1
2. Tennessee Titans Regular Season:_________W = 66____L = 43____T = 0____AVG = 9.4/6.1/0

1. Tennessee Titans Playoff(s):_________4 appearances____W = 3____L = 3
2. Washington Commanders Playoff(s):__1 appearance_____W = 0____L = 1

Current 2022 NFL Post Season Round 1 Probability (PlayoffStatus.com):
1. Tennessee Titans 98%
2. Washington Commanders 70%

So, the next 2 teams most heavily invested in analytics and the 2 teams least invested in analytics have all produced better results over the last 7-year period than the team most heavily invested in analytics. The question then becomes is it the system or the lack of quality from those running the system from the HC on up? The results would have to make you go "Hmmm!"

I think saying "Well we suck less than we used to" is a strange way to respond when the claim is the Browns are the most analytical team in the NFL. A claim made in an article you actually posted. But whatever floats your boat.

Dude! I'm just responding to Mac's question. For the Browns, analytics has resulted in more wins. I think we all can agree that the bar wasn't set too high lol, I'm certainly not arguing that.

I suppose that trying to sell the massive investment in analytics has created more wins when starting with a base of 0-16 could have its validity. Unfortunately, when you compare the previous 7-years without analytics, it shows a different picture:

Most Analytical Teams
1) Cleveland Browns 2009-2015, W = 33___L = 79___T = 0___Pct 29.46%______zero post season appearances
_________________2016-2022, W = 38___L = 70___T = 1___Pct 34.86%______1 playoff appearance (1-1) (difference of 5 additional wins to date)

2) Baltimore Ravens 2009-2015, W = 66___L = 46___T = 0___Pct 58.93%______5 playoff appearances (8-4) 1 Super Bowl Championship 2012-2013
________________ 2016-2022, W = 68___L = 41___T = 0___Pct 62.38%______3 playoff appearances (1-3) (difference of 2 additional wins to date)

3) Phil. Eagles_____2009-2015, W = 60___L = 52___T = 0___Pct 53.57%______3 playoff appearances (0-3)
________________2016-2022, W = 62___L = 46___T = 1___Pct 56.88%______4 playoff appearances (4-3) 1 Super Bowl Championship 2017-2018 (the difference of 2 additional wins to date)

Least Analytical Teams
1) Tennessee Titans 2009-2015, W = 41___L = 71___T = 0___Pct 36.61%______zero post season appearances
________________2016-2022, W = 66___L = 43___T = 0___Pct 60.55%______4 playoff appearances (3-3) (difference of 25 additional wins to date)

2) W Commanders_2009-2015, W = 41___L = 71___T = 0___Pct 36.61%______2 playoff appearances (0-2)
________________2016-2022, W = 46___L = 62___T = 1___Pct 42.20%______1 playoff appearance (0-1) (difference of 5 additional wins to date)

The facts show that the teams most heavily invested in analytics have generated an average of less than 1 additional win per year compared to the previous 7-years.

The teams with the least amount of analytic investment shows Washington having the same type of results as the most invested but Tennessee has improved 25 games to date for an average of 3.57 wins per year not being heavily invested in analytics.

So, for the Browns, who are clearly the most heavily invested in team analytics, is it the system or the management structure from the HC on up?

So you want to use the first two years, and the nosedive dictated by analytics...

to disprove analytics?


Waaay to deep for my simple mind.

using data analysis to downplay data analysis.

Every team was presented with the exact same issues of converting to analytics. How well those teams were able to convert has nothing to do with the analytics. As with any season, some teams are more polished at making adjustments. The Cleveland Browns are not one of those teams and have not been for decades.

j/c:

How do the years of 2018 and 2019 when GM John Dorsey punted analytics play into the synopsis of the totality of years being promoted by some?
How do the years of relying on Hue Jackson for his QB talent prowess factor in? What about Jimmy Haslem using his trump card?
Where does the decision-making (good or bad) of trading first rounders for future capital play into analytics? And vice-versa, frankly?
What do we know about the Browns analytics models evolving (or not evolving) when it comes to decision-making early on vs today?
How do we breakdown analytics as it relates to drafting players vs. signing FAs vs re-signing our own?

There are a lot of unknowns people are pretending to have the answers to when coming to their decisions, and that's fine. However, that said, the misuse of analytics in this thread by those downplaying analytics is fun to read.

So how is that the fault of analytics? Seems like you're trying to sum up decades of ineptitude by using analytics as the scapegoat.

Would you rather be behind the curve or ahead of the curve where advanced metrics are concerned? Set aside the fact that we have not been a model of efficiency in using this information and just look at the practice of analyzing data and tell me your answer. If your response is anything akin to "analytics is stupid", then the jokes on you.

Every change in approach, every nuance in how these changes are administered, is evident in every sport we watch. It has totally changed the landscape in baseball and basketball, and is doing the same in the NFL. However, there is a simple fact that remains... and it's not much different than the old baseball cliché... “momentum is only as good as tomorrow's starting pitcher".

As every MLB team is studying launch angle, and striking out at an astronomical rate because analytics says home runs win games; a team like the Guardians will come along and remind you that the fundamentals of winning baseball haven't changed. As NBA teams try to outshoot every other from the three-point-arc, the Cavs remind us that getting dirty in the paint and playing defense still wins games. That doesn't mean that the previous 'analytics' are broken, it just proves that winning organizations take the information and apply it differently depending on their available talent and the scheme that fits that talent.

The acquisition and implementation of advanced metrics is a living, breathing thing. What was true yesterday will probably be less true tomorrow; that doesn't mean you blame the calendar, it just means that you must do all you can to stay ahead of the curve. That's what we're doing with analytics and the enormous amount of effort and expense that we pour into it.

At the end of the day information is the product that fuels the constant cat and mouse game. When you can't catch the mouse, you don't blame the cheese. The answer is certainly not to lie down and play dead, it's to continue to pursue answers in how you are misusing the information.

Lastly, now that I've bored with a couple paragraphs of half-coherent thoughts; our problems don't lie in seeking and organizing information. Our problems lie in trusting 'gut' in instituting the information. One of our biggest issues is refusing to rip up the computer printout a little quicker and say "this isn't working", adjusting on the fly, and seeing where the chips fall. We're always 'late' with gameday adjustments. We're always 'late' at properly analyzing the talent level of a certain receiver, cutting our losses, and moving on. We seem to be so dead-set on "follow the system, follow the system" that nobody seems to have the intestinal fortitude to grab their sack and make a change.

We're married to a certain analytical approach to almost everything we do and no one seems to be strong-willed enough to say "enough!" when it's not working out. Of all the ongoing problems this organization has; the uncanny, meme-worthy pursuit of information doesn't even crack the top ten.

/rant

j/c:

I don't think blaming Dorsey or Hue for our failures is fair. However, it still amazes me that in this day and age when analytics are used throughout the business world and beyond, that we still have people denying the importance and effectiveness of them. More information is a good thing. Collecting data provides more information. Analyzing how to incorporate that data is a good thing. Expanding your knowledge base is never a bad thing. Being the smartest guy in the room is not the bad thing that some people try to make it out to be.

#realfacts

Which goes to the point that I believe you have missed. I'm not saying that analytics doesn't have a place or will have a place going forward or that it's unimportant. What I am saying is that the amount of importance placed on it by some teams has not justified the means as of yet. You can't ignore the success of the teams not heavily using analytics. What I am saying is for the Cleveland Browns to be so heavily invested and way ahead of any other team in that area that the results are not being achieved with the investment. If it is not the system (which IMO it is not the system), then it must be the individuals responsible for executing the system. IMHO, you can't have only a 5-game improvement over comparable 7-year periods and make the statement that the Browns investment and/or deployment has been anywhere close to satisfactory to this point. To your point, the results would clearly show the Browns are nowhere close to being the smartest guy in the room. The results prove that fact.

[color:#FFFFCC][/color]

#profound

fate...I really did have a response..something about the goalposts being moved in an attempt to justify the Browns record since 2016 when the Browns owner went all in on analytics.

That record is 38 wins...70 losses and 1 tie in 7 seasons...5.4 wins per season with the biggest, baddest analytics staff in the NFL. There is only one employee in Cleveland that is happy with that record but the sad part, there is no trophy or award in the NFL for ANALYTICS.

You are what your record says you are...and no matter how much lipstick you attempt use to make that pig look pretty...it's still an ugly-ass pig averaging 5.4 wins over the last 7 seasons.

Goalposts moved?

So you think the Browns were using analytics to try to win in 2016 and 17??

Just say yes, so I can finally put you on ignore and quit reading your gibberish.

Well, that was easy.

I think cherry picking the totality of the results of analytics to any time frame since DePodesta arrived here is an attempt to slant their overall results. Every team uses analytics. And when comparing the Browns to all other 31 NFL teams overall the results here do not line up on a competitive basis nor based on record. A look at the current playoff picture dictates that is true. So excuses be damned.

But it seems as per usual the debate always comes down to a "analytics is great" to an "analytics sucks" deal. Which really isn't the issue at all. Of course analytics is a wonderful tool. But as I've said before it's simply one tool in your tool box. The issue is how much balance you have in using the different tools in your tool box. My opinion, which s all that it is, is that this FO relies too much on the analytics tool and don't mix in the other tools enough. SPAQ scores aren't the be all end all of drafting players.

That's a safe response considering the results of the draft picks. I do agree that the Browns have too much attention focused on analytics and are inefficient in the use of the other tools that the winning organizations combine with using analytics. Add into those facts that they only have a glorified OC playing HC and it explains a lot about what has happened the last 2-years.

JMHO, but there's a major restructure coming for the Browns in 2023 due to players leaving (21 FA's, 2 RFA's), poor play, and the cap. The D-line is looking at 3 different starters and at least 3 creditable backups. The LB corps will be changed and a deep look at Ward going forward will need to be decided. Safety needs an upgrade and more than likely a new DC will inherit the mess. Offensively, a #3 WR is needed and an upgrade from DPJ could be advantageous. RT will be a huge opening while LT remains a question mark and Bitonio will be entering his age 32 season. Hunt and D'Earnest Johnson are FA's and as of right now, backup QB appears to be wide open. All of this on the table with no first-round draft pick a HC that thinks his only job is to be a play caller.