Camp Trade Down
-
Well I'm wiling to see if we are done with FA first. And even then it won't matter what any of us thinks. What will matter is what analytics tells our FO to think.
And even then it won't matter what any of us thinks.
Nothing personal, Ag, but this is my least favorite of all the Forum cliches'...
Of course it's true, but of course we are all here to share our opinions anyway...
-
And even then it won't matter what any of us thinks.
Nothing personal, Ag, but this is my least favorite of all the Forum cliches'...
Of course it's true, but of course we are all here to share our opinions anyway...
Nothing personal, Ag, but this is my least favorite of all the Forum cliches'...
Of course it's true, but of course we are all here to share our opinions anyway...
And even then it won't matter what any of us thinks including our FO brainiacs. What will matter is what analytics tells our FO to think.
There - fixed it for ya Tour.
-
That's simply not true.
Models require tuning and understanding of what, exactly, is being interpreted.
No model is ever "plug and play" - it's simply about having more data to understand the things you're choosing between.
Analytics does not [and will not] "tell the FO what to think" - that's not how models are implemented.
In short, nothing Tour said needs to be fixed.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
There's nobody to trade up for.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
There's nobody to trade up for.
Ding ding dingThere's nobody to trade up for.
-
That's simply not true.
Models require tuning and understanding of what, exactly, is being interpreted.
No model is ever "plug and play" - it's simply about having more data to understand the things you're choosing between.
Analytics does not [and will not] "tell the FO what to think" - that's not how models are implemented.
In short, nothing Tour said needs to be fixed.
Models require tuning and understanding of what, exactly, is being interpreted.
Analytics does not [and will not] "tell the FO what to think" - that's not how models are implemented.
Coulda fooled me. First they tell us what they think (these key players need to be retained) and then we proceed to screw it up and lose them all because analytics tells them not to bid that high. So is dog wagging tail or vice versa? Say what you wish but it appears to me that analytics won over understanding.
-
Analytics have nothing to do with negotiating tactics.. they're not the same thing despite your efforts at conflating the two.
BrownsFO offered Schwartz a contract, and Schwartz rejected it.. Thus the analytics supported keeping Schwartz, or they wouldn't have offered him in the first place.
Schwartz signed at an offer price LESS than what we offered. That was a function of Schwartz's agent playing dirty pool with BrownsFO and not being honest regarding KC's offer.
Browns' first offer was the highest bid, but Schwartz rejected that in search of endless riches. So, he didn't "want to be here" -- rather, he wanted money, and misjudged his own market.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
Models require tuning and understanding of what, exactly, is being interpreted.
Analytics does not [and will not] "tell the FO what to think" - that's not how models are implemented.
Coulda fooled me. First they tell us what they think (these key players need to be retained) and then we proceed to screw it up and lose them all because analytics tells them not to bid that high. So is dog wagging tail or vice versa? Say what you wish but it appears to me that analytics won over understanding.
Coulda fooled me. First they tell us what they think (these key players need to be retained) and then we proceed to screw it up and lose them all because analytics tells them not to bid that high. So is dog wagging tail or vice versa? Say what you wish but it appears to me that analytics won over understanding.
Do you have any sources to back up your claim that analytics is the sole reasoning why we didn't resign them?
Because to me, it sounds like your blaming something that you have a tenuous grasp on. Mack and Gibson wanted to leave. It was well known and doesn't take analytics to figure that out. We didn't spend borderline WR 1 money on a WR who had one decent year. Schwartz tried to play our offer on others to get a bigger deal elsewhere so we pulled the offer because he was trying to two time us.
None of that has anything to do with analytics. It's basic common sense and owning a pair of balls. Why would you waste time and money on people who don't want to be here? Why overpay for one decent year? Why allow yourself to get played?
-
Analytics have nothing to do with negotiating tactics.. they're not the same thing despite your efforts at conflating the two.
BrownsFO offered Schwartz a contract, and Schwartz rejected it.. Thus the analytics supported keeping Schwartz, or they wouldn't have offered him in the first place.
Schwartz signed at an offer price LESS than what we offered. That was a function of Schwartz's agent playing dirty pool with BrownsFO and not being honest regarding KC's offer.
Browns' first offer was the highest bid, but Schwartz rejected that in search of endless riches. So, he didn't "want to be here" -- rather, he wanted money, and misjudged his own market.
Analytics have nothing to do with negotiating tactics.. they're not the same thing despite your efforts at conflating the two.
BrownsFO offered Schwartz a contract, and Schwartz rejected it.. Thus the analytics supported keeping Schwartz, or they wouldn't have offered him in the first place.
Schwartz signed at an offer price LESS than what we offered. That was a function of Schwartz's agent playing dirty pool with BrownsFO and not being honest regarding KC's offer. That has zero to do with analytics, and more to do with Schwartz not judging his own market correctly.
Exactly.
Schwartz got an offer, his agent then turned around and shopped that offer around to other teams in order to get Schwartz more money. Then, once Mitch found out nobody would pay much more, Mitch came back ready to accept the offer and the Browns said "sorry, Charlie. Offer's gone."
Does it suck that we lost Mitch? Sure. But I don't hate the stance that this FO is taking.
-
Analytics have nothing to do with negotiating tactics.. they're not the same thing despite your efforts at conflating the two.
BrownsFO offered Schwartz a contract, and Schwartz rejected it.. Thus the analytics supported keeping Schwartz, or they wouldn't have offered him in the first place.
Schwartz signed at an offer price LESS than what we offered. That was a function of Schwartz's agent playing dirty pool with BrownsFO and not being honest regarding KC's offer. That has zero to do with analytics, and more to do with Schwartz not judging his own market correctly.
Exactly.
Schwartz got an offer, his agent then turned around and shopped that offer around to other teams in order to get Schwartz more money. Then, once Mitch found out nobody would pay much more, Mitch came back ready to accept the offer and the Browns said "sorry, Charlie. Offer's gone."
Does it suck that we lost Mitch? Sure. But I don't hate the stance that this FO is taking.
Exactly.
Schwartz got an offer, his agent then turned around and shopped that offer around to other teams in order to get Schwartz more money. Then, once Mitch found out nobody would pay much more, Mitch came back ready to accept the offer and the Browns said "sorry, Charlie. Offer's gone."
Does it suck that we lost Mitch? Sure. But I don't hate the stance that this FO is taking.
Somewhat agree -- they appear to be taking a stand that Cleveland is no longer the place you use to get more money elsewhere, or get overpaid in order to come play.
-
Exactly.
Schwartz got an offer, his agent then turned around and shopped that offer around to other teams in order to get Schwartz more money. Then, once Mitch found out nobody would pay much more, Mitch came back ready to accept the offer and the Browns said "sorry, Charlie. Offer's gone."
Does it suck that we lost Mitch? Sure. But I don't hate the stance that this FO is taking.
Somewhat agree -- they appear to be taking a stand that Cleveland is no longer the place you use to get more money elsewhere, or get overpaid in order to come play.
Somewhat agree -- they appear to be taking a stand that Cleveland is no longer the place you use to get more money elsewhere, or get overpaid in order to come play.
I hate to break it to you, but for most players Cleveland IS the one place in the NFL you have to overpay in order for them to come here. They don't want to play in the disaster zone. That's just how it is at the moment.
-
Somewhat agree -- they appear to be taking a stand that Cleveland is no longer the place you use to get more money elsewhere, or get overpaid in order to come play.
I hate to break it to you, but for most players Cleveland IS the one place in the NFL you have to overpay in order for them to come here. They don't want to play in the disaster zone. That's just how it is at the moment.
I hate to break it to you, but for most players Cleveland IS the one place in the NFL you have to overpay in order for them to come here. They don't want to play in the disaster zone. That's just how it is at the moment.
That is why you build a winner through the draft until you have an established rep for winning. Until that point, you will overpay for elderly bums to finish below 5 wins.
-
Somewhat agree -- they appear to be taking a stand that Cleveland is no longer the place you use to get more money elsewhere, or get overpaid in order to come play.
I hate to break it to you, but for most players Cleveland IS the one place in the NFL you have to overpay in order for them to come here. They don't want to play in the disaster zone. That's just how it is at the moment.
I hate to break it to you, but for most players Cleveland IS the one place in the NFL you have to overpay in order for them to come here. They don't want to play in the disaster zone. That's just how it is at the moment.
And the only way to change that is to stop overpaying.
-
Get the QB and win some games to shut some dickfaces up in 2016. It'll go a long way to changing that perception.
Get the QB and the rest will fall in line.
Get the QB.
Get the.
Get.
Say it with me
-
That's simply not true.
Models require tuning and understanding of what, exactly, is being interpreted.
No model is ever "plug and play" - it's simply about having more data to understand the things you're choosing between.
Analytics does not [and will not] "tell the FO what to think" - that's not how models are implemented.
In short, nothing Tour said needs to be fixed.
In short, nothing Tour said needs to be fixed.
As if it EVER does...
Browns' first offer was the highest bid, but Schwartz rejected that in search of endless riches. So, he didn't "want to be here" -- rather, he wanted money, and misjudged his own market.
Pretty sure he wanted both...
Schwartz got an offer, his agent then turned around and shopped that offer around to other teams in order to get Schwartz more money. Then, once Mitch found out nobody would pay much more, Mitch came back ready to accept the offer and the Browns said "sorry, Charlie. Offer's gone."
Does it suck that we lost Mitch? Sure. But I don't hate the stance that this FO is taking.
Agree with the stance, but hope what was said was, "Mitch, we live in a different world than we did 24 hours ago..."
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Get the QB and win some games to shut some dickfaces up in 2016. It'll go a long way to changing that perception.
Get the QB and the rest will fall in line.
Get the QB.
Get the.
Get.
Say it with me
-
I think it would be a reach for Goff, but I don't care which one they pick. As long as they take the step they need to in order to address the most important position in the game, when they have the chance to do so -- there shouldn't be any talk about a Top 5 pick in the future.
Say it with me, Tour.... Get the freaking QB when you have the chance!
-
I don't think there will be a trade down.. not because I don't agree, but because no other team will want to give enough picks to appropriately value the #2 spot.
Better to get both Wentz and Michael Thomas [to become our Bortles-Robinson] and let them grow together than the pu-pu platter of midround picks that never pan out.
I don't think there will be a trade down.. not because I don't agree, but because no other team will want to give enough picks to appropriately value the #2 spot.
Better to get both Wentz and Michael Thomas [to become our Bortles-Robinson] and let them grow together than the pu-pu platter of midround picks that never pan out.
This makes too much sense to actually happen, Wentz to Thomas. I like it but I'm just an old woman who's loved the Browns far too long!
And Blake Bortles has 2 of the best receivers Hurns & Robinson, Malik Jackson, Tashaun Gipson, this team will win their division.
-
I think it would be a reach for Goff, but I don't care which one they pick. As long as they take the step they need to in order to address the most important position in the game, when they have the chance to do so -- there shouldn't be any talk about a Top 5 pick in the future.
Say it with me, Tour.... Get the freaking QB when you have the chance!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login