AJ McCarron
-
no talent evaluators
Talent evaluation is done via analytics ---- period.
Instead of asserting there's some "other" thing that Browns could magically do after which endless riches would result, perhaps it's time to consider that success in the NFL just might be tough.
Talent evaluation is done via analytics ---- period.
Um , no.
-
Show your counterexample.
-
Show your counterexample.
Show your counterexample.
The other 31 teams who only use analytics as a part of their talent evaluations who also aren’t 1-23.
The Saints and Bucs were flaming dog crap for decades and got out of the hole pre-analytics. They went on to win championships.
If Sashi and Co. are given another year and it works, I will gladly eat crow. But if it fails on a historic level, everyone who fell in love with it will have to stand up and admit that they shouldn’t have been so smug about this horror show of a process.
-
1?
WSS
Let me rephrase that question.
If you paid 99 cents vs $1 dollar for an item, is that a significant difference?
Let me rephrase that question.
If you paid 99 cents vs $1 dollar for an item, is that a significant difference?
If you get 5 of the lottery numbers instead of all 6...is that a significant difference? (answer: Oh yea)
-
What, SPECIFICALLY, is "all analytics" about the Browns? Not other teams. The Browns.
For someone whose nickname is "logic" it sure seems like you're just trolling because you don't have an answer.
From the article: The analytics side liked Mitch Trubisky over Myles Garrett. We drafted Garrett. NOT an analytics decision, whether you like it or not.
So since it's not every decision.. just some:
Exactly what makes this organization "different" than any other? Some decisions are analytics, and some aren't. And this is new....... how?
"When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
no talent evaluators
Talent evaluation is done via analytics ---- period.
Instead of asserting there's some "other" thing that Browns could magically do after which endless riches would result, perhaps it's time to consider that success in the NFL just might be tough.
Talent evaluation is done via analytics ---- period.
yes....but who is to say our FO is doing this right?
Bill Bellichek is someone who relies on a very analytics approach to football. My guess is that he would laugh at what the browns are currently doing....
-
no talent evaluators
Talent evaluation is done via analytics ---- period.
Instead of asserting there's some "other" thing that Browns could magically do after which endless riches would result, perhaps it's time to consider that success in the NFL just might be tough.
Talent evaluation is done via analytics ---- period.
I don't think that is totally true. Analytics is used extensively...but not exclusively. I mean....talented evaluators still have to eyeball the talent that is out there...and they still have to judge their heart/character/determination. Analytics said Tom Brady was at best a 6th round long shot prospect. But other things do come into play.
Instead of asserting there's some "other" thing that Browns could magically do after which endless riches would result, perhaps it's time to consider that success in the NFL just might be tough.
Well...that is true..using analytics or not...or some combination.
-
Talent evaluation is done via analytics ---- period.
yes....but who is to say our FO is doing this right?
Bill Bellichek is someone who relies on a very analytics approach to football. My guess is that he would laugh at what the browns are currently doing....
-
Those other 31 franchises that use normal methods just don’t have the knowledge of Sashi.
1) The Browns have done what you proposed since 1999.. and have failed. Under 2 years later you want to stop -- because it's no less successful than anything else?
2) Burden's on you to prove exactly what is abnormal about Browns' decision-making... because all the proof shows that 100% of teams use analytics. Yes, all 32 teams. Not some, not part, not half -- all of them. The link goes through each team in detail, describing the GM-HC-FO utilization.
"Normal methods" in the NFL incorporate analytics at all stages of player evaluation. Time to stop pretending there's something magically different about Berea.
Under 2 years later you want to stop -- because it's no less successful than anything else?
NO LESS SUCCESSFUL??
We're 1-23 and have NEVER been more unsuccessful.
-
What, SPECIFICALLY, is "all analytics" about the Browns? Not other teams. The Browns.
For someone whose nickname is "logic" it sure seems like you're just trolling because you don't have an answer.
From the article: The analytics side liked Mitch Trubisky over Myles Garrett. We drafted Garrett. NOT an analytics decision, whether you like it or not.
So since it's not every decision.. just some:
Exactly what makes this organization "different" than any other? Some decisions are analytics, and some aren't. And this is new....... how?
What, SPECIFICALLY, is "all analytics" about the Browns? Not other teams. The Browns.
For someone whose nickname is "logic" it sure seems like you're just trolling because you don't have an answer.
From the article: The analytics side liked Mitch Trubisky over Myles Garrett. We drafted Garrett. NOT an analytics decision, whether you like it or not.
So since it's not every decision.. just some:
Exactly what makes this organization "different" than any other? Some decisions are analytics, and some aren't. And this is new....... how?
Name the talent evaluator in house who is having their say in decision making on draft picks. I hope they weren’t behind the WR heavy draft that ended with a handful of sand.
If the Browns aren’t doing anything new then why am I hearing a few voices talking about how they are doing something different than previous regimes and other franchises? That seems to be the complaint that traditional methods didn’t work for the Browns thus this new process. Can’t have it both ways.
I know your pants get tight over analytics and PFF. The rest of us are less enthused. The results are pretty clear.
-
What, SPECIFICALLY, is "all analytics" about the Browns? Not other teams. The Browns.
For someone whose nickname is "logic" it sure seems like you're just trolling because you don't have an answer.
From the article: The analytics side liked Mitch Trubisky over Myles Garrett. We drafted Garrett. NOT an analytics decision, whether you like it or not.
So since it's not every decision.. just some:
Exactly what makes this organization "different" than any other? Some decisions are analytics, and some aren't. And this is new....... how?
Name the talent evaluator in house who is having their say in decision making on draft picks. I hope they weren’t behind the WR heavy draft that ended with a handful of sand.
If the Browns aren’t doing anything new then why am I hearing a few voices talking about how they are doing something different than previous regimes and other franchises? That seems to be the complaint that traditional methods didn’t work for the Browns thus this new process. Can’t have it both ways.
I know your pants get tight over analytics and PFF. The rest of us are less enthused. The results are pretty clear.
Name the talent evaluator in house who is having their say in decision making on draft picks. I hope they weren’t behind the WR heavy draft that ended with a handful of sand.
If the Browns aren’t doing anything new then why am I hearing a few voices talking about how they are doing something different than previous regimes and other franchises? That seems to be the complaint that traditional methods didn’t work for the Browns thus this new process. Can’t have it both ways.
I know your pants get tight over analytics and PFF. The rest of us are less enthused. The results are pretty clear.
1) Talent evaluator - Everyone. They've said this repeatedly, you just haven't wanted to believe it. Consensus decision making is.. everyone.
2) Reread the above link. Every 2017 NFL team uses analytics. This is something new - FOR EVERY TEAM.
Your role is to show why Browns "new" way is substantially different than other teams' in 2017 ---- not different than the past, because that's a given for every team.
3) Seems to be the complaint?
You're the one who can't have it both ways ---- 4-12 is not working, yet you want to go back to the same method that brought us glorious seasons of 5-11.
4) I know you get your pants tight over repeating the same methods that brought us 5-11 teams. The rest of us are less enthused, because those results are clear.
"When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
1) Talent evaluator - Everyone. They've said this repeatedly, you just haven't wanted to believe it. Consensus decision making is....everyone.
OK, fine, it is everyone......now name the one or two guys that are part of everyone that is actually worth a shite at doing their job. Not sure there is anyone.
-
Name the talent evaluator in house who is having their say in decision making on draft picks. I hope they weren’t behind the WR heavy draft that ended with a handful of sand.
If the Browns aren’t doing anything new then why am I hearing a few voices talking about how they are doing something different than previous regimes and other franchises? That seems to be the complaint that traditional methods didn’t work for the Browns thus this new process. Can’t have it both ways.
I know your pants get tight over analytics and PFF. The rest of us are less enthused. The results are pretty clear.
1) Talent evaluator - Everyone. They've said this repeatedly, you just haven't wanted to believe it. Consensus decision making is.. everyone.
2) Reread the above link. Every 2017 NFL team uses analytics. This is something new - FOR EVERY TEAM.
Your role is to show why Browns "new" way is substantially different than other teams' in 2017 ---- not different than the past, because that's a given for every team.
3) Seems to be the complaint?
You're the one who can't have it both ways ---- 4-12 is not working, yet you want to go back to the same method that brought us glorious seasons of 5-11.
4) I know you get your pants tight over repeating the same methods that brought us 5-11 teams. The rest of us are less enthused, because those results are clear.
1) Talent evaluator - Everyone. They've said this repeatedly, you just haven't wanted to believe it. Consensus decision making is.. everyone.
2) Reread the above link. Every 2017 NFL team uses analytics. This is something new - FOR EVERY TEAM.
Your role is to show why Browns "new" way is substantially different than other teams' in 2017 ---- not different than the past, because that's a given for every team.
3) Seems to be the complaint?
You're the one who can't have it both ways ---- 4-12 is not working, yet you want to go back to the same method that brought us glorious seasons of 5-11.
4) I know you get your pants tight over repeating the same methods that brought us 5-11 teams. The rest of us are less enthused, because those results are clear.
No other team has completely scrapped any talent on their squad then tried to build from there. The other 31 use analytics as one tool in the toolbox. Not basing their entire approach on it, going so far as to bring in the guy who made it famous...in baseball.
Other teams have successfully brought themselves out of the dump without demolishing all of the in house talent. However, they also brought in the right people. The Browns seem cursed to bring in incompetent execs while the other franchises seem to have some hits with their misses. It appears the Browns are breaking new ground at being awful thanks in part to the front office a few people here adore. Empty offices could produce as many wins and progress as this front office has produced. No team will suck in NFL history as hard as the Browns have under Sashi and Co.
Sorry that people aren’t pumped about historic failure.
-
1) Talent evaluator - Everyone. They've said this repeatedly, you just haven't wanted to believe it. Consensus decision making is....everyone.
OK, fine, it is everyone......now name the one or two guys that are part of everyone that is actually worth a shite at doing their job. Not sure there is anyone.
1) Talent evaluator - Everyone. They've said this repeatedly, you just haven't wanted to believe it. Consensus decision making is....everyone.
OK, fine, it is everyone......now name the one or two guys that are part of everyone that is actually worth a shite at doing their job. Not sure there is anyone.
Well I guess that means everyone that is under the roof right now can't evaluate talent.
-
1) Talent evaluator - Everyone. They've said this repeatedly, you just haven't wanted to believe it. Consensus decision making is....everyone.
OK, fine, it is everyone......now name the one or two guys that are part of everyone that is actually worth a shite at doing their job. Not sure there is anyone.
Well I guess that means everyone that is under the roof right now can't evaluate talent.
Well I guess that means everyone that is under the roof right now can't evaluate talent.
Bingo
-
Define "right" without referencing the Browns.
What, precisely, is "right" ?
'right'- picking good players in the draft and developing them.
'right'- not wasting 2nd round picks on sure thing useless players
'right'- smart free agent signings on players who add value to a team
-
Define good.
Define developing.
Define wasting.
Define sure-thing-useless.
Define smart.
Define value.
I can't tell if you think you're being snarky.. or if you're actually trying to develop something. Those sentences sound like the beginning of an idea, but it really needs more fleshing out to become something specific, something that can be used to assess performance.
When you consider a numerical way to define value.......... that sure sounds like your own theory of analytics. Yet, wIthout precise [numerical, non-emotional, non-hand-waving] definitions of these terms, any situation can be twisted into whatever result you predetermined "should" be.. even if you actually are attempting to calmly think it through.
[is a successful development a 7th rounder who improves to getting a few starts such as Ahtyba Rubin in one season a few years ago? Or a second-rounder like Bitonio being a plug-and-play near AllPro from day 1 for many seasons? But what precisely are the numerical metrics of round player selected, number of starts earned? Is starts the right metric? Should there be levels of development, say colors to denote each level? What then are the numerical boundaries of each color?]
And when you attempt to come up with numerical definitions of these.... you'll run into the same questions that many people have disagreed with Sashi on.. but perhaps you [and anyone else who actually goes through the exercise] might understand the difficulty [and imprecise science] of building a team.
-
Define good.
Define developing.
Define wasting.
Define sure-thing-useless.
Define smart.
Define value.
I can't tell if you think you're being snarky.. or if you're actually trying to develop something. Those sentences sound like the beginning of an idea, but it really needs more fleshing out to become something specific, something that can be used to assess performance.
When you consider a numerical way to define value.......... that sure sounds like your own theory of analytics. Yet, wIthout precise [numerical, non-emotional, non-hand-waving] definitions of these terms, any situation can be twisted into whatever result you predetermined "should" be.. even if you actually are attempting to calmly think it through.
[is a successful development a 7th rounder who improves to getting a few starts such as Ahtyba Rubin in one season a few years ago? Or a second-rounder like Bitonio being a plug-and-play near AllPro from day 1 for many seasons? But what precisely are the numerical metrics of round player selected, number of starts earned? Is starts the right metric? Should there be levels of development, say colors to denote each level? What then are the numerical boundaries of each color?]
And when you attempt to come up with numerical definitions of these.... you'll run into the same questions that many people have disagreed with Sashi on.. but perhaps you [and anyone else who actually goes through the exercise] might understand the difficulty [and imprecise science] of building a team.
Define good.
Define developing.
Define wasting.
Define sure-thing-useless.
Define smart.
Define value.
I can't tell if you think you're being snarky.. or if you're actually trying to develop something. Those sentences sound like the beginning of an idea, but it really needs more fleshing out to become something specific, something that can be used to assess performance.
When you consider a numerical way to define value.......... that sure sounds like your own theory of analytics. Yet, wIthout precise [numerical, non-emotional, non-hand-waving] definitions of these terms, any situation can be twisted into whatever result you predetermined "should" be.. even if you actually are attempting to calmly think it through.
[is a successful development a 7th rounder who improves to getting a few starts such as Ahtyba Rubin in one season a few years ago? Or a second-rounder like Bitonio being a plug-and-play near AllPro from day 1 for many seasons? But what precisely are the numerical metrics of round player selected, number of starts earned? Is starts the right metric? Should there be levels of development, say colors to denote each level? What then are the numerical boundaries of each color?]
And when you attempt to come up with numerical definitions of these.... you'll run into the same questions that many people have disagreed with Sashi on.. but perhaps you [and anyone else who actually goes through the exercise] might understand the difficulty [and imprecise science] of building a team.
Define “define”.
Two things that will define you: Your determination when you have nothing. Your attitude when you have everything. - Mike McCartney -
Define good.
Define developing.
Define wasting.
Define sure-thing-useless.
Define smart.
Define value.
I can't tell if you think you're being snarky.. or if you're actually trying to develop something. Those sentences sound like the beginning of an idea, but it really needs more fleshing out to become something specific, something that can be used to assess performance.
When you consider a numerical way to define value.......... that sure sounds like your own theory of analytics. Yet, wIthout precise [numerical, non-emotional, non-hand-waving] definitions of these terms, any situation can be twisted into whatever result you predetermined "should" be.. even if you actually are attempting to calmly think it through.
[is a successful development a 7th rounder who improves to getting a few starts such as Ahtyba Rubin in one season a few years ago? Or a second-rounder like Bitonio being a plug-and-play near AllPro from day 1 for many seasons? But what precisely are the numerical metrics of round player selected, number of starts earned? Is starts the right metric? Should there be levels of development, say colors to denote each level? What then are the numerical boundaries of each color?]
And when you attempt to come up with numerical definitions of these.... you'll run into the same questions that many people have disagreed with Sashi on.. but perhaps you [and anyone else who actually goes through the exercise] might understand the difficulty [and imprecise science] of building a team.
Define “define”.
Define “define”.
Define 1-23.
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