Interesting Stats on Browns' Picks
-
Jordan Elliott’s 91.4 PFF pass-rush grade since 2017 ranked 1st among NFL Draft DTs
Delpit forced incompletions at a higher rate than any other top safety in the NFL Draft.
Jacob Phillips was the best tackler in college football last year.
And of course Wills is arguably the best OT to come out this year.
Looks like our FO is laser-focused on certain qualities at each position and goes from there.
-
Jordan Elliott’s 91.4 PFF pass-rush grade since 2017 ranked 1st among NFL Draft DTs
Delpit forced incompletions at a higher rate than any other top safety in the NFL Draft.
Jacob Phillips was the best tackler in college football last year.
And of course Wills is arguably the best OT to come out this year.
Looks like our FO is laser-focused on certain qualities at each position and goes from there.
Jordan Elliott’s 91.4 PFF pass-rush grade since 2017 ranked 1st among NFL Draft DTs
Delpit forced incompletions at a higher rate than any other top safety in the NFL Draft.
Jacob Phillips was the best tackler in college football last year.
And of course Wills is arguably the best OT to come out this year.
Looks like our FO is laser-focused on certain qualities at each position and goes from there.
The issue is creating a certain "tunnel vision" based on a lone metric for a position.
Deshone Kizer had the highest QB rating off of play action throws I believe in the entire NCAA for the 2016 season? PFF highlighted this and Sashi at the time laser focused on that particular metric while ignoring most everything else. Including the fact that, when he was throwing from a straight drop, the kid was an absolute wildcard and displayed as much at Notre Dame. (Pretty sure I have a link on this board around that time which I highlighted that very thing)
PFF also doesn't quantify "how" a pressure is calculated. One of my biggest knocks on Kinlaw coming out this year was his "shock and awe" style tactics. Once an Oline adjusted to the shock, there was no more awe. This also coincided with him ended up on the ground further and further along a game went - See: vs North Carolina. If a big body just launches himself into a blocker with no regard for assignment, technique and control yet still gets the pressure, I don't necessarily count that as a "win". Because what you've done is expose your limited skill set in regards to functioning within the structure of the defense itself. I think that's another reason why Kinlaw became such a fast riser with senior bowl practices. Sure he dominated simple 1 on 1 drills, but that dominance didn't always translate or show up during the course of the 2019 season itself when you have to play your assignment as your coaches intend.
-
Ugh. Sure, Phillips was the best tackler in college football.. and in the NFL, he'll be a great drag-down tackle imitator of D'Qwell Jackson.
If he can't get into position to employ that tackling skill because he's just not athletic enough to be anything other than a ST contributor.. it's a whiff.
-
-
More people not trusting The Process. ?
More people not trusting The Process. ?
Don't make me follow you around.
-
More people not trusting The Process. ?
More people not trusting The Process. ?
a/k/a... Dutch's Disciples...
"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 -
Jordan Elliott’s 91.4 PFF pass-rush grade since 2017 ranked 1st among NFL Draft DTs
Delpit forced incompletions at a higher rate than any other top safety in the NFL Draft.
Jacob Phillips was the best tackler in college football last year.
And of course Wills is arguably the best OT to come out this year.
Looks like our FO is laser-focused on certain qualities at each position and goes from there.
Jordan Elliott’s 91.4 PFF pass-rush grade since 2017 ranked 1st among NFL Draft DTs
Delpit forced incompletions at a higher rate than any other top safety in the NFL Draft.
Jacob Phillips was the best tackler in college football last year.
(based on what?)
And of course Wills is arguably the best OT to come out this year.
arguably...but again, based on what?
Looks like our FO is laser-focused on certain qualities at each position and goes from there.
Well, again, they have done stat based drafting before....and we would up with either busts or journeymen (Nassib).
Here, it looks like maybe they combined stat based with instinct based drafting (incorporating some of the Dorsey style?)
Hopefully it works out.
-
Jordan Elliott’s 91.4 PFF pass-rush grade since 2017 ranked 1st among NFL Draft DTs
Delpit forced incompletions at a higher rate than any other top safety in the NFL Draft.
Jacob Phillips was the best tackler in college football last year.
And of course Wills is arguably the best OT to come out this year.
Looks like our FO is laser-focused on certain qualities at each position and goes from there.
The issue is creating a certain "tunnel vision" based on a lone metric for a position.
Deshone Kizer had the highest QB rating off of play action throws I believe in the entire NCAA for the 2016 season? PFF highlighted this and Sashi at the time laser focused on that particular metric while ignoring most everything else. Including the fact that, when he was throwing from a straight drop, the kid was an absolute wildcard and displayed as much at Notre Dame. (Pretty sure I have a link on this board around that time which I highlighted that very thing)
PFF also doesn't quantify "how" a pressure is calculated. One of my biggest knocks on Kinlaw coming out this year was his "shock and awe" style tactics. Once an Oline adjusted to the shock, there was no more awe. This also coincided with him ended up on the ground further and further along a game went - See: vs North Carolina. If a big body just launches himself into a blocker with no regard for assignment, technique and control yet still gets the pressure, I don't necessarily count that as a "win". Because what you've done is expose your limited skill set in regards to functioning within the structure of the defense itself. I think that's another reason why Kinlaw became such a fast riser with senior bowl practices. Sure he dominated simple 1 on 1 drills, but that dominance didn't always translate or show up during the course of the 2019 season itself when you have to play your assignment as your coaches intend.
The issue is creating a certain "tunnel vision" based on a lone metric for a position.
Deshone Kizer had the highest QB rating off of play action throws I believe in the entire NCAA for the 2016 season? PFF highlighted this and Sashi at the time laser focused on that particular metric while ignoring most everything else. Including the fact that, when he was throwing from a straight drop, the kid was an absolute wildcard and displayed as much at Notre Dame. (Pretty sure I have a link on this board around that time which I highlighted that very thing)
PFF also doesn't quantify "how" a pressure is calculated. One of my biggest knocks on Kinlaw coming out this year was his "shock and awe" style tactics. Once an Oline adjusted to the shock, there was no more awe. This also coincided with him ended up on the ground further and further along a game went - See: vs North Carolina. If a big body just launches himself into a blocker with no regard for assignment, technique and control yet still gets the pressure, I don't necessarily count that as a "win". Because what you've done is expose your limited skill set in regards to functioning within the structure of the defense itself. I think that's another reason why Kinlaw became such a fast riser with senior bowl practices. Sure he dominated simple 1 on 1 drills, but that dominance didn't always translate or show up during the course of the 2019 season itself when you have to play your assignment as your coaches intend.
Great answer. Yes, there is always the question of whether one finds 'hidden value' in focusing on one metric or whether they do so at their own peril, as you suggest. I can't help but compare DePodesta's approach with what he did in baseball.
He was a big proponent of using on-base percentage (OBP) as a key metric in determining success, and it works. But unlike football, OBP is much easier statistic to work with than anything in football, as it's binary- you either get on base or you don't. For example, it almost doesn't matter if a batter can hit a curve ball or not, or whether he is strong with inside pitches and weak with outside ones, etc. Because the bottom line is how many times is he able to reach base. (Yes, it's possible to improve an OBP if you improve his ability to hit a curve ball but you are now getting further away from the key metric).
In football there are a lot more factors, as you suggest, Kizer being a great example. If you were to simplify it into one sentence for a player you could ask, for example, "Is Phillips' tackling percentage related to his being able to diagnose plays quickly, or is it the 'D'Quell' factor?" or "Does Delpit's coverage skills make up for his lack of tackling ability (and if its correctable)?" In other words do their strengths mask, or outweigh, their weaknesses? At that point you then think about scheme and what your demands will be with him, etc.
So returning back to the Brown's FO, we see their devotion to certain metrics. It's worth noting that PFF's top players in recent drafts have fared no better than other prognosticators' picks, however (at least that's what I read on here). What will be interesting to see this coming year is how successful the FO is in integrating the other factors into a player's evaluation and seeing the results.
-
More people not trusting The Process. ?
a/k/a... Dutch's Disciples...
GO BUCKEYES, BROWNS, INDIANS, CAVS, YSU, NAVY and yes I like ND! -
The issue is creating a certain "tunnel vision" based on a lone metric for a position.
Deshone Kizer had the highest QB rating off of play action throws I believe in the entire NCAA for the 2016 season? PFF highlighted this and Sashi at the time laser focused on that particular metric while ignoring most everything else. Including the fact that, when he was throwing from a straight drop, the kid was an absolute wildcard and displayed as much at Notre Dame. (Pretty sure I have a link on this board around that time which I highlighted that very thing)
PFF also doesn't quantify "how" a pressure is calculated. One of my biggest knocks on Kinlaw coming out this year was his "shock and awe" style tactics. Once an Oline adjusted to the shock, there was no more awe. This also coincided with him ended up on the ground further and further along a game went - See: vs North Carolina. If a big body just launches himself into a blocker with no regard for assignment, technique and control yet still gets the pressure, I don't necessarily count that as a "win". Because what you've done is expose your limited skill set in regards to functioning within the structure of the defense itself. I think that's another reason why Kinlaw became such a fast riser with senior bowl practices. Sure he dominated simple 1 on 1 drills, but that dominance didn't always translate or show up during the course of the 2019 season itself when you have to play your assignment as your coaches intend.
Great answer. Yes, there is always the question of whether one finds 'hidden value' in focusing on one metric or whether they do so at their own peril, as you suggest. I can't help but compare DePodesta's approach with what he did in baseball.
He was a big proponent of using on-base percentage (OBP) as a key metric in determining success, and it works. But unlike football, OBP is much easier statistic to work with than anything in football, as it's binary- you either get on base or you don't. For example, it almost doesn't matter if a batter can hit a curve ball or not, or whether he is strong with inside pitches and weak with outside ones, etc. Because the bottom line is how many times is he able to reach base. (Yes, it's possible to improve an OBP if you improve his ability to hit a curve ball but you are now getting further away from the key metric).
In football there are a lot more factors, as you suggest, Kizer being a great example. If you were to simplify it into one sentence for a player you could ask, for example, "Is Phillips' tackling percentage related to his being able to diagnose plays quickly, or is it the 'D'Quell' factor?" or "Does Delpit's coverage skills make up for his lack of tackling ability (and if its correctable)?" In other words do their strengths mask, or outweigh, their weaknesses? At that point you then think about scheme and what your demands will be with him, etc.
So returning back to the Brown's FO, we see their devotion to certain metrics. It's worth noting that PFF's top players in recent drafts have fared no better than other prognosticators' picks, however (at least that's what I read on here). What will be interesting to see this coming year is how successful the FO is in integrating the other factors into a player's evaluation and seeing the results.
So returning back to the Brown's FO, we see their devotion to certain metrics. It's worth noting that PFF's top players in recent drafts have fared no better than other prognosticators' picks, however (at least that's what I read on here). What will be interesting to see this coming year is how successful the FO is in integrating the other factors into a player's evaluation and seeing the results.
This is where it's important to reconcile stats and metrics with film. Does what I see on tape support the conclusion of the letter/number grade? Also, how can I commit to a process of continuous self-examination of my methods in reaching the grades that are assigned?
This is where I break with such 3rd party sites as PFF at times. Their proprietary model strikes me as their God with final results not subject to question. When the Browns took Corey Coleman, that was PFF's #1 ranked receiver. I watched 2 hours of him and came back to laugh at the pick. I don't make 6 figures to evaluate prospects, but it was pretty stunning how hard I broke with their assessment of our top 2 players that year - Coleman and Ogbah.
It isn't a science by any means. But there are things that cannot be quantified by numbers that still mean a great deal often revealed with "traditional" scouting - route mastery, footwork, hand usage/placement, striking ability on blockers, etc etc. I'm only now seeing the analytic crowd and the "football player" crowd begin to make peace with each other and finally realize that these two systems can exist in harmony as a vehicle to delivery quality prospects. To the extent such a combination holds within the Browns FO though? I'm not sure.
-
So returning back to the Brown's FO, we see their devotion to certain metrics. It's worth noting that PFF's top players in recent drafts have fared no better than other prognosticators' picks, however (at least that's what I read on here). What will be interesting to see this coming year is how successful the FO is in integrating the other factors into a player's evaluation and seeing the results.
This is where it's important to reconcile stats and metrics with film. Does what I see on tape support the conclusion of the letter/number grade? Also, how can I commit to a process of continuous self-examination of my methods in reaching the grades that are assigned?
This is where I break with such 3rd party sites as PFF at times. Their proprietary model strikes me as their God with final results not subject to question. When the Browns took Corey Coleman, that was PFF's #1 ranked receiver. I watched 2 hours of him and came back to laugh at the pick. I don't make 6 figures to evaluate prospects, but it was pretty stunning how hard I broke with their assessment of our top 2 players that year - Coleman and Ogbah.
It isn't a science by any means. But there are things that cannot be quantified by numbers that still mean a great deal often revealed with "traditional" scouting - route mastery, footwork, hand usage/placement, striking ability on blockers, etc etc. I'm only now seeing the analytic crowd and the "football player" crowd begin to make peace with each other and finally realize that these two systems can exist in harmony as a vehicle to delivery quality prospects. To the extent such a combination holds within the Browns FO though? I'm not sure.
This is where it's important to reconcile stats and metrics with film. Does what I see on tape support the conclusion of the letter/number grade? Also, how can I commit to a process of continuous self-examination of my methods in reaching the grades that are assigned?
This is where I break with such 3rd party sites as PFF at times. Their proprietary model strikes me as their God with final results not subject to question. When the Browns took Corey Coleman, that was PFF's #1 ranked receiver. I watched 2 hours of him and came back to laugh at the pick. I don't make 6 figures to evaluate prospects, but it was pretty stunning how hard I broke with their assessment of our top 2 players that year - Coleman and Ogbah.
It isn't a science by any means. But there are things that cannot be quantified by numbers that still mean a great deal often revealed with "traditional" scouting - route mastery, footwork, hand usage/placement, striking ability on blockers, etc etc. I'm only now seeing the analytic crowd and the "football player" crowd begin to make peace with each other and finally realize that these two systems can exist in harmony as a vehicle to delivery quality prospects. To the extent such a combination holds within the Browns FO though? I'm not sure.
Stats, stats, stats might get you drafted at a certain spot it's the pure guts and getting hit in the mouth that make the team along with football IQ and splendid coaching, specialized weight training and diet, etc, etc, etc.
I believe in the numbers -but- trust the FO's final judgement......I just hope that they know what they're doing.
Easy, huh ?
GO BUCKEYES, BROWNS, INDIANS, CAVS, YSU, NAVY and yes I like ND! -
So returning back to the Brown's FO, we see their devotion to certain metrics. It's worth noting that PFF's top players in recent drafts have fared no better than other prognosticators' picks, however (at least that's what I read on here). What will be interesting to see this coming year is how successful the FO is in integrating the other factors into a player's evaluation and seeing the results.
This is where it's important to reconcile stats and metrics with film. Does what I see on tape support the conclusion of the letter/number grade? Also, how can I commit to a process of continuous self-examination of my methods in reaching the grades that are assigned?
This is where I break with such 3rd party sites as PFF at times. Their proprietary model strikes me as their God with final results not subject to question. When the Browns took Corey Coleman, that was PFF's #1 ranked receiver. I watched 2 hours of him and came back to laugh at the pick. I don't make 6 figures to evaluate prospects, but it was pretty stunning how hard I broke with their assessment of our top 2 players that year - Coleman and Ogbah.
It isn't a science by any means. But there are things that cannot be quantified by numbers that still mean a great deal often revealed with "traditional" scouting - route mastery, footwork, hand usage/placement, striking ability on blockers, etc etc. I'm only now seeing the analytic crowd and the "football player" crowd begin to make peace with each other and finally realize that these two systems can exist in harmony as a vehicle to delivery quality prospects. To the extent such a combination holds within the Browns FO though? I'm not sure.
This is where it's important to reconcile stats and metrics with film. Does what I see on tape support the conclusion of the letter/number grade? Also, how can I commit to a process of continuous self-examination of my methods in reaching the grades that are assigned?
This is where I break with such 3rd party sites as PFF at times. Their proprietary model strikes me as their God with final results not subject to question. When the Browns took Corey Coleman, that was PFF's #1 ranked receiver. I watched 2 hours of him and came back to laugh at the pick. I don't make 6 figures to evaluate prospects, but it was pretty stunning how hard I broke with their assessment of our top 2 players that year - Coleman and Ogbah.
It isn't a science by any means. But there are things that cannot be quantified by numbers that still mean a great deal often revealed with "traditional" scouting - route mastery, footwork, hand usage/placement, striking ability on blockers, etc etc. I'm only now seeing the analytic crowd and the "football player" crowd begin to make peace with each other and finally realize that these two systems can exist in harmony as a vehicle to delivery quality prospects. To the extent such a combination holds within the Browns FO though? I'm not sure.
Two points from the above: It's too bad that the marriage of analytic evaluation and the 'football player' is personality-driven, and that there isn't really a way to make it structural (with Dorsey being the proof). That's why it is so important that once you get a successful FO team you do everything you can to keep it together. Best way is for the FO to keep bringing in guys they like and promoting them once they prove themselves.
Second, a little off-the-point but I was reading a book about U.S. diplomacy and the author pointed out that, strangely, the U.S. diplomatic corps does not have a mechanism where they self-evaluate and analyze their mistakes in negotiations with other countries. At least in a formalized way. It's a bit unbelievable if you think about it.
It sounds like PFF (and probably many football operations) might suffer from the same failure. Do they go back and ask why did we grade a guy this way and where did we fail to see his upside (or downside)? I would think that that would help them a lot, and it would certainly be an interesting article if they were to publicize it, though it may be giving away too many corporate secrets.
-
This is where it's important to reconcile stats and metrics with film. Does what I see on tape support the conclusion of the letter/number grade? Also, how can I commit to a process of continuous self-examination of my methods in reaching the grades that are assigned?
This is where I break with such 3rd party sites as PFF at times. Their proprietary model strikes me as their God with final results not subject to question. When the Browns took Corey Coleman, that was PFF's #1 ranked receiver. I watched 2 hours of him and came back to laugh at the pick. I don't make 6 figures to evaluate prospects, but it was pretty stunning how hard I broke with their assessment of our top 2 players that year - Coleman and Ogbah.
It isn't a science by any means. But there are things that cannot be quantified by numbers that still mean a great deal often revealed with "traditional" scouting - route mastery, footwork, hand usage/placement, striking ability on blockers, etc etc. I'm only now seeing the analytic crowd and the "football player" crowd begin to make peace with each other and finally realize that these two systems can exist in harmony as a vehicle to delivery quality prospects. To the extent such a combination holds within the Browns FO though? I'm not sure.
Two points from the above: It's too bad that the marriage of analytic evaluation and the 'football player' is personality-driven, and that there isn't really a way to make it structural (with Dorsey being the proof). That's why it is so important that once you get a successful FO team you do everything you can to keep it together. Best way is for the FO to keep bringing in guys they like and promoting them once they prove themselves.
Second, a little off-the-point but I was reading a book about U.S. diplomacy and the author pointed out that, strangely, the U.S. diplomatic corps does not have a mechanism where they self-evaluate and analyze their mistakes in negotiations with other countries. At least in a formalized way. It's a bit unbelievable if you think about it.
It sounds like PFF (and probably many football operations) might suffer from the same failure. Do they go back and ask why did we grade a guy this way and where did we fail to see his upside (or downside)? I would think that that would help them a lot, and it would certainly be an interesting article if they were to publicize it, though it may be giving away too many corporate secrets.
Two points from the above: It's too bad that the marriage of analytic evaluation and the 'football player' is personality-driven, and that there isn't really a way to make it structural (with Dorsey being the proof). That's why it is so important that once you get a successful FO team you do everything you can to keep it together. Best way is for the FO to keep bringing in guys they like and promoting them once they prove themselves.
Second, a little off-the-point but I was reading a book about U.S. diplomacy and the author pointed out that, strangely, the U.S. diplomatic corps does not have a mechanism where they self-evaluate and analyze their mistakes in negotiations with other countries. At least in a formalized way. It's a bit unbelievable if you think about it.
It sounds like PFF (and probably many football operations) might suffer from the same failure. Do they go back and ask why did we grade a guy this way and where did we fail to see his upside (or downside)? I would think that that would help them a lot, and it would certainly be an interesting article if they were to publicize it, though it may be giving away too many corporate secrets.
I think it's a combination of personality AND results driven. If the analytics approach yielded overwhelmingly better results, then you'd be more inclined to lean that way. But like I pointed out with Corey Coleman, sometimes they get it WAY wrong. And that wrong pick generally ends up being pretty obvious pretty damn fast. And the success or failures at the highest level of picks are the most visible and generally going to be where people tend to formulate their opinion on the effectiveness of a given approach.
PFF, Foreign Diplomacy, self-analysis. As humans we conditioned to not look inward first for solutions.
-
This is where it's important to reconcile stats and metrics with film. Does what I see on tape support the conclusion of the letter/number grade? Also, how can I commit to a process of continuous self-examination of my methods in reaching the grades that are assigned?
This is where I break with such 3rd party sites as PFF at times. Their proprietary model strikes me as their God with final results not subject to question. When the Browns took Corey Coleman, that was PFF's #1 ranked receiver. I watched 2 hours of him and came back to laugh at the pick. I don't make 6 figures to evaluate prospects, but it was pretty stunning how hard I broke with their assessment of our top 2 players that year - Coleman and Ogbah.
It isn't a science by any means. But there are things that cannot be quantified by numbers that still mean a great deal often revealed with "traditional" scouting - route mastery, footwork, hand usage/placement, striking ability on blockers, etc etc. I'm only now seeing the analytic crowd and the "football player" crowd begin to make peace with each other and finally realize that these two systems can exist in harmony as a vehicle to delivery quality prospects. To the extent such a combination holds within the Browns FO though? I'm not sure.
Stats, stats, stats might get you drafted at a certain spot it's the pure guts and getting hit in the mouth that make the team along with football IQ and splendid coaching, specialized weight training and diet, etc, etc, etc.
I believe in the numbers -but- trust the FO's final judgement......I just hope that they know what they're doing.
Easy, huh ?
Stats, stats, stats might get you drafted at a certain spot it's the pure guts and getting hit in the mouth that make the team along with football IQ and splendid coaching, specialized weight training and diet, etc, etc, etc.
I believe in the numbers -but- trust the FO's final judgement......I just hope that they know what they're doing.
Easy, huh ?
Yep. With all the analysis, gut feelings, film, etc involved you'd think that people would have a good handle on it. Yet we consider someone very successful if they have a 50% hit rate. Not the kind of stats I'd want when getting on a plane.
-
Stats, stats, stats might get you drafted at a certain spot it's the pure guts and getting hit in the mouth that make the team along with football IQ and splendid coaching, specialized weight training and diet, etc, etc, etc.
I believe in the numbers -but- trust the FO's final judgement......I just hope that they know what they're doing.
Easy, huh ?
Yep. With all the analysis, gut feelings, film, etc involved you'd think that people would have a good handle on it. Yet we consider someone very successful if they have a 50% hit rate. Not the kind of stats I'd want when getting on a plane.
Yep. With all the analysis, gut feelings, film, etc involved you'd think that people would have a good handle on it. Yet we consider someone very successful if they have a 50% hit rate. Not the kind of stats I'd want when getting on a plane.
........"Good morning fliers this is your pilot, we have a 73% chance of a successful landing today, ahhh maybe 64%. See you later I hope."......
Yes stats and spreadsheets have their place but they are just tools. Hopefully yours are better than your opponents in sports.
-
We can talk stats all day, presume that all the analytics tell a story. Don't mean nothing. It's all about their motivation once they get to camp, what attitude they bring day in and day out to make the team. When and if they do, do they become complacent or are they that hungry ass dog that everyone thought they were when the Browns drafted them. I'll wait till the season starts to draw an opinion.
-
- includes important discussion of "analytics" role.Must-Read on Browns recent history
Much of the commentary on this thread can be updated with the above two links.. please go to them because they're.. reality.
-
More people not trusting The Process. ?
a/k/a... Dutch's Disciples...
-
Sounds like a gay motorcycle club......scary !
Scary how? Scared you might secretly be attracted to said motorcycle club?
You boomers are adorable.
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