@the-gipper said:

And I believe at the same time that Elway was running an Arena League team....Bernie Kosar was doing the same.

On October 16, 2007, it was announced in a press conference that the Gladiators would be relocating to Cleveland, Ohio. This would be the second arena football team to play be in the Cleveland area; the Cleveland Thunderbolts played at the Richfield Coliseum in Richfield, Ohio for three seasons from 1992–1994. Former Cleveland Browns Quarterback Bernie Kosar was announced as the public face of the team, as well as the President of Football Operations and minority owner. The Gladiators would play their home games at Quicken Loans Arena, the home of the NBA's Cleveland Cavaliers and the AHL's Lake Erie Monsters.^[6] The team also moved back to the Eastern Division of the National Conference for the first time since 2003. The team would still be known as the Gladiators and continue to retain the team colors of red, silver, and black.^[7]

^{So...in reality, Bernie may have more experience at running a football team than Peyton does.}

He absolutely does. 

@londonbrown said:

Elway had six years learning the craft at Colorado Crush. Wasn’t Ozzie on the staff at the Browns before becoming a GM?

Browns fans that want Manning here is because he’s a big name nothing more. 

And I believe at the same time that Elway was running an Arena League team....Bernie Kosar was doing the same.

On October 16, 2007, it was announced in a press conference that the Gladiators would be relocating to Cleveland, Ohio. This would be the second arena football team to play be in the Cleveland area; the Cleveland Thunderbolts played at the Richfield Coliseum in Richfield, Ohio for three seasons from 1992–1994. Former Cleveland Browns Quarterback Bernie Kosar was announced as the public face of the team, as well as the President of Football Operations and minority owner. The Gladiators would play their home games at Quicken Loans Arena, the home of the NBA's Cleveland Cavaliers and the AHL's Lake Erie Monsters.^[6] The team also moved back to the Eastern Division of the National Conference for the first time since 2003. The team would still be known as the Gladiators and continue to retain the team colors of red, silver, and black.^[7]

^{So...in reality, Bernie may have more experience at running a football team than Peyton does.}

Browns fans that want Manning here is because he’s a big name nothing more. 

The answer is 8.

@nero said:

Those 3 individuals represent a 9,375% of the NFL general managers. I understand that you don't like having ''Harvard guys'' as executives for our team, because that's not something that any other NFL team has, so we are doing something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to the rest of the league, trust me, I get it. When you deviate from everyone's approach and don't show some results, like our current situation, it makes sense that the approach is wrong...

BUT statistically, the football guy solution is not good either, or at least not common to be a solution for success. 

Of course it only works once a year for one team.  But it's also been very competitive. Like us? 

 Maybe if you read up on Pilot Flying J and the way it was run will give you better insight. Our owner hires nothing but shysters and thieves to run his truck stops. Yet he only will hire the best for us....ya right...lol

@flyingfooldoug said:

First year, Lynch landed a possible franchise QB and has as many wins his first year as stoshtheberrypudpuller has in 22 months. Good start. 

So those 3 individuals have 3 rings between them since 2000. Browns as a team have how many?  

Yep, some teams have competent management groups that know what and who it takes to win. Then we have our team.

Those 3 individuals represent a 9,375% of the NFL general managers. I understand that you don't like having ''Harvard guys'' as executives for our team, because that's not something that any other NFL team has, so we are doing something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to the rest of the league, trust me, I get it. When you deviate from everyone's approach and don't show some results, like our current situation, it makes sense that the approach is wrong...

BUT statistically, the football guy solution is not good either, or at least not common to be a solution for success. 

@nero said:

As a player, Elway has 2 rings, and Lynch 1. Ozzie has won it as an executive, and participated in 3 Pro Bowls as a player. I don't know if you were talking ironically about the Superbowls or not. 

We still don't know how good of a manager Lynch is. But if he's a good one, let's say we have 3 GOOD PLAYERS being good GMs in the current NFL. 

It is 3 out of 32. 9,375%. That's Tour's point. Are going to take the risk and take one for the Browns, when the odds are against us? Being a good player doesn't automatically make you a good executive. 

First year, Lynch landed a possible franchise QB and has as many wins his first year as stoshtheberrypudpuller has in 22 months. Good start. 

So those 3 individuals have 3 rings between them since 2000. Browns as a team have how many?  

Yep, some teams have competent management groups that know what and who it takes to win. Then we have our team.

@flyingfooldoug said:

Looks like a pretty good list. Ya, zero playmakers and Superbowls amongst them, ....just like the Browns?..thank you for helping me make my point. I'd take any of them in a heartbeat

As a player, Elway has 2 rings, and Lynch 1. Ozzie has won it as an executive, and participated in 3 Pro Bowls as a player. I don't know if you were talking ironically about the Superbowls or not. 

We still don't know how good of a manager Lynch is. But if he's a good one, let's say we have 3 GOOD PLAYERS being good GMs in the current NFL. 

It is 3 out of 32. 9,375%. That's Tour's point. Are going to take the risk and take one for the Browns, when the odds are against us? Being a good player doesn't automatically make you a good executive. 

@tour2ma said:

Nevermind...

How many "great players" are currently GMs?

Ozzie... Elway... Lynch (maybe)...

How many are steering great teams currently?

Looks like a pretty good list. Ya, zero playmakers and Superbowls amongst them, ....just like the Browns?..thank you for helping me make my point. I'd take any of them in a heartbeat

@browns149 said:

Analytics has not worked so far.  And no matter how many decent to good players you have, when you don’t draft a franchise Qb when he is sitting right in front of you, you should be fired

Nevermind...

@flyingfooldoug said:

The key to finding great football players seems fairly easy to me. It takes one to know one.

 Hire BK as GM. End the BS now!

How many "great players" are currently GMs?

Ozzie... Elway... Lynch (maybe)...

How many are steering great teams currently?

@wargograw said:

No, I think where we're headed is superior to winning 4 games a year.

winning 5-6 games a year in 2019?

@flyingfooldoug said:

More bs and lies for the fan base. To say 60% of browns fans were happy with 3-13 is nothing but a bald faced lie

It's a joke. 

@diehardbrownsfan said:

And you think 0-10 is awesome.

No, I think where we're headed is superior to winning 4 games a year.

@wargograw said:

60% think 3-13 was just awesome!

And you think 0-10 is awesome.

" The analytics showed that this was a good pick" so don't fire me.

Horse-schidt.............TOTAL USELESS HORSE SCHIDT

Proof? Nobody spends more on analytics than the Browns.

HORSE SCHIDT invented by people who don't know WTF they are talking about.

@wargograw said:

60% think 3-13 was just awesome!

More bs and lies for the fan base. To say 60% of browns fans were happy with 3-13 is nothing but a bald faced lie

@wargograw said:

60% think 3-13 was just awesome!

Where and when?

37% think that Modell moving to Bloitmore was the lowest point in team history.

1% think we can go lower.

62% feel this is the lowest it can possibly get.

Consistent double digit loss seasons. 12 out of 13

Pettine and Hoyer gave us the best year we had in 13 years. 7 wins. It'll take these bozos 8 years to get 7 wins.

All the other Superbowl winning teams did it without relying exclusively on analprobing...er, ytics. You remember? GM hires a coach then provides him with a roster. They don't use the clusterscrew method that Jimmah seems so enamored with.

 Hire BK as GM. End the BS now!

@londonbrown said:

Well it’s nowhere near 500mb so that’s my technology knowledge exposed. Should be attached. 

2017 nfl draft guide giveaway copy.pdf

How about synthesizing down to about 2 paragraphs for us.

@tacosman said:

but the question is WHAT is the analytical key to unearthing these A guys in the nfl paid as C guys?  We knew what it was in baseball.  Do we know what it is in football?  Does anyone?  Certain organizations obviously seem better at it than others....

Also in basketball team with LBJ and Steph would have championship potential right there.  That is the whole fundamental nature of the nba right now- you win with great 12+ win over average players like LBJ and steph.....get two like that on any one team and it's all downhill from there.

No idea what the key is... and agree with above comment that "it" may be a combination of many factors. When you add that in football those factors change with every position... that there's no commonality across our game that exists as it does with batting in Baseball... and that is the complexity that is football.

But the safe bet is that DePo and Co., as are the analytic arms of some other organizations, are a lot closer to knowing than we are. Amy have even nailed a few of the "simpler" positions, e.g., OL. Positions where even the eyes of rank amateurs like myself can rack up a reasonably good track record.

@tacosman said:

In the nba scenario, the 'process' part of the equation is the understanding that unlike in the nfl or mlb you don't win titles by accumulating lots of 'good' players....rather you win titles by getting a true alpha player who changes everything....more than one if possible.  Basketball is using a ton of analytics in terms of trying to find out offensive strategies(hence the rise of the corner three), but the team building aspect is separate from this

All true, but the NBA formula is a moving target. Not long ago a single "Jordan" or "Bird" plus role players added up to a sustainable winning formula.

Then it became a two-player formula, e.g., Shaq plus Colby... or Colby plus Shaq depending on which you talked to, Magic+Karrem. Nothing really new as two greats have combined throughout NBA history and won, e.g, Alcindor+The Big O, Wilt+West.

Then it was three... LBJ+Wade+Bosh or LBJ+Kyrie+Love...

Then the Warriors blew off the lid off of Curry+Green+Thompson by adding Durrant... and now everyone is scrambling... Cavs, Celtics, Thunder... in a five-man game, not our 25+ game.

Oooooh analytics! New term, old BS. Numerology is for losers. 

@tacosman said:

of course not.  But Im not sure in the nfl we are on to the same key aspects of things as mlb and the nba is.  It's possible that different organizations which are thought to be analytics heavy are coming at things from very different ways for example.  

You can be an organization hell bent on being analytical, and then just doing it all wrong.  

Since most organization employ their own Data Analysts, then they are all coming at it in different ways.  They have to sell themselves to the owners as having a keener insight into the data than everyone else.  Moving this evaluation to a machine would alleviate that and negate the need for these Analysts.

I did edit my original answer to include a difference in the NFL than either MLB or the NBA.  Players in the NFL don't play both offense and defense, therefore their contribution to the team's ability to score or prevent scoring can't be evaluated the same.  Thus, too, the rise of the never ending debate over which is more important in the NFL... scoring or preventing the other team from scoring.