Go Big Or Go Home?
-
Andrew Berry had a better day 3 in 2020 than any GM we've had since.. I got frustrated looking at day3's back through 2009 [Kaluka Maiava, Don Carey, Coye Francis, James Davis] - let's stop there.
The 2020 picks didn't just make the roster, they're big parts of the team's future. Bryant and DPJ get solid rep counts; Harris was C backup last year and will likely start in 2022.
-
Andrew Berry had a better day 3 in 2020 than any GM we've had since.. I got frustrated looking at day3's back through 2009 [Kaluka Maiava, Don Carey, Coye Francis, James Davis] - let's stop there.
The 2020 picks didn't just make the roster, they're big parts of the team's future. Bryant and DPJ get solid rep counts; Harris was C backup last year and will likely start in 2022.
Andrew Berry had a better day 3 in 2020 than any GM we've had since.. I got frustrated looking at day3's back through 2009, let's stop there.
All the picks didn't just make the roster, they're big parts of the team moving forward. Bryant and DPJ get solid rep counts; Harris spot-started last year and is likely our starting C in 2022.
Eh, we'll see how those and the 2020 Browns draft in general looks in a few years.
-
Agreed, I thought day 2 was uninspiring last year.
The point, though, is the extraordinarily cheap contracts that those day3 2020 picks are on through the end of the 2023 season. We're getting low-end-starter performance for under 1M per.. THAT is how you have the cap space to maintain a championship roster & resign players we draft in rd1. Most day3 draft picks are wasted.. but when they hit, they're genius.
-
Agreed, I thought day 2 was uninspiring last year.
The point, though, is the extraordinarily cheap contracts that those day3 2020 picks are on through the end of the 2023 season. We're getting low-end-starter performance for under 1M per.. THAT is how you have the cap space to maintain a championship roster & resign players we draft in rd1. Most day3 draft picks are wasted.. but when they hit, they're genius.
The point, though, is the extraordinarily cheap contracts that those day3 2020 picks are on through the end of the 2023 season.
Dutch hates analytics...
People often hate that which they do not understand.
Agree on Berry, but don't forget DePo is still around.
-
You would need 1000 extra points to move from 26 to 4 or 6 (hello Chicago). More than we have for our entire draft.
Cleveland traded the No. 6 overall pick to Atlanta for five draft picks (its first-, second-, and fourth-round picks in 2011, plus its first- and fourth-round picks in 2012).
Atlanta owned the 27th pick In the first round in 2011.
This would be the kind of deal that you would expect IF you moved into the 6-8 range. Did we get ripped off in 2011...perhaps?
Big Trade up...slight trade up...stay put....slide back. Could be interesting Thursday
Cleveland traded the No. 6 overall pick to Atlanta for five draft picks (its first-, second-, and fourth-round picks in 2011, plus its first- and fourth-round picks in 2012).
Atlanta owned the 27th pick In the first round in 2011.
This would be the kind of deal that you would expect IF you moved into the 6-8 range. Did we get ripped off in 2011...perhaps?
Not by the standard chart of the time...
At the time Heckert was our GM and analytics had yet to come to town... so by the established chart of the day, the Jimmy Johnson chart. The rule of thumb is that future year picks are devalued by one round per year.
- We gave up 342.4.
- ATL paid 214.7+135.1+79.4+135.1+61.1 = 595.4. So we killed it... or so we thought.
However, by the Harvard Chart
- We gave up a pick worth 1600.
- So ATL gave up... 680+310+49+310+30 = 1379 assuming they finished 2012 in the same position... which they did not. They actually finished higher in 2012 and earned us the 29th pick.
So yeah... by today's standard we did not get full value for our 6th, but either way Chuckles Heckert blew the draft anyway.
Here's the old JJ chart... it has decimal points, so it must be more precise...
"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 -
Cleveland traded the No. 6 overall pick to Atlanta for five draft picks (its first-, second-, and fourth-round picks in 2011, plus its first- and fourth-round picks in 2012).
Atlanta owned the 27th pick In the first round in 2011.
This would be the kind of deal that you would expect IF you moved into the 6-8 range. Did we get ripped off in 2011...perhaps?
Not by the standard chart of the time...
At the time Heckert was our GM and analytics had yet to come to town... so by the established chart of the day, the Jimmy Johnson chart. The rule of thumb is that future year picks are devalued by one round per year.
- We gave up 342.4.
- ATL paid 214.7+135.1+79.4+135.1+61.1 = 595.4. So we killed it... or so we thought.
However, by the Harvard Chart
- We gave up a pick worth 1600.
- So ATL gave up... 680+310+49+310+30 = 1379 assuming they finished 2012 in the same position... which they did not. They actually finished higher in 2012 and earned us the 29th pick.
So yeah... by today's standard we did not get full value for our 6th, but either way Chuckles Heckert blew the draft anyway.
Here's the old JJ chart... it has decimal points, so it must be more precise...
Not by the standard chart of the time...
At the time Heckert was our GM and analytics had yet to come to town... so by the established chart of the day, the Jimmy Johnson chart. The rule of thumb is that future year picks are devalued by one round per year.
- We gave up 342.4.
- ATL paid 214.7+135.1+79.4+135.1+61.1 = 595.4. So we killed it... or so we thought.
However, by the Harvard Chart
- We gave up a pick worth 1600.
- So ATL gave up... 680+310+49+310+30 = 1379 assuming they finished 2012 in the same position... which they did not. They actually finished higher in 2012 and earned us the 29th pick.
So yeah... by today's standard we did not get full value for our 6th, but either way Chuckles Heckert blew the draft anyway.
Here's the old JJ chart... it has decimal points, so it must be more precise...
Another post a day late and a dollar short.
-
Cleveland traded the No. 6 overall pick to Atlanta for five draft picks (its first-, second-, and fourth-round picks in 2011, plus its first- and fourth-round picks in 2012).
Atlanta owned the 27th pick In the first round in 2011.
This would be the kind of deal that you would expect IF you moved into the 6-8 range. Did we get ripped off in 2011...perhaps?
Not by the standard chart of the time...
At the time Heckert was our GM and analytics had yet to come to town... so by the established chart of the day, the Jimmy Johnson chart. The rule of thumb is that future year picks are devalued by one round per year.
- We gave up 342.4.
- ATL paid 214.7+135.1+79.4+135.1+61.1 = 595.4. So we killed it... or so we thought.
However, by the Harvard Chart
- We gave up a pick worth 1600.
- So ATL gave up... 680+310+49+310+30 = 1379 assuming they finished 2012 in the same position... which they did not. They actually finished higher in 2012 and earned us the 29th pick.
So yeah... by today's standard we did not get full value for our 6th, but either way Chuckles Heckert blew the draft anyway.
Here's the old JJ chart... it has decimal points, so it must be more precise...
Not by the standard chart of the time...
At the time Heckert was our GM and analytics had yet to come to town... so by the established chart of the day, the Jimmy Johnson chart. The rule of thumb is that future year picks are devalued by one round per year.
- We gave up 342.4.
- ATL paid 214.7+135.1+79.4+135.1+61.1 = 595.4. So we killed it... or so we thought.
However, by the Harvard Chart
- We gave up a pick worth 1600.
- So ATL gave up... 680+310+49+310+30 = 1379 assuming they finished 2012 in the same position... which they did not. They actually finished higher in 2012 and earned us the 29th pick.
So yeah... by today's standard we did not get full value for our 6th, but either way Chuckles Heckert blew the draft anyway.
Here's the old JJ chart... it has decimal points, so it must be more precise...
The chart is reference point...and demand can drive it favorably or unfavorably in either direction. I think the chart could be favorable with a trade up in the first round if you have a run on QBs with the first four picks and four are off the board at pick 5 or 6.
-
Of Note: King has the Browns trading up to No. 21 (Colts) to make this selection. To do so, the Browns would have to part with one of their two third-round picks.
-------- Pick 20 or 21 is about as far as I thought that we might move up.....if we saw a guy that we loved tumbling towards us.
-
Of Note: King has the Browns trading up to No. 21 (Colts) to make this selection. To do so, the Browns would have to part with one of their two third-round picks.
-------- Pick 20 or 21 is about as far as I thought that we might move up.....if we saw a guy that we loved tumbling towards us.
Of Note: King has the Browns trading up to No. 21 (Colts) to make this selection. To do so, the Browns would have to part with one of their two third-round picks.
-------- Pick 20 or 21 is about as far as I thought that we might move up.....if we saw a guy that we loved tumbling towards us.
Yuck. I hope if we trade up it’s for one of those elite WRs or DBs
-
Of Note: King has the Browns trading up to No. 21 (Colts) to make this selection. To do so, the Browns would have to part with one of their two third-round picks.
-------- Pick 20 or 21 is about as far as I thought that we might move up.....if we saw a guy that we loved tumbling towards us.
Yuck. I hope if we trade up it’s for one of those elite WRs or DBs
Yuck. I hope if we trade up it’s for one of those elite WRs or DBs
A trade-up for a LB'er does seem to run counter to the Browns current culture of downplaying the LB'er role. I'm sure their specific denomination of analytics wouldn't support such a move. But it really doesn't change the fact that LB'er is probably our biggest need and that a LB'ers value will match one of our first four picks.
-
Anything that costs a future first is a complete no no as far as I’m concerned
-
Not by the standard chart of the time...
At the time Heckert was our GM and analytics had yet to come to town... so by the established chart of the day, the Jimmy Johnson chart. The rule of thumb is that future year picks are devalued by one round per year.
- We gave up 342.4.
- ATL paid 214.7+135.1+79.4+135.1+61.1 = 595.4. So we killed it... or so we thought.
However, by the Harvard Chart
- We gave up a pick worth 1600.
- So ATL gave up... 680+310+49+310+30 = 1379 assuming they finished 2012 in the same position... which they did not. They actually finished higher in 2012 and earned us the 29th pick.
So yeah... by today's standard we did not get full value for our 6th, but either way Chuckles Heckert blew the draft anyway.
Here's the old JJ chart... it has decimal points, so it must be more precise...
The chart is reference point...and demand can drive it favorably or unfavorably in either direction. I think the chart could be favorable with a trade up in the first round if you have a run on QBs with the first four picks and four are off the board at pick 5 or 6.
The chart is reference point.
Yes... but not the old JJ chart. It's an antiquity based on one man's whim.
A trade-up for a LB'er does seem to run counter to the Browns current culture of downplaying the LB'er role. I'm sure their specific denomination of analytics wouldn't support such a move. But it really doesn't change the fact that LB'er is probably our biggest need and that a LB'ers value will match one of our first four picks.
But as you know JOK is not a typical LB...
"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 -
The chart is reference point.
Yes... but not the old JJ chart. It's an antiquity based on one man's whim.
A trade-up for a LB'er does seem to run counter to the Browns current culture of downplaying the LB'er role. I'm sure their specific denomination of analytics wouldn't support such a move. But it really doesn't change the fact that LB'er is probably our biggest need and that a LB'ers value will match one of our first four picks.
But as you know JOK is not a typical LB...
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