• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Cleveland Browns (2016 thread of unrelenting dumpster conflagration)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Meanwhile you have players like Zeke telling kids not to hesitate because tOSU gets you prepared for the next level.

Thanks, Louis!

side note - Shon Coleman, I think he might end up being our best pick on a performance/value stand point.
 
Upvote 0
As far as I can tell they didn't take anyone that I didn't want them to take and I don't really know much about they guys they did take. I'm willing to give them a draft or 2 to see if the new way of thinking pays off. It can't really get worse. I'd honestly give Jackson the benefit of the doubt on any QB that he wants to take.
 
Upvote 0
NFBuck said:
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

pete-townshend.jpg
Click to expand...
Unreal that with all the draft picks this team had, they somehow seemingly found a way to f it up.....
 
Upvote 0
Jake said:
They've definitely stockpiled picks, just in case Cody Kessler isn't the future face of the franchise. :evil:

2017 picks
2 first-rounders
2 second-rounders

2018 picks
1 first-rounder
2 second-rounders

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2016/4/29/11540236/cleveland-browns-nfl-draft-picks-2017
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. So, I thought it was in this thread, but... whatever. In the end (for 2016 plus the future ones) they essentially transformed the #2 (Wentz) pick into 8 draft picks (and if they trade down any of the future ones, next year's 1st or 2018's 2nd, it will be more). So, it will be a while to see if that was worth (especially with a 1st and a second still outstanding)

Now, having said that, I think we've seen what the "analytics" department is causing to start with.

1. They have some model that tells them that the more picks you have, the more likely you are to hit on guys. And they probably had some threshold that says, if you take any 14, they'll probably result in X pro bowlers, Y starters, Z back ups and some number of guys that don't make it. Further, because you have to be able to compare quality and quantity, they probably have some other metric that tells you based on the number above that it takes X third rounders to get the same result as one 1st Rounder as far as likelihood of success. (Probably to the degree that they expect only 2 hits out of the 4 Receivers not named Coleman, but, they really wanted to go for 2, and if they get lucky, the TE will work out, personally though, I think they were caught off guard by Higgins still being on the board and they might have decided he really was the BPA there.

2. This approach will, I think lead to a priority on productive college players since to analyze, you need data sets, and well guys that have observably done stuff are going to show up more than those that haven't. Then they factor in measureables (Both plus and limiting) and then the scouts opinions. (Minus bong hits through a gas mask, etc)

So, I mean, obviously the priority here was to improve at Receiver and affect the QB on D.

Generally though, most of the people who didn't like the Browns Draft didn't like the Kessler pick, and thought Ricardo Louis went too high. (Most of them did like Shobert - Who I'm not convinced they don't see as an ILB and Higgins). Not surprisingly the Analytics outlets loved it (PFF for example) and the I know football players when I see them types don't.

But at the end of the day, you get 7 picks alotted to you, and mostly those guys don't all end up contributing (even on teams not called the Browns) and I think they're goal here is to try to hit more than 50% of the time, so, if they do well with 8 or 9 of them, that's more than if you hit on all 7 of the original ones (I realize I haven't accounted for compensatories here, but, the long term view is what's important)

The downside for all this to me is, can you develop/evaluate all these guys, especially the WR's between now and September since you can't possibly keep them all, so then is it worth all the trade downs for guys you'll eventually release. On the other hand you can trade picks for guys and end up with the 2008 Browns Draft... with the exception of the blind squirrel finds a nut grab of Ahtyba Rubin... you got zip and zilch out of it.
 
Upvote 0
Nigel Tufnel said:
Good thoughts @AKAK. The simple truth is that the Browns were never going to get a quality QB in this draft that would be ready to produce anytime soon.

So better to bank and see if better options arrive next year.
Click to expand...

Well, the evaluation there was always, do you Take Wentz (or Goff) OR do you take a guy and get the roster better at 2. If they'd stayed at 2 and taken Bosa over Goff, I think that would have been the wrong move, and it wouldn't have been close. You just fill ONE roster spot with ONE less important roster spot. On the other hand if you turn that #2 pick into 8 guys (and I'm betting there's at least a 50/50 chance it ends up more) that's a different story.
 
Upvote 0
This could be a bad example but I look at the trade downs and extra draft picks like the SEC practice of oversigning (only there isn't anything against having more draft picks.) You try to take as large of a portion of the draft pool as possible and then you have a greater chance at more sticking. The SEC signs and signs and signs and then they just drop the ones that are least likely to contribute, to get down to their limit. It's not a bad strategy. There is always the chance that a bad GM misses on all of the picks but there is also the chance that as @AKAK mentioned above, you can hit on 6-8 out of 12 instead of only having 6-8 picks and hoping to hit on them all. That, to me, is why the SEC has had more success and depth of solid teams. It's because they take 30-35 kids and then keep the 25 kids that are the best, whereas other conferences teams take just their allotment and when you factor in the misses from those classes, they are left with only 15-20 players at best who will contribute.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
What is also clear is that the analytics rely very heavily on college production. What that will help avoid is workout shorts on the beach warriors like Mike Mamula and David Veikune. What you risk are the David Klinglers and Charles Rogers types.
 
Upvote 0
Bucklion said:
What is also clear is that the analytics rely very heavily on college production. What that will help avoid is workout shorts on the beach warriors like Mike Mamula and David Veikune. What you risk are the David Klinglers and Charles Rogers types.
Click to expand...

if you actually look at the advanced metrics on these guys, their scores in the data sets that most frequently transfer from college to the pros are generally quite high. so, it's not quite just as simple as great in college = great in pros. how that translates across the board remains to be seen, but there was most certainly a trend in their evaluations. what you also saw was a definite trend in terms of personality type as well.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top