I didn't know where to put this, but this seems as good a place as any: https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/12/13/cleveland-browns-jimmy-haslam-john-dorsey-draft-mmqb-mailbag If you read the article what you might see is that while the Browns have been consistent losers, there some interesting aspects to that. For one, since 1999 when they came into the NFL to replace the old Browns who became the Ravens, they haven't had anything near a FQB, not even close, and that despite having several #1 picks and consistently high draft picks over that time. Now is that because they're terrible at evaluating QB talent, or because they haven't valued the QB position as highly as they should have? Maybe some of both. Without interviewing the guys who made all those picks we can't know what they were thinking, but what we DO know is that they haven't had a good QB on the team since 1999, even though they've had high draft picks at other positions, they were never enough to make up for this hole at QB. This season may summarize this problem: They didn't have a FQB, and passed over Watson, Trubisky, and Mahomes, and instead took the "consensus best player" Myles Garrett, plus another top "D" player, Jabril Peppers, and what's their record now? As good as those two are or may becomes, they can't make up for the lack of the most important player on the team, a FQB. The article said this about their evaluators: "The Browns do have holes all over their roster, in part because their analytics people put a value on players and don’t waver much; that led to the disastrous swap of a player they’d developed, wideout Terrelle Pryor, who they let go in free agency, for wide receiver Kenny Britt, who they signed for the same money they’d have given Pryor (four years, $32 million)" The part I bolded is what scares me because I think Macc has shown himself to be like this. They also said that Carson Wentz wouldn't be a top 20 QB in the league. The other aspect that jumps out at me is that despite having all those draft picks over all those years, they still suck. What this tells me is that draft picks for the sake of draft picks doesn't mean much, it's what you do with them. You not only need to be a good judge of talent, but you also need to understand the needs of your team. I don't know why that's so difficult, but there's a lot of failed GMs and scouts that haven't figured it out. So far the jury is still out as to whether Macc has. Assuming he isn't fired, I'm going to give him until this draft to prove that he knows how this works, and if he doesn't show it, I'm done.
Well, other sports and virtually every industry has shown that its not overrated and analytics is actually supposed to be the opposite, it's supposed to take human factors out of account. Human factors might think 1st round pick Mark Sanchez will be a franchise QB because he's a nice guy, smart, well spoken, "face of the franchise" type. But that doesn't say a damn thing about how good he is on the field. That's where analytics is supposed to come in. I think analytics can be used a lot more in football than it is. Provided the analytical focus is on gameplay and less on roster management. Coaches are making horrible in game decisions and clock management gaffes every single week. Its always "we had momentum" or "we thought we could stop them and get the ball back" that's fugazi. that' "human." - - They should have a moneyball Ivy league nerd on every sideline telling these jock head coaches simply what the odds are with every big decision. Should we go for it or should we punt? etc... Thats where the NFL is in the dark ages and where analytics could be a boon. -- Now the problem with moneyball in football as it pertains to roster management, in my opinion, and the Browns are a great example, is that its almost self explanatory already. So in that respect it is a little overrated as you suggest. Everyone already knows you aren't going to win unless you have a QB. Its not like baseball or basketball where you can win in a number of different ways. If your QB sucks you are going to suck. If your QB is good you will be good. You don't need some analytics nerd to tell you that. The gap that exists here is that the draft nerds are no better at identifying who will be a good QB vs. the anti-analytics people. Until that gap is closed then analytics in roster management really isn't all that useful.
Well said, and I agree with much of what you say here, but I also think that analytics can be relied upon too blindly, and often are. Take "momentum" for example. That's an impossible thing to quantify and to apply analytics to, and yet it's a real phenomenon. Let's say a team is driving down the field, and making progress trying to come from 14 points behind with 10 minutes to go. They face a 4th and 5 from the other team's 30 yard line. Analytics might say clearly that the odds are strongly against going for it, and instead take the three, and hope to get the ball back two more times while holding the other team to no scores. But, having had repeated success in advancing the ball, the team's spirit and belief in themselves skews the analytic prediction. Furthermore, do the "analytics" take into account the other factors, like the odds of actually holding the other team scoreless? I do think that numbers have a big role to play, but the real difference comes from having GMs/coaches who possess that instinct to override the statistics...those are the guys who have rings.
I personally don't subscribe to the idea that momentum is a real phenomenon. I believe the chances of picking up a 4th and 5 are the same regardless if you feel confident about getting it or not. I think it's something ingrained in our heads as little kids because its fun to tell sports stories regarding momentum but I do not believe it actually has any real effect. That's just my opinion
Well it's hard to prove with numbers for sure, but there's too many instances of it affecting outcomes for me to ignore.
