Andrew Berry's Philosophy & the Sashi-DePo-Berry Era Revisited

[Kiwibrown]

3 minutes ago, DawgX said:

Watching the DePodesta presser, I feel bad for him for having to answer the moronic media's questions - it's amazing how little they grasp the idea of analytics.

Its why you dont get a communications degree kids.

[Rod Johnson]

4 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

From the mouth of the best FO in the league (arguably) Eric DeCosta:

”We look at the draft as, in some respects, a luck-driven process. The more picks you have, the more chances you have to get a good player. When we look at teams that draft well, it’s not necessarily that they’re drafting better than anybody else. It seems to be that they have more picks. There’s definitely a correlation between the amount of picks and drafting good players.”

I'm a bit busy and will read and respond to the other article you posted. I agree it's a luck driven process and you give yourself the best chance with multiple picks.  I just think that some evaluators are better than others at picking good players.  I've just seen it in our own organization through different regimes.

You can see picks that failed and failed for reasons that were identified by others before the draft.  You also have picks fail for reasons that weren't as obvious.  It doesn't surprise me that there isn't a huge variance GM to GM but I think talent evaluation is a skill.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Rod Johnson

[Bonanza23]

12 minutes ago, DawgX said:

Watching the DePodesta presser, I feel bad for him for having to answer the moronic media's questions - it's amazing how little they grasp the idea of analytics.

Yeah that was uncomfortable. Loved this quote because it’s so accurate:

 

 

[DaWg_LB.]

On 12/30/2019 at 1:20 PM, MWil23 said:

I’ll die with you. I’m one of the 300 Spartans.

I'm with yall.....

[buno67]

Thought that depo Presser was pretty bad. No real clarification on the vision or process. Kind of made me more confused what his real job is. I was warming up to Stef But the Depo presser was like “Take it one step forward and two steps back”

[Mind Character]

1 hour ago, buno67 said:

Thought that depo Presser was pretty bad. No real clarification on the vision or process. Kind of made me more confused what his real job is. I was warming up to Stef But the Depo presser was like “Take it one step forward and two steps back”

I thought DePo's presser and last one's suggest that he's an Strategic Organizational Decision-making  and Processes consultant/analyst.

"... analytics is using frameworks to stack the odds in your favor for decisions that have uncertain outcomes..."

He's just a Thought/Strategy Consultant for the Owners and Key Components of the Organization.

Whether it's what plays are most effective, what situational decisions should be made, how to organize or figure out what's important for a coaching search, or how to identify a successful personnel scout for a football organization, DePodesta's role is to come up with approaches, ways of thinking, and analysis that facilitates decision-making.

His role is part analyst, part lead executive, and senior level advisor. He has his hands on a wide-variety of parts within the organization. He's looks at all the processes within a football operation and making sure sure they align with vision and standards of the organization.

The remaining questions are 1.) if DePodesta is qualified by our and "real football" guys assessments to be competent enough at coming up with approaches and "frameworks" that can help uplift a football team/organization's processes to sustained winning and 2.) Do we have the right shared vision in the first place ?

Edited January 14, 2020 by Mind Character

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Buckle up boys, this is my pièce de résistance.

Quote

And I don't see Berry and co. as having some core inability relative to the "football guys" stereotype.

I’d hope not, he’s come up through the ranks just like every other “football guy”.  He just happened to have went to Harvard and is a nerd.

Here’s a player’s perception of Berry.

 

Quote

That doesn't mean though that differences between talent evaluators doesn't matter and we could just throw all the names of talent evaluators in a hat and pull one out and experience the same success as if we diligently decided between hiring some over others. Roster-building has a lot more to it than just drafting players we'd agree.

Roster building, player development, etc.. yep.  Imma get to that, just you wait.

Quote

The difference between an expert batter in the major leagues hitting .300 for their career versus an expert batter hitting .215 for their career seems like a negligible difference but can be a substantively different quality of ability.

Like batting averages, the differences in hit rates amongst talent evaluators and roster builders may seem neglible but there's ar real quality difference.

This is going to be absurdly on the nose, but just Moneyball showed, batting average doesn’t matter. It’s not about your success at getting hits, it’s about your ability to get on base, and, just as importantly, your at bats.

The walk is the equivalent to the extra pick in this scenario.  

Quote

Ultimately, I think Andrew Berry is a good GM candidate because he knows what he doesn't know and knows that he's subject to mis-evaluation. As such, he'll accrue draft capital to mitigate the impact of mis-evaluation.

Agreed.

Quote

Now, roster building via free agency, UDFA, waivers, formulating trades, deciding who to cut, the skill of managing players, etc all of that are aspects of GMs that are important as well that we often overlook in the draft-centric mindset.

It can be, but I’ll get to that too.

Quote

I don't know if Berry is as good as others along those dimensions as we saw some really bad results that way, but under a different rules of engagement (the goal is to win), it will be interesting to see how he can perform over time.

For sure, he has to prove himself.

3 hours ago, Rod Johnson said:

I'm a bit busy and will read and respond to the other article you posted. I agree it's a luck driven process and you give yourself the best chance with multiple picks.  I just think that some evaluators are better than others at picking good players.  I've just seen it in our own organization through different regimes.

You can see picks that failed and failed for reasons that were identified by others before the draft.  You also have picks fail for reasons that weren't as obvious.  It doesn't surprise me that there isn't a huge variance GM to GM but I think talent evaluation is a skill.

So some of the points I said I was gonna get to...

When evaluating a GM/FO, people look at the simple “hit or bust” with draft picks without providing any context as to the “why” they failed or were successful, when in reality that’s the meat and potatoes. Take a draft pick, and apply the following issues:

1. Coaching: All coaches aren’t equal, not brain busting stuff here.  Some guys walk into a situation where they are lucky enough to have exceptional coaching (Mahomes for example), others end up with Freddie and Hue.  This impacts their development and ultimately their success or failure.

2. Expectations: Are they asked to come in and start immediately, or are they able to develop over the course of a season or two as a reserve or situational player until they’re prepared?  This matters.

3. Talent surrounding them: It’s a team game and who you’re playing next to matters.  Is the guy next to you an experienced vet who you can lean on while you’re young or are they another rookie staring back at you with an equally clueless look?  Are they good enough to win 1:1’s or will you have to carry the team or be asked to compensate for them?

4. Franchise stability: We saw it this year with us and Pittsburg.  Once the season started getting away from them, the team crumbles as quite frankly I’m sure many knew Freddie was done.  They had a lame duck and everyone knew it the last month. Meanwhile in Pitt, they lose their QB, but they know nothing is changing.  If they want a job next year, you better earn it this year.  There isn’t gonna be some new guy you can impress in camp and some former coach to blame for your failure. They know who swings the big **** in that locker room.

5. Scheme: Obviously not every player is a fit in every scheme, we’ve seen it here countless times. We didn’t like a guy like Sheard as they didn’t think he was a good fit so he’s a “bust”.  Meanwhile... my guy is still out there getting sacks.  This issue is amplified when you change scheme every year or two.

6. Injuries: Courtney Brown, one of the biggest busts in draft history, amirite?  Hell no.  For you younger guys, dude was Myles Garrett only heavier and faster. Legit freakiest dude I’ve ever seen in person. On the field, he was legit, an absolute stud.  But.... injuries happened and he was never the same.  And these aren’t reoccurring injuries from college that carried over, he was perfectly healthy through college.  You just can’t predict that.

7. Personality: Plain and simple, you never know how people are going to behave in the future.  Some guys can’t grow up (like Calloway), some guys seemingly get comfy with being highly paid and just quit (TRich), others simply decide the game isn’t for them any longer (a number of early retirees due to CTE, etc). You try to get the best idea you can, but people change and circumstances can expedite that.

If you look at these together,numbers 6-7 are player dependent and difficult if not impossible to predict. 1-5 can all be lumped up into a generic term of “consistency”.  Consistent coaching, familiar schemes, familiar talent around you, familiar scouting personnel who have the pulse of the team and who can identify what a locker room needs or, more importantly, needs to avoid, etc.

Good franchises pick players with a specific role in mind.  They have an expectation, a plan to develop them, coaches who understand the plan and know how to teach it.  The have a scheme and way they like to do things and find players who fit that scheme and who fit well in their locker room. They have continuity and structure amongst the coaching staff, front office and ownership. Everyone rows in the same direction.

We literally do none of these things. Not one. So when people say “that guy can’t draft” or “that player was a bust” they may be right.  Or they fail to look at the “why” behind it.  Along that same line, when someone says, “that guy has an eye for talent”, is that really the case, or does that organization have an understanding of how to take a raw 20 something and develop them over 1-4 years into a viable player? Because those aren’t one in the same.

Im exhausted.. I have no idea how @Mind Character writes these novels 10x a day.  Back to penis jokes for this guy.

[Mind Character]

1 hour ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Buckle up boys, this is my pièce de résistance.

I’d hope not, he’s come up through the ranks just like every other “football guy”.  He just happened to have went to Harvard and is a nerd.

 

LONG POST LONG POST LONG POST LONG POST LONG POST

Im exhausted.. I have no idea how @Mind Character writes these novels 10x a day.  Back to penis jokes for this guy.

 

---------------------

Taking into account all the things you laid out quite well are very important in assessment of evaluations and you're definitely right that in popular football conversations people don't factor those elements into their summary opinions on players or draft selections.

All things in life are multiply determined with some things being more important factors at predicting the outcome over others.

Success of a draft pick or roster building decision is the same way; that is, it's multiply determined with some factors being more important than others in determining the outcome.

All the factors you laid out and others are variables and factors that determine the success of a draft pick or roster building decision.

Austin Corbett being a miss at Left Tackle had nothing to do with injury, scheme, and/or minimally to do with the other factors you laid out, it was a clear mis-evaluation. Mis-evaluation is a factor and predictive element of "misses" along with the long list of factors you detailed.

Clelin Ferrell being selected at 4th overall.... Ereck Flowers at 9th overall... those were just mis-evaluations.

To me, an imperfect short-handed way to look at decision quality is at the point of selection did selecting that player relative to the other players on the board make sense given all the information available in the minds of expert scouts (not just fans).

In that way, David Njoku, Deshone Kizer, and Jabrill Peppers made evaluative and decision sense.

In the same way, Corbett's pick did not. Berry and co's decisions were rational but just like other GMs they did not based on the player attributes and skills

 

---------------------

P.S. I don't know how long it takes yall to type your sh*t.... I type over 120 words per minute so my stream of consciousness long posts literally take 3 minutes or less... that's why I have so many grammatical and spelling errors because I don't proof read the posts unless I feel like I have the time to waste another 2 minutes editing the posts.... just do as I do and say F-that noise because people aren't reading a long post anyway... in fact no one has even made it to this last line of reading... if so, reply and I'll send you a free bridge or can of snake oil..

Edited January 15, 2020 by Mind Character

[buno67]

3 hours ago, Mind Character said:

I thought DePo's presser and last one's suggest that he's an Strategic Organizational Decision-making  and Processes consultant/analyst.

"... analytics is using frameworks to stack the odds in your favor for decisions that have uncertain outcomes..."

He's just a Thought/Strategy Consultant for the Owners and Key Components of the Organization.

Whether it's what plays are most effective, what situational decisions should be made, how to organize or figure out what's important for a coaching search, or how to identify a successful personnel scout for a football organization, DePodesta's role is to come up with approaches, ways of thinking, and analysis that facilitates decision-making.

His role is part analyst, part lead executive, and senior level advisor. He has his hands on a wide-variety of parts within the organization. He's looks at all the processes within a football operation and making sure sure they align with vision and standards of the organization.

The remaining questions are 1.) if DePodesta is qualified by our and "real football" guys assessments to be competent enough at coming up with approaches and "frameworks" that can help uplift a football team/organization's processes to sustained winning and 2.) Do we have the right shared vision in the first place ?

That might be all true but when a reporter literally asks him what he does, he doesnt even come close to what you just said. Like if he said what you said, he prolly would have made a lot of people feel at ease. But he literally just answered some good questions in a very open ended way and didnt answer them

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

 

2 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

Taking into account all the things you laid out quite well are very important in assessment of evaluations and you're definitely right that in popular football conversations people don't factor those elements into their summary opinions on players or draft selections.

All things in life are multiply determined with some things being more important factors at predicting the outcome over others.

Success of a draft pick or roster building decision is the same way; that is, it's multiply determined with some factors being more important than others in determining the outcome.

All the factors you laid out and others are variables and factors that determine the success of a draft pick or roster building decision.

Austin Corbett being a miss at Left Tackle had nothing to do with injury, scheme, and/or minimally to do with the other factors you laid out, it was a clear mis-evaluation. Mis-evaluation is a factor and predictive element of "misses" along with the long list of factors you detailed.

Clelin Ferrell being selected at 4th overall.... Ereck Flowers at 9th overall... those were just mis-evaluations.

 

This goes back to my idea of having “an eye for talent”.  If professionals truly had such a thing, whiffs like this wouldn’t happen nearly as often as they do.  Ranking prospects is like horse racing, you pick the one you think looks best for a variety or reasons.  To continue this, taking the elite horses out of it, gimme the field as opposed tho thinking I can spot the long shot.

2 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

To me, an imperfect short-handed way to look at decision quality is at the point of selection did selecting that player relative to the other players on the board make sense given all the information available in the minds of expert scouts (not just fans).

In that way, David Njoku, Deshone Kizer, and Jabrill Peppers made evaluative and decision sense.

Agreed, they were reasonably talented players who have largely been failed by the franchise.

2 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

In the same way, Corbett's pick did not. Berry and co's decisions were rational but just like other GMs they did not based on the player attributes and skills

Corbett as a LT, yes, but I’m still stunned he wasn’t at least a viable starter.  But again, lack of a proper plan to develop, scheme change, etc.

2 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

---------------------

P.S. I don't know how long it takes yall to type your sh*t.... I type over 120 words per minute so my stream of consciousness long posts literally take 3 minutes or less... that's why I have so many grammatical and spelling errors because I don't proof read the posts unless I feel like I have the time to waste another 2 minutes editing the posts.... just do as I do and say F-that noise because people aren't reading a long post anyway... in fact no one has even made it to this last line of reading... if so, reply and I'll send you a free bridge or can of snake oil..

I’m doing this on an iPad pal.  Let that wash over you. I was pecking an this damned screen for a half hour on that novel.

[Mind Character]

6 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I’m doing this on an iPad pal.  Let that wash over you. I was pecking an this damned screen for a half hour on that novel.

[Rod Johnson]

9 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

The original article 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-team-can-beat-the-draft/ 

 

Unless I'm wrong the data was collected from GMs who retained their position for 6 seasons.  That means they already shown competence enough to keep their jobs, and eliminates the GMs who are horrible at drafting from the data set.

I agree with you from a holistic point of view.  But I think you need to stray away from aggressively trading down when you need a franchise QB, who are very difficult to find after the 1st round (maybe the top 15?).  When this team was a directionless mess before the 2018 draft it was hard to justify continuing throwing crap at the wall.  Now that we have some cornerstones in Garrett and Baker, and arguably Ward and Landry after that, it's easier to get back on board with drafting as many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round to fill out the roster with cheap talent.

It's hard to say Sashi knew what he was doing when he passed on a few franchise QBs, leaving our team directionless, then throwing a lot of talent into the abyss by virtue of us being probably the worst team in NFL history, and doing very little to try and stop the free fall.  I don't think going 1-31 and trading back the entire way is brilliant calculated move.  Getting fired and having massive roster turnover was a very predictable outcome of that.

I support the strategy now because it appears we have put the horse back in front of the cart.  I know a very common sentiment is if you give your young QB a bad team you'll ruin him, but I don't think whatever QB Sashi would have eventually picked was going to just walk onto a built up young roster primed for success.  He was going to walk onto a young roster that never learned to have any success, and although not by design, inevitably was going to fall victim of having to learn multiple schemes under multiple coaches all the while.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Rod Johnson

[buno67]

13 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

Unless I'm wrong the data was collected from GMs who retained their position for 6 seasons.

see that is going to skew somethings tho. If you have been a GM that long, you prolly have a scouting department that is running like a well-oiled machine. They also prolly have an established coach and system and scheme all in place. If you have a great system for awhile, it gets slightly easier to draft because you get a feel for the kind of players that work. 

I think the toughest aspect of the NFL to fully intergrade analytics in, is the draft. There is just way too many variables to account for when it comes to it in my opinion. You can quantify the height speed weight stuff because those are constants for the player at that moment in time when it comes to the draft. You cant quantify ones technique, their work ethic, personal issues, determination, and stuff like that. Then you want to compare players tapes but its not like they are going against the same quality opponents that allows you to make a bases for comparison. Also sometimes the game tape can be misleading because we have no idea what their concepts or schemes were for that week and what was being ask.

You talk about gaining draft capital but in doing so, that means you are trading down from more surely talented guys, in hopes that you might land a guy as talented as the guy you just traded down from have extra picks but with trading down, the mor e likely you will miss on a player because they are not as talented. 

To me when it comes to the draft, you just need to draft the best guy you can see. Just get the dude that literally shows they are different compared to their teammates and opponents. The year we traded down from #2, we should have taken Bosa. Hell the next year prolly still go 0-16 and the browns just had a chance to Bosa and Garrett or maybe they go Trub. Watson, or Mahomes. 

The other aspects of the NFL, mainly when it comes to games and the game plan. That is where analytics should be heavily used no matter what

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

16 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

Unless I'm wrong the data was collected from GMs who retained their position for 6 seasons.  That means they already shown competence enough to keep their jobs, and eliminates the GMs who are horrible at drafting from the data set.

Fair enough.

16 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

I agree with you from a holistic point of view.  But I think you need to stray away from aggressively trading down when you need a franchise QB, who are very difficult to find after the 1st round (maybe the top 15?).

It seemed they had settled in on Goff as the top QB but we’re jumped. As far as Wentz, I get the hesitation in going all in on a D2 QB with limited experience with your first ever pick. To add to it, that roster was ATROCIOUS when Sashi took over.

The next year was rough.  No QB prospect was really deemed worthy of the top pick, other than maybe Trubisky by some.  At 12 rumors were we liked Mahomes and again got jumped.  Hindsight and all, maybe they should have looked to move up and secure their guy.  At 12 passing on Watson is a bad look, but the OC/HC apparently wanted Hooker instead, so how do you force that on a coach? Who’s really to blame here? (other than Haslam for forcing Hue on Sashi) 

16 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

  When this team was a directionless mess before the 2018 draft it was hard to justify continuing throwing crap at the wall.  Now that we have some cornerstones in Garrett and Baker, and arguably Ward and Landry after that, it's easier to get back on board with drafting as many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round to fill out the roster with cheap talent.

I didn’t see it as directionless at all.  I thought the direction was pretty clear, and was actually spelled out by DePo and others to Haslam before the process began.  I think they had ‘18 tabbed as the year to grab a QB, and it was a great draft to do so prospect wise.

16 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

It's hard to say Sashi knew what he was doing when he passed on a few franchise QBs, leaving our team directionless, then throwing a lot of talent into the abyss by virtue of us being probably the worst team in NFL history, and doing very little to try and stop the free fall.  I don't think going 1-31 and trading back the entire way is brilliant calculated move.  Getting fired and having massive roster turnover was a very predictable outcome of that.

I won’t think 1-31 was all on Sashi either.  They weren’t built to win, but they weren’t winning when he got here.  Hue was not bad in ‘16 with a bare bones roster, but the coaching in ‘17 warranted being fired with cause imo, both he and Williams.  They played up the roster issues far more than they actually were. There were vets in every position group (until Hue didn’t want Osweiler) and many of those guys who weren’t good enough to play here went on to contribute elsewhere.  He and Gregg coached to get the FO fired, not to win games imo.

16 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

I support the strategy now because it appears we have put the horse back in front of the cart.  I know a very common sentiment is if you give your young QB a bad team you'll ruin him, but I don't think whatever QB Sashi would have eventually picked was going to just walk onto a built up young roster primed for success.  He was going to walk onto a young roster that never learned to have any success, and although not by design, inevitably was going to fall victim of having to learn multiple schemes under multiple coaches all the while.

You may certainly be right, but unfortunately we’ll never know. 

[candyman93]

Why not Eliot Wolf for GM?