Jump to content

Everything Free Agency 2021 - Rumors, news and notes


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Ray Reed said:

They were 13th in PPG last year behind teams like Minnesota, Las Vegas, Indy, and Pittsburgh.

They were 16th in offensive YPG last year behind teams like Houston, Dallas, and the 9ers.

Calling them elite is just as "lmao" worthy as calling them average. And average is far closer to where they ranked relative to the rest of the league than elite. 🤷‍♂️

We had two really bad games-ravens 1 and the 1st pitt game. 

After that we had two games in some of the worst weather I have since since watching every game in 2014. They are always going to drop the averages. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

TIL

 

Deshaun Watson sucks

https://www.espn.com/nfl/boxscore/_/gameId/401220165


Derek Carr was trash too even though he was insanely hot coming into our game. Even torched the Chiefs and Bucs prior to our game.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/boxscore/_/gameId/401220169

 

The Eagles game had God awful weather too, but I love boxscore scouting.

 

So unless you think Cleveland had an elite defense, I’m going to argue the weather kinda messed with Bakers stats.

Edited by candyman93
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

A weak strength of schedule and a high rate of victory in close games (both of which are high indicators for year over year regression, for what it's worth.)

The Browns did play 7 games against playoff teams compared to 4 for the Chiefs. They were 7-2 in one score games compared to 8-0 for the Chiefs... for what it's worth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

The Browns did play 7 games against playoff teams compared to 4 for the Chiefs. They were 7-2 in one score games compared to 8-0 for the Chiefs... for what it's worth.

Ah, the good old "no you" rebuttal. Wasn't talking about the Chiefs. But if you really want to, the Chiefs, for the record, will almost certainly regress next year. 14-1 with the starters will almost unquestionably not happen again. So you're not really countering anything with your argument, there. The Pats went 14-2 like twice in the last decade Tom was there. Doesn't happen often. So yeah, we almost certainly won't go 14-2 again. Our W/L total will likely regress. Not really a big deal nor a surprising fact. I have no issue accepting or stating it.

To your actual attempt at a point, those 7 games include the Dwayne Haskins Football Team, and the Mason Rudolph Steelers backups. Color me unimpressed. You also don't really get points for playing against playoff teams when you get blown out by them. Going 0-2 against the Ravens and losing by a combined 37 points doesn't make your season more impressive because you lost to the Ravens twice, while KC had to settle for beating them once. I will take KC's 4-0 record against those teams over Cleveland's 4-3 record, especially given the actual teams in question. Cleveland had 3 more chances to beat playoff teams, and came up with the same number of wins. Less if we count actually playing playoff teams in the playoffs. But, I digress, by any season-encompassing metric, preseason or postseason, the Browns had one of the 3 or 4 easiest schedules in the NFL last year. That's fact. And that's giving them full credit for that 12-4 week 17.

Additionally, how you do in the remaining games  is relevant. A team that goes 8-1 in close games (Vegas was a one score loss, for the record), but 6-0 in non-close games (6-1 if you want to insist I count the rest the starters game) is probably just really good. They will likely still regress year over year, but regressing from 14-2 to 12-4 is fine. A team that goes 7-2 in close games, but only 4-3 in non-close games, that means you're winning close but losing by a large margin. It shows in the negative point differential and the gap between Pythagorean and actual wins (also an indicator of year over year regression.) But it means you were getting outclassed some games, and likely playing down some still. But regression from 11-5 to 9-7 is a much bigger issue.

My intent wasn't to crap on the Browns here, but it will turn that way when you try to arbitrarily shift the topic to my team just because I said something you don't like. I post every year about these metrics (generally it's Pythagorean wins, strength of schedule, and man games lost) in the offseason, and what probability says they indicate. I just report what the stats tend to suggest. You don't have to like it. But, more often than not, it will be the case. And generally, when teams buck these trends, either they did substantial enough things in the offseason to offset, or you have someone like Brady that the rules don't apply to (the Pats should've regressed like 90% of the time, statistically, but Brady/Belichick will do Brady/Belichick things.)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Ah, the good old "no you" rebuttal. Wasn't talking about the Chiefs. But if you really want to, the Chiefs, for the record, will almost certainly regress next year. 14-1 with the starters will almost unquestionably not happen again. So you're not really countering anything with your argument, there. The Pats went 14-2 like twice in the last decade Tom was there. Doesn't happen often. So yeah, we almost certainly won't go 14-2 again. Our W/L total will likely regress. Not really a big deal nor a surprising fact. I have no issue accepting or stating it.

To your actual attempt at a point, those 7 games include the Dwayne Haskins Football Team, and the Mason Rudolph Steelers backups. Color me unimpressed. You also don't really get points for playing against playoff teams when you get blown out by them. Going 0-2 against the Ravens and losing by a combined 37 points doesn't make your season more impressive because you lost to the Ravens twice, while KC had to settle for beating them once. I will take KC's 4-0 record against those teams over Cleveland's 4-3 record, especially given the actual teams in question. Cleveland had 3 more chances to beat playoff teams, and came up with the same number of wins. Less if we count actually playing playoff teams in the playoffs. But, I digress, by any season-encompassing metric, preseason or postseason, the Browns had one of the 3 or 4 easiest schedules in the NFL last year. That's fact. And that's giving them full credit for that 12-4 week 17.

Additionally, how you do in the remaining games  is relevant. A team that goes 8-1 in close games (Vegas was a one score loss, for the record), but 6-0 in non-close games (6-1 if you want to insist I count the rest the starters game) is probably just really good. They will likely still regress year over year, but regressing from 14-2 to 12-4 is fine. A team that goes 7-2 in close games, but only 4-3 in non-close games, that means you're winning close but losing by a large margin. It shows in the negative point differential and the gap between Pythagorean and actual wins (also an indicator of year over year regression.) But it means you were getting outclassed some games, and likely playing down some still. But regression from 11-5 to 9-7 is a much bigger issue.

My intent wasn't to crap on the Browns here, but it will turn that way when you try to arbitrarily shift the topic to my team just because I said something you don't like. I post every year about these metrics (generally it's Pythagorean wins, strength of schedule, and man games lost) in the offseason, and what probability says they indicate. I just report what the stats tend to suggest. You don't have to like it. But, more often than not, it will be the case. And generally, when teams buck these trends, either they did substantial enough things in the offseason to offset, or you have someone like Brady that the rules don't apply to (the Pats should've regressed like 90% of the time, statistically, but Brady/Belichick will do Brady/Belichick things.)

I'm not reading all of that but I get the gist. I mean, theoretically any 13 win team or better will likely regress. Just like any team that does really well in one score games will likely regress.

My point wasn't about the Chiefs, they are easily considered the class of the NFL and at least of the AFC. It was just that the Browns will likely regress because of your reasoning can be used for pretty much any playoff team. If you lose close games you probably didn't make it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2021 at 1:34 PM, Jeezla said:

Over the whole season, they were average. Baker had 2 games over 300 passing yards. He's a game manager. If Baker Mayfield was your fantasy qb, you missed the playoffs, period.

 

You can call the passing game average. I'm cool with that, though I think it's a little above average especially towards the end of the year.

But I question your definition of a game manager. I'd argue Baker is the exact opposite. Game managers tend to throw short passes for 5 yards when it's 3rd and long, or throw the ball away, or take a lot of checkdowns during drives and avoid throwing the ball into tight windows. Their entire purpose is to avoid losing the game by limiting turnovers and battling for field position.

Baker is the exact opposite. He throws lasers into his receivers hands in tight coverage. He throws downfield on third and longs and is generally aggressive with his passing both in and out of the pocket. Just because the running game is elite (which limited his passing attempts) doesn't mean he's a game manager or has that style of passing at all. You can easily view completed air yards per completion and see that he ranks higher than the average QB (9th I believe, but that's off the top of my head).

Not to mention Baker had 40 less total passing attempts than Aaron Rodgers, which is 2.5 less pass attempts per game in a run-first offense. So even if you call him a game manager based on passing attempts (he was 17th in the league), the fact that he was so close to A-Rod might say otherwise.

Honestly, the "game manager" take about Baker just seems to come from people who don't actually watch him play. He's muuuuch more Brett Favre-like in terms of slinging the ball than being a guy trying to avoid turnovers.

Edited by Vee-Rex
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Browns should have beaten the Chiefs in the playoffs. The refs altered the outcome.

This was worse than the Miles Jack fumble recovery whistle because that was a very close play.

This was a missed helmet to helmet at the goal line. It was not brutal and blatant but it was helmet to helmet.

 

Compare and contrast all you like. KC did not lose to Baker in the playoffs because of a thumb on the scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2021 at 11:14 AM, Ray Reed said:

They were 13th in PPG last year behind teams like Minnesota, Las Vegas, Indy, and Pittsburgh.

They were 16th in offensive YPG last year behind teams like Houston, Dallas, and the 9ers.

Calling them elite is just as "lmao" worthy as calling them average. And average is far closer to where they ranked relative to the rest of the league than elite. 🤷‍♂️

well lets look at DVOA which is more telling then PPG or YPG

Browns offense last year was ranked 9th in DVOA. Only team in the AFCN ranked in the top10. Also had a top10 passing DVOA offense and a top10 rushing DVOA offense. They were only one of 5 teams that were top10 in both areas. I would strongly say browns werent elite because that is for top5 ranked teams but they were above avg. ADV stats/DVOA calls them the best offense in their division, just saying.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...