Draft Discussion 2.0

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

2 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

To be fair it probably is unreasonable when you are talking about multiple regimes. Not impossible by any means, the hard, or perhaps risky part has already been done and if we had the same people in charge I would expect similar outcomes. It is the smart way to do things and most 4th graders can understand it after being told once but for whatever reason it is rarely used and never over a lengthy span that I can recall.

That’s what happens when a bunch of people believe in nonsense like “he has an eye for talent”.  He, of course, being the same guy who misses on every other pick....  

The fact that it hasn’t doesn’t mean it shouldn’t. People didn’t do a lot of things for a number of years that have proven successful.

2 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

Maybe there is validity to it too. Sashi would probably still be employed if we took the players who were selected at the draft spot we traded back from in either year.

Which year? Or should he have taken a QB both years? Does Hue play no role in this (Hue, the “QB whisperer”) as he didn’t want either of those guys either with those picks (if you believe the reports)? Or is Sashi being held responsible for every pick he DIDN’T make in addition to the ones he did?  What GM holds up to that standard?

2 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

Still, I can't mathematically say it isn't a good idea there is just risk involved.

If you remove feelings from facts, this is simply false.  Almost by definition, trading back is a mitigation of risk, not an increased risk.

2 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

 

I think if you have a QB already in place that risk would be very low. Without one it increases by a decent margin if what happened happens.

Agreed, it’s easier to not fail (in general) when you have a QB in place.  Of course the strategy also gave us two prime opportunities to get said QB this year, so....

[BrownLeader]

1 hour ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Statistically speaking, this is complete idiocy, but different strokes and all that.

You’re essentially trading in multiple lottery tickets for one specific one because you got a “feelin in yer gut about the numbers”.

Someone's not been paying attention. I would think any Browns fan knows it's not about how many cracks you have at it....it's about how well you evaluate.

 

 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

2 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

Our disagreement is more nuanced on this matter than I suspected.

I definitely don't disagree that acquiring more draft assets is a great priority to have.  My only sentiment is that we shouldn't bring 10 more rookies onto the roster like we did in the Sashi years. 

I don’t disagree, but Sashi needed to for multiple reasons.  Mostly because we had nothing in the way of talent here.

2 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

I don't know why you think the 2016 draft was good, we got a few players that will cap out between average-above average and a lot of crap (including Coleman who the jury is definitely still out on if he's a complete bust). 

I never said it was anything.  We do already have one Pro Bowler from that class, so it’s  hard to knock it too much as that’s more than we get from most classes.

If someone from the 2017 class makes a Pro Bowl (Garrett?), that’s 2/2 years that the “nerd who doesn’t know football” drafted a pro bowler. I don’t think it takes a nerd to realize 100% of the time is good.

2 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

Combining assets to move up and get high ceiling guys and still acquiring assets to do that next year aren't mutually exclusive either (which is why I am fine with trading down 4 on the basis that it will allow us to do that more).

I agree.  It’s about asset management over anything else.  Do I mind spending a top 5 pick and only want to trade down? Not at all.  I want a QB at 1.  If there was a “blue chip” prospect at a premium position, especially one of need, would I want them at 4? You bet.

Generally speaking though, trading up is an idiot’s bet, at least as far as the facts are concerned.

2 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

The Rams were never as comparably young as we are right now, they were "the most" young, but we were still significantly younger than they ever were.

Absolutely, but we’ll be about the same age they were last year, this year, so we’re not THAT young moving forward.

2 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

I'm not sure we disagree much at all.  I'd love to trade some mid-round picks for veterans like we did with Jaime Collins (hopefully it pans out a bit better than that though).

This I agree with.  Trading for established vets is a great use of assets as it mitigates risk.  You already know the guy can play in the league.

[Rod Johnson]

I whole heartedly believe that Dorsey and our current department has a better eye for talent than Sashi does even if that means they'll blow half their picks.  Sashi's rate was much worse than that and he tried to over-compensate.  Also, statistically speaking, players drafted at the top of the draft tend to be better than players selected later.  Why continue overloading our team with guys who have less chance of panning out than grabbing a few players that statistically have a good chance of panning out?  Especially when we already have a team full of guys whose potentials are unreached/unknown.

It would be completely different if the Browns were a team void of youth that desperately needed to mitigate an aging roster, and arguably Sashi did a great job of remedying that crisis which we were in when he took over.  The situation doesn't call to continue doing that (and we don't know if Sashi would have, but we do know that Dorsey won't).

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

4 minutes ago, BrownLeader said:

Someone's not been paying attention. I would think any Browns fan knows it's not about how many cracks you have at it....it's about how well you evaluate.

 

 

Here’s a study of 15 years worth of draft classes that says your idea of “best evaluations” is simply wrong.  Facts > opinions.

https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8516007/nfl-draft-economics

The differences between “the best evaluators” and the worst is a 10% success rate. That equates to a 2 “hits” every 3 years.  Not a terribly significant difference imo.

[Rod Johnson]

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I don’t disagree, but Sashi needed to for multiple reasons.  Mostly because we had nothing in the way of talent here.

I never said it was anything.  We do already have one Pro Bowler from that class, so it’s  hard to knock it too much as that’s more than we get from most classes.

If someone from the 2017 class makes a Pro Bowl (Garrett?), that’s 2/2 years that the “nerd who doesn’t know football” drafted a pro bowler. I don’t think it takes a nerd to realize 100% of the time is good.

I agree.  It’s about asset management over anything else.  Do I mind spending a top 5 pick and only want to trade down? Not at all.  I want a QB at 1.  If there was a “blue chip” prospect at a premium position, especially one of need, would I want them at 4? You bet.

Generally speaking though, trading up is an idiot’s bet, at least as far as the facts are concerned.

Absolutely, but we’ll be about the same age they were last year, this year, so we’re not THAT young moving forward.

This I agree with.  Trading for established vets is a great use of assets as it mitigates risk.  You already know the guy can play in the league.

As I've said in here before, I remain skeptical that JoScho really deserves to have been a pro bowl player.  It's great he is where he's at now, considering where we drafted him, but I don't think he's by any means a dominant player.  Still one of the good Sashi picks though.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

2 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

I whole heartedly believe that Dorsey and our current department has a better eye for talent than Sashi does even if that means they'll blow half their picks.

Based on what? Their collective lack of track records (Wolf, Highsmith, etc) or uninspiring resume (Eric Fisher at 1??)? I’m not saying they do or don’t, but you need to at least give Sashi’s classes time to show what they are either way... 

2 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

 

  Sashi's rate was much worse than that and he tried to over-compensate. 

That was literally their plan.  They weren’t better than anyone else, no one is, so if you want to increase the talent at a rate faster than your opponents, draft more. It’s not a new strategy, Johnson essentially did the same thing with the ‘Boys.

2 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

 

Also, statistically speaking, players drafted at the top of the draft tend to be better than players selected later.  Why continue overloading our team with guys who have less chance of panning out than grabbing a few players that statistically have a good chance of panning out? 

Cost/value. For that one top 4 pick, you could potentially have multiple top 20 picks over 2-3 years.

2 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

Especially when we already have a team full of guys whose potentials are unreached/unknown.

I’m guessing by this time next year, we’ll know a good bit more about that 2016 class and have holes that those picks can be used to fill.

2 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

It would be completely different if the Browns were a team void of youth that desperately needed to mitigate an aging roster, and arguably Sashi did a great job of remedying that crisis which we were in when he took over.  The situation doesn't call to continue doing that (and we don't know if Sashi would have, but we do know that Dorsey won't).

Agreed, but we also don’t know if Sashi would have been wrong in doing so.  We do know the math (facts) support it, even if old guys who “know football” (but not well enough to save their last job or win a title) say it doesn’t.

So far the only thing I know for sure about Dorsey is he’s damned good at picking his gigs (number overall pick and inherited 8, iirc, pro bowlers in KC and the greatest colllection of draft capital and cap space ever amassed in the game here).

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

8 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

As I've said in here before, I remain skeptical that JoScho really deserves to have been a pro bowl player.  It's great he is where he's at now, considering where we drafted him, but I don't think he's by any means a dominant player.  Still one of the good Sashi picks though.

Remain skeptical, I am too to some degree, but he wasn’t the first fringe player to make it and it won’t be the last.

I just wonder why so few of our other previous picks, by “real” football guys never got a bogus trip to the Pro Bowl? 

[Rod Johnson]

Just now, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Remain skeptical, I am too to some degree, but he wasn’t the first fringe player to make it and it won’t be the last.

I just wonder why so few of our other previous picks, by “real” football guys never got a bogus trip to the Pro Bowl? 

I mean it's not like Sashi has numerous instances of that yet, he has Schobert, who was in an absolutely ridiculous defensive scheme where he played 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage and was unblocked a lot.

I'm also not sold that we really have had a lot of GMs with the reputation that Dorsey has.  Ray Farmer got a promotion to the spot and was terrible.  Lombardi I don't think was good anywhere.  Heckert actually wasn't bad for us just victim to Lerner selling the team.  Eric Mangini (Rip Kokinis)...lmao.  Savage really a pure instance of what you're concerned about but traded away our picks at an absurd rate.  It's sad I feel like I've missed somebody in here because there have been so many.

[Bonanza23]

6 hours ago, BleedTheClock said:

Boy you guys are picky. We don't want Saquon Barkley at #4 but are going to accept Bradley Chubb or Minkah Fitzpatrick at those slots? Wow.

Yep. 

But I don’t pidgin hole myself, I’ll take whoever the best talent at the spot is. Save maybe guard. 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

9 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

I mean it's not like Sashi has numerous instances of that yet, he has Schobert, who was in an absolutely ridiculous defensive scheme where he played 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage and was unblocked a lot.

I'm also not sold that we really have had a lot of GMs with the reputation that Dorsey has.  Ray Farmer got a promotion to the spot and was terrible.  Lombardi I don't think was good anywhere.  Heckert actually wasn't bad for us just victim to Lerner selling the team.  Eric Mangini (Rip Kokinis)...lmao.  Savage really a pure instance of what you're concerned about but traded away our picks at an absurd rate.  It's sad I feel like I've missed somebody in here because there have been so many.

Carmen Policy... Joe Banner....

The scheme was ridiculous, I agree.

Dorsey did a decent job, no doubt, but he inherited a LOT (Johnson, Hali, Poe, Bailey, Berry, Charles, Hudson, Albert, Houston). He did a great job with the QB position, both short term and long term last year (one exception I would make for trading up), I have to give him credit there.

[Thomas5737]

1 hour ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Which year? Or should he have taken a QB both years? Does Hue play no role in this (Hue, the “QB whisperer”) as he didn’t want either of those guys either with those picks (if you believe the reports)? Or is Sashi being held responsible for every pick he DIDN’T make in addition to the ones he did?  What GM holds up to that standard?

Either year. Obviously year one would change year two's options.

 

1 hour ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

If you remove feelings from facts, this is simply false.  Almost by definition, trading back is a mitigation of risk, not an increased risk.

I'm saying it is logical to accumulate, however as a GM there is risk if you trade back and the player picked at the spot you traded back for looks really good when that is the position your team needed most. I wouldn't have taken Wentz or Watson, I would have went Bosa and who knows but not Watson. I had no issue with either trade, but using hindsight it probably cost Sashi his job (undeservingly in my opinion) even if he took Hue or whoever elses "expertise" into consideration.

 

1 hour ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Agreed, it’s easier to not fail (in general) when you have a QB in place.  Of course the strategy also gave us two prime opportunities to get said QB this year, so....

Well sure, sorta kinda. We earned #1 and if we had a QB that prevented us from having #1 because he was good we'd also be very happy, even moreso if you ask me, picking #4 and #21 is preferred over #1 and #4 because we are on the rise. I hope we do get another 1st next year and it is high and ours is low. Then we trade our low for a future 1st and a little something else and repeat every year.

[BrownLeader]

13 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Here’s a study of 15 years worth of draft classes that says your idea of “best evaluations” is simply wrong.  Facts > opinions.

https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8516007/nfl-draft-economics

The differences between “the best evaluators” and the worst is a 10% success rate. That equates to a 2 “hits” every 3 years.  Not a terribly significant difference imo.

I'm sure that was part of Sashi & Co's pitch.

I'm down with the theory. But the Browns are the worst team in the league right now because they've evaluated like **** even though they've had the most draft capital in the league. Even if that study is 100% true in the long term, this team is a depressing antithesis of their findings.