Whose fault is it Terelle Pryor left?
March 10, 2017Terrelle Pryor and the Cleveland Browns both lost in free agency
March 11, 2017There are moments of innovation, moments of change, where the philosophical divides between generations become apparent. While the Brock Osweiler deal is likely difficult to replicate, the essence of the transaction was a Grotian moment in the National Football League’s information revolution.1 While it is easy, retrospectively, to point to actions or moments which appeared to popularize new approaches, the most interesting analysis is evaluating who is left behind.
Over the past 15 years the three major sports have seen a sort of seismic shift that have left many unprepared and uninterested in following. Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association have been more visible in their rapid evolution. For a moment, I am going to slap a buzzword on the table: Analytics. If you are picturing Jonah Hill and an excel spreadsheet right now, that is fine. It is not an inappropriate reaction. A narrow interpretation of the term may lead one to picture a group of Yale economics majors locked in a dark room playing on their Alienware laptops. This sort of analytics imagery has been thrown around after the Browns hired Paul DePodesta and all those Ivy-league Attorneys. Let’s be honest, an occasional abacus joke is just fun.
This process, much like Daryl Morey’s approach in Houston, requires patience and is strewn with complexity. This process acknowledges that to truly contend, and do so for a significant period of time, you have to land elite talent. The easiest road to do so in the NFL is through the draft, and on rare occasions a trade. In this vein, the Browns have collected a bevy of picks, bottomed out for a superstar-caliber defender, while continually searching for new ways to build assets to bring in impact talent. Through this prism, the Osweiler trade can most easily be understood. The Browns view second round picks as a major asset—high talent upside at low, guaranteed costs—and were willing to take a major cap hit in order to add another B+ asset to the chest to pursue elite talent.
Through their work, the boys in Berea have been able to amass the following draft capital:
The #Browns draft picks after the Osweiler trade:
2017: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6
2018: 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6, 7— NFL GameDay (@NFLGameDay) March 9, 2017
The Browns have the option to take a lot of volume in the high-upside range or condense the assets for a single, elite talent inside or outside the draft. The Osweiler deal was one of opportunism—the Texans needed to clear cap for a potential Tony Romo signing and the Browns struck for a good asset. Part of compiling assets is preparing for when an elite talent suddenly becomes available like a contract dispute. Returning to the Morey-Houston example, take James Harden. A financially tight long-term cap situation in Oklahoma City allowed another team deep with assets to strike and obtain one of the best in the game.
When we speak further, the complexity in these leagues is immense pages on pages of contract rules, compensations rules and transaction rules (which it turns out attorney’s are pretty good at). On its own, trading for Brock Osweiler and a second round pick does not solve any major issue. This, of course, begins this session of Grumpy Old Men.2.
Here’s Cleveland.com’s Bill Livingston:
Typical enthusiasm by fans for a Browns move that did nothing to solve qb question any time soon. What sez Jimmy G is all that? 2 games?
— Bill Livingston (@Livy70) March 10, 2017
In one way, Livingston is right, this move did not on its own solve the Browns quarterback issues of the past two decades. In another, he is lost. If we were to analyze every individual move based on whether it had solved the quarterback question, no doubt every move would fail because it is an absurd and disingenuous way by which to measure success.
ESPN Cleveland’s Tony Grossi shares Livingston’s rubric: If a franchise quarterback is not acquired, the trade cannot be “brilliant.”
#Browns still seeking a quarterback after 'brilliant' trade for second-round pick https://t.co/36vMU4rdny
— Tony Grossi (@TonyGrossi) March 10, 2017
Grossi, like Livingston, likes to throw analytics around as a concept that he seems to understand as a binding column of numbers which by themselves make decisions.
Win negotiation, lose player. https://t.co/tdPuAHUJWi
— Tony Grossi (@TonyGrossi) March 10, 2017
The larger difference, however, is simply age. People like Bill Livingston simply have no interest in understanding the Browns process. He admits as much in this column:
Analytics and I have never understood each other.
Nor does he wish to understand what analytics actually means but rather just to toss it about as jab:
As for how analytics rates the pair, I’m not sure the discipline applies fully in football. Was RG3 the same quarterback after getting hit hard as he was before? Is there an algorithm that takes into account skill attrition through injury?
Good questions, though I expect they are rhetorical and used as a means to trivialize. Analytics are not the practice of ignoring everything but spreadsheets. Indeed, the best analytical organizations are the ones that integrate data with the traditional scouting and health training process. Are we to pretend that career arc-changing injuries do not happen in baseball or basketball? I would make a joke about ivory towers but most of the reporters shredding this Browns trade are resentful of those who attended schools with ivory towers. It’s quite a conundrum.
And lest we think this gap is prevalent only in local media, it’s a problem across the entire NFL. In a recent story penned by CBS Sports’ Jason La Canfora, the writer speaks with multiple league executives to discuss the Browns’ recent deal.
First, the more progressive executive.
“I like that trade for both teams,” as one put it.
And then, the “old school” executive from a “more conservative” franchise. (Emphasis on “old.”)
“I hate that trade. I hate it. That’s not a football trade.”
Two professional football franchises make a trade, but because said trade does not fit in with the hollow standards of yesteryear, it’s “not a football trade.” Makes sense, right?
The age divide is mammoth. The Browns implementation of the process may not work out—they do have to use these picks to acquire legitimate talent—but blind criticism without an attempt to learn the nuances of an innovative process is the true enemy of understanding.
My generation grew up reading Bill James, “Moneyball”, “Big Data Baseball” and “The 2 percent.” The older generation largely finds these approaches trite and lacking in good sports sense. “Boys of Summer” is a teriffic story and it’s penned by a legend, but let’s not pretend it’s going to help executives model modern day, competitive franchises. That certainly is an argument for another time, but when it comes to professional sports teams the war is over. Teams spend millions of dollars on collecting extensive information of all sorts. Therefore, a duty of covering a team must be attempting to understand the process they are implementing before blindly castigating it as a technocratic mess.
54 Comments
Livingston is a hack and Grossi never got over being fired from a paper that never lets people go. I’ll stick to WFNY, Pluto and writers who are unbiased and know what they’re writing about.
I want to believe this is all personality driven and that age doesn’t play a role, but when you look at those who are thinking about this in a bigger picture, it’s 1) predominantly younger folks or 2) those who have led a life of thinking analytically. When you see those who are staunchly opposed, it’s rooted in cynicism—there are so many who refuse to give this front office a chance because of a lack of “football” people—and age (i.e. longing for the days of old where gas was cheap, people answered the door with pastries and life was just “simpler”).
It’s all very bizarre to me, but I feel like your line about “The war’ being over is so spot on. Anyone opposing analytical views is on the wrong side of history here. These guys may not be able to evaluate talent, they may trade down because they can’t help themselves, and their draft picks may all blow. That doesn’t mean their approach was inherently wrong.
I’m a big believer in using Occam’s Razor (most obvious reason is often the reason things happen) to wade through things that seem muddled.
In terms of the Pryor deal – young people in their 20s make dumb career choices.
I’m not opposed to what the Browns are doing, but they still have to prove they know how to translate this into good players. The 2016 draft was a bit of a swing and a miss.
I was a bit jarred by how the old school continued to pile on the Browns, but upon reflection, the more old school guys exist and their narrative lives on, the better envirionment will exist for the Browns.
The Depodesta article on ESPN w/ info how CLE is poised to begin using all the player chip data had me excited. So treat the haterade as fuel.
Stockpiling assets and picks has always been good but isn’t a means to an end. Getting good players is an art unto itself. Chris Grant would be exhibit A.
I don’t believe that anyone here would dispute this: the results are what matter. The question is more about whether this approach to getting to the draft is worthy/smart/effective. At least that’s the pertinent question to me. And I am in favor of giving it a chance at the very least.
I’m all for this approach. We’ve failed enough doing it the traditional way, so trying a more modern approach is exciting!
Missed the point, Kenny.
Here’s something to chew on, that there is analysis that says a lot of drafting is a crap shoot and maybe just getting a ton of picks overcomes that reality. I mean, people don’t like to mention this, but even org’s like BAL, PIT, NE, ATL, CAR have had some pathetic drafts. The shine is off Ozzie’s first round pick record in recent years.
Browns will never come out and tell us the plan. I wouldnt be surprised at all for some of this year’s picks used traded for better ones next year (and so forth).
Banging article thanks! But sustainable success means having the most draft capital each & every year moving forward. Having 2 first round draft picks each year helps a lot. Trading out of #1 for somebody’s farm & Myles Garrett value is a big boom in that direction. Having 2 first round draft picks each & every year would help sustain that success moving forward. Remember this is about becoming dynasty over a few extra sacks. That dynasty requires staying ahead of the game with your draft capital & that’s the main ingredient moving forward for sustainable success. It is more valuable then Myles Garrett ever will be for the teams best interest. Thanks for this article it was very good. Dead on as well.
This article is absolutely phe-nomenal. May I suggest 2 other things that factor in the reaction to this move.
First, the current state of sports journalism that demands instant analysis. None of us know whether this trade will ultimately be beneficial because none of us knows the endgame. It’s certainly intriguing, and as an indication that the front office is thinking outside the box (apologies for the cliche) it’s exciting. But Livingston and Grossi must have immediate, simplistic and definitive opinions in order to stay relevant in the age of Twitter. Yet they don’t have any real context on which to base their views, except the move’s relation to the Browns QB future.
Which brings me to my second point. 20 years of Manning/Brady has turned the league and the fans into a collective of QB junkies, all craving their next fix. Of course great quarterbacks are essential. Browns fans know this better than anyone. But Browns fans should also appreciate the consequences of focusing so intently on that one position that we overreach. That Livingston and Grossi can’t analyze anything outside of its connection to the QB (as if that would be solved on day 1 of free agency anyway) demonstrates just how desperate they are for their next new shiny QB. Understandable perhaps after the decade we’ve had. But desperation is never an acceptable strategy.
We all know way too little to fully understand the big picture here, but if you’re going to ask me if I have more or less faith in the front office after FA day 1, my easy (but not final) answer is certainly more.
There are certainly older folks who have adapted but as a generalization, the huge shift has left many behind as they cling to “what always worked”
The only war left is time as TV analysts still lag in explaining the new ideas due to producers wanting to play to the audience (soon that will deman these newer approaches)
I profited $104000 previous year by working on-line and I manage to do it by working in my own time for few hrs /daily. I used an earning model I came across from this website i found online and I am so thrilled that i earned so much extra income. It’s really user-friendly and I’m so blessed that I found out about this. Check out what I do… http://juz.us/sgkr0
We won’t know for another year or two whether the 2016 draft was a swing and miss. One thing is certain though: instant gratification rules the day.
I think he hit the nail on the head. Analytics are great, I’ve annoyed many here with them. But they’re still just tools, even the best of them.
What separates the Sixers recent step into analytics from the Rockets? The 2000s Indians from this decade’s? All your smarts are for naught if you don’t hit on the draft crapshoot.
i have my own points of view on “analytics” but I laugh when people like Livingston say things like, “Is there an algorithm that takes into account skill attrition through injury?” because while there may not exactly be an algorithm there is certainly an accountable value for the situation.
Forget the term, “analytics,” and just think of it as calculated risk.
Amen.
I still think the same thing about Danny Shelton.
I am totally fine with this though. You cannot keep/develop 14 guys year after year on the roster. I feel like this sort of thing has not been done before or I have not seen it if it has. We need to get some blue chippers game changers or this will not work
case-in-point: the dummies on that ESPN video when the news broke all categorically crushing the Browns for making the move without understanding why.
are you saying the Browns should trade down from #1?
I try not to get excited by trades, draft etc. I follow it for entertainment, but I am no expert or soothsayer who can say player X is the next big thing.
That would be a mistake IMO. Clear #1 pick on everyones board. Is everyone stupid then?
I don’t think they should trade down unless it is to #2, where they somehow convince the Niners that Chicago is making a move. In this scenario, they would draft a QB for SF, trade him to SF and then take Garrett.
Nice to see a think-piece on a Saturday.
I wouldnt be suprised if san fran and Chicago pass on qb\
Mitchell Schwartz and Tashaun Gipson are excellent players, though.,
Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj189d:
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!mj189d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash189HomeSearchGetPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj189d:….,…..
this all day
As a geezer (relative to most of y’all) who has struggled to slowly understand the whats and whys of this trend, I totally get and can speak to the generational divide on this. When I read the early stories on WFNY by Jacob Rosen, which seemed 90% graphs and secret code-speak equations, I viewed him as less interested in sports than a math-obsessive using sports to satisfy some need emanating from the obsessive-compulsive spectrum (sorry, Jacob). But I started digging, and thinking, a lot, beginning of course with someone’s used “Moneyball” paperback. Michael Lewis did such a fine job of clarifying the overarching concepts, and the book’s epilogue in later editions responds so precisely to the old-school backlash, that I knew this was The Revolution. One thing still bothered me tremendously: Lewis’s quote (or author’s license?) of Bill James that with the right numbers players could be evaluated without being seen at all.
But everything I’ve heard from teams heavily using the numbers is that it’s another tool. They have to interview the guy, they have to eyeball (and measure, if they can) the fluidity of the hips as he flips from fronting to chasing the receiver. And upon more reflection: who was the early leader in the analytics movement, looking for anything to quantify what would appear on the field? Paul Brown, the lionized inventor of the non-football 40 yard dash and probably countless other brainstorms that didn’t work or catch on. I also remembered a story my uncle told me when I was a kid about when he, formerly a local sandlot baseball star, earned a tryout with the Indians (MLB teams used to troll for local talent that way). Some low level team assistant greeted them, lined up the dozen or so prospective outfielders like my uncle one by one, and timed each sprinting with a stop watch. And then he sent every one of them home without seeing anyone hit or pick up a glove. This was just after WWII. This was primitive analytics. So suck on it, fellow geezers.
To me, this is less about age and more about pure laziness. It far easier to pontificate based on “my vast knowledge and experience” or regurgitate media talking points than doing actual reporting. Livingston, Grossi, Cabot, Casserly, Evans, Lombardi bring zero to the table. Nada. Hell, Cowherd openly admits to dreaming up topics to discuss on his drive to work in the morning.
You don’t have to agree with them, but Schefter, Rap, Allbright, Bidwell, Pluto are obviously working sources and bringing fact based perspectives to their audiences. They do, you know, actual work.
Bingo. And in terms of this specific trade, the only thing at risk is Haslam’s money and cap space they can’t possibly spend.
Great piece Mike.
There is certainly a generational aspect to this, but as you point out, it can be overstated. People like Terry Pluto are at least attempting to understand and translate elements of a new paradigm for their readership.
I do acknowledge that, from an aesthetic standpoint, there is a certain joylessness to the analytics approach. If I was a journalist charged with capturing the human interest element of sport I think I’d have ambivalence about the incursion of the analytics movement into that space. That’s not a defense of Grossi and others, but, to some degree, I can understand their resistance.
If it weren’t for pre-spreadsheet analytics, Willie Mays Hayes would never have made the Indians roster! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wredc9WMRJQ
Totally get what you’re saying, but they don’t even do the human interest side. You want to write about what it’s like being Osweiller traded to the Browns in a salary dump, fine. That’s interesting. But all they got are Browns are stupid and FQB. It’s just lazy.
Frankly, there are commenters here, like yourself, whose opinions are more balanced and well thought out than any of the pablum they write, with Grossi and MKC being the poster children.
And I do agree there is a generational aspect to it. Labbe and Ulrich do a fine job and just don’t seem to get caught up in the nonsense.
I agree. Cleveland alone has some reporters who actually give an effort like Pluto and Vardon and then you have lazy people like Livingston and Grossi who barely research or understand the process teams are trying.
“it’s another tool” – yes. This is what even the savviest analytics guys should tell you and will admit. Here’s how I think of it – it’s cutting through data for INFORMATION. The smartest companies in the world thrive by dealing from a basis of information, or from obtaining the most information they can get – to make decisions on their future.
Having a pile of information is helpful, but it is rarely fact. FACT can most of the time, ony be learned by looking backwards and connecting the dots back in many cases. Cases were the FACTS are clear on the front side, wouldn’t need more than a child to solve. It’s like being POTUS. In most cases, anything solveable was solved long before in local government so everything there is obscufated.
“One thing still bothered me tremendously: Lewis’s quote (or author’s license?) of Bill James that with the right numbers players could be evaluated without being seen at all.”
I supposed some economies/markets this could work, but I don’t see pro sports with the multidynamics of players, strategy, personalities and luck – it ever being feasible.
I played a lot of poker, the pure math guys can do well but never really become the best of the world’s best. They usually lack the ability to change tactics and navigate among the other elite players. Now, yes they can do well but they rarely get the best. Some guys like Sklansky have won lower tier world titles but now make money of selling theory books and not playing, because they are too one-dimensional.
Harv, our geezer asses need to podcast…
Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj145d:
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!mj145d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash145DirectCloudGetPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj145d:….,……
good post , SATCH !!
good post , HHC !
so easy to hunt dinosaurs. should past trends be factored into future decisions? of course and that’s not new. what’s new is the thrall in which big data holds many people. find your best data-analyst GM and point to a success and i guarantee i can also show a case where his numbers-preeminent analyses led to treating humans like rotiserie piece parts. theo is always the first example here. good job winning pennants with uncapped payrolls against small market teams, i guess, but for every jake arrieta there is a matt clement; for every dexter fowler there is a jd drew.
re the new berea group: good on them for addressing offensive line play. but it’s the most basic of common sense to understand that you win at football by controlling the line of scrimmage. only an utterly soulless pod would require hadoop big data analysis before pulling the trigger on such an easy and wise investment of resources.
i can tell you that first round DEs are most likely to bomb and OGs are least likely and i can demonstrate it on google sheets. i can tell you that mike evans height and wingspan and hands creates a catch radius so rare as to be perhaps unprecedented in football history. is this good analytics? it didnt come from sloan school white paper so probably not.
point is that there is still a need to use your eyes and common sense. there’s a TED Talk groupthink the permeates the analytics fraternity. that and the aforementioned soullessnes are what turn me off i guess. i like what i’m seeing from sashi & co. so far but gimme the instincts plus breadth of experience of ted thompson or kevin colbert and i’ll take my chances until proven otherwise.
Outside of drafting Peyton Manning 1st overall (went out on a real limb there didn’t ya BP?!) and Reggie Wayne (who fell right into their laps at the end of round 1), Bill Polian should be better known for lots of misses in the draft, as his career is way overrated. He shouldn’t be rewarded for finding guys like Austin Collie or Pierre Garcon, as there are a ton of WRs who would flourish if playing alongside Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison. Yes he does have some really good picks, but so many of them were of the “no duh” variety or just did well in a winning scenario. He “left” in 2011.
Charley Casserly was fired from the Redskins in 1999, and outside of Andre Johnson and Mario Williams, had a very poor career in Houston that ended in 2006, 11 years ago. Over 90% of today’s NFL players were in College, HS or younger when he last had a title higher than Skip Bayless.
Heath Evans is a former Fullback. A good one, but his expertise is related to being a player, even if he hasn’t played in 7 years. His comments on FO decisions on a rebuilding football team are so unnecessary. Asking for his take on an analytical based trade is like asking a Fry Cook how to grow a great potato business.
These guys are old and out of touch. They haven’t made important NFL decisions in quite some time and should stop being referred to as experts. The fact is that the Browns got much better this week, improved their already stellar draft capital, and still own one of the best cap situations in the NFL. Wake up and get with it.
I know you didn’t mention any of these 3, but after the Trade, they were the first opinions I heard. I knew I shouldn’t have put ESPN on, as I have avoided it ever since the ButtFumble (aside from actual games and College Gameday, which I love). But the next morning, guys like Pete Schrager and other “younger” NFL correspondents applauded the Browns.
If you don’t think there is an age divide, go ahead and make a T chart. On the left, people who “hate” or “don’t understand” the trade. On the right, those who applaud it. Then tell me there isn’t a divide.
I have earned 104,000 thousand dollars in 2016 by freelancing online and I did that by working part-time for few h each day. I was following a money making model I found online and I am happy that I was able to earn so much extra income. It’s really beginner-friendly and I am just so thankful that i found this. Here is what i did… http://1b.yt/exKRw
I mean, the Browns getting a second-round draft choice from a team as likely to be bad as good in exchange for a 4th-rounder and cash is brilliant. Yes, you still have to do good things with that pick, but they gave up nothing but a nominal amount of cap flexibility (4m/yr over the 4-year cap limit) because Houston needed the cap room -right now-.
Any argument that trading cash when you have more cash than you can spend for a premium draft selection is a bad trade is utter nonsense.
Schwartz is still on the uptick but will never be more than a RT.
Gipson looks to be a flash in the pan with what he did in Jax after the big contract. Betcha DePo recognized these things as soon as he walked in the door.