Indeee

Browns WILL 1000% take Barkley at 1, it's a lock

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I agree if they like 1 better than the others they wont risk passing on him because the Giants may take the QB they like to get groomed by Eli. We could also trade our 3rd to a QB needy team. The Browns would look bad not taking a QB at #1 if those things occur considering they blew their chance to get Wentz.

It's not just the Giants they have to worry about, they have about 5-6 other teams willing to trade up to either 2 or 3 to worry about. 

 

If anything I think the Browns might try to jump from 4 to 2 to get both the QB of their choice and Barkley if they really like him this much. They have the draft capital to do it.

 

But there is a certain weird dance they have to perform with the Giants. For example if the Giants want Nelson(as some people seem to think), I think they'd do that. But if they want Barkley or if they want one of the QBs... why would they trade down from 2 to 4, when it would for sure cost them Barkley or potentially the QBs they like. The Browns would need to know which player the GIants really want in order to play it perfectly and it makes it paramount for the Giants to not reveal their intentions in any way so I expect a ton of smokescreens by the Giants by draft time. 

 

Here are some scenarios:

1. Giants really want Nelson and are not sold on drafting Barkley or a QB. Giants are open for trade back to 4 and will make it known to the Browns(and others) without much pretense IMO.

2. Giants really want Barkley, but not sold on any QB - they trade back only if Barkley is no longer on the board(taken #1 by the Browns). So the Browns will need to take him no. 1 to create incentive for the Giants to trade down. Browns risk someone else outbids them and takes their QB at #2

3. Giants really want one of the QBs, but don't plan on taking Barkley - similar to the situation above, they trade back only if the QB they want is no longer on the board(picked by the Browns at #1). Browns again risk someone else outbidding them for #2 pick(for another QB, or Barkley) or if Barkley is not picked - they risk the Colts picking him at 3.

3. Giants really want either Barkley or a specific QB. IMO they are not trading back in this case - one of their dream picks will be there for them to take and they won't risk it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2018 at 8:56 AM, TheMarine said:

The only way I see Barkley going #1 is if they (Browns) have QB1 and QB2, and they dont feel like the Colts are going to trade out of the #3 spot. But, if they do go Barkley #1, I do think we can certainly drop back. Cleveland wont take Chubb #4, nor will the Jets or Broncos.

 

TBH, Id like it if the Browns DID take Barkley #1 overall. It would open us up for more talent (draft picks) and still get our guy

 

Dorsey also has the high powered poker chips to trade up too, if he desires. They have the resources to possibly entice the Giants or even Colts into a trade if Dorsey really wants 2 guys off the top.

 

On 3/5/2018 at 4:03 PM, Luca_Colts said:

Guys, It's the Cleveland Browns!! They'll probably do something non sense!!

 

Unless the water in Cleveland brainwashes every GM that goes there, John Dorsey will probably change their direction similar to Tom Coughlin's influence on the previously talented but woeful Jacksonville Jaguars.

 

20 hours ago, krunk said:

I think the Giants are going to do exactly what their GM hinted at. He said Nelson was one of the two best players in this draft. I think they will pick up Norwell in FA and then draft Nelson at #2. Totally solidifying the interior of the OL. You do that and it also goes a long way towards fixing all the Run game problems they had as well.

 

While I like hearing stories, I always remember this is 'lying' season.  No team is going to truly tip their hand what they will do draft day. In addition, there are teams with cap issues and cuts/trades will be forthcoming.  Then the FA period.  What happens here will alter the landscape of the draft for some/many teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, stitches said:

This is horrible reasoning. Those QBs are so different I have no idea how the Browns wouldn't have a favorite among them even if they thought all of them can be franchise QBs. No team should be thinking "oh well... even third best QB would do... as long as we get that running back at 1"... This is just so bad... 

The overall consensus on this forum ever since I started this topic is that I'm crazy in my original assessment of how this would go down and the reasoning and the fact nothing is a lock/guarantee. Regardless of all this value talk or opinion on whether a team should take "x" or draft a certain way or think a certain way, I'm standing pat with what I know will happen and it makes perfect sense. ALL of these QB's in this class have faults and not one is heads above the other. That's what makes this scenario plausible and unique. The RB is a Lock at 1, bank it. Especially after the Taylor signing. Taylor hasn't thrown for over 3000 yards in 4 years, so if you believe he is going to come in and light it up as a passer you're clearly not paying attention. There can only be 2 QB's selected out of 4 available by the time the Browns pick again at 4 and if the Browns like both Darnold and Allen for example, they will get one of them as Rosen is coveted by at least the Jets and potentially the Bills. Barkley will be the pick, he is the best player in this draft hands down.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2018 at 2:51 AM, Indeee said:

Bump

 

No bumping please...although I have now just rebumped this in the process. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

No bumping please...although I have now just rebumped this in the process. 

I've been bumping this as I believe it's relevant with all the flack I have been getting regarding this post, considering it was posted before the combine even started. Everybody wants to chastise me yet I don't have a right to keep this post relevant? When it does turn out to be factual I will be gloating 1000% and if for some slim chance I am wrong, I will take my lumps as well. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Indeee said:

I've been bumping this as I believe it's relevant with all the flack I have been getting regarding this post, considering it was posted before the combine even started. Everybody wants to chastise me yet I don't have a right to keep this post relevant? When it does turn out to be factual I will be gloating 1000% and if for some slim chance I am wrong, I will take my lumps as well. 

 

If people aren't replying and it needs bumping then is it still relevant? I mean if you do turn out to be right and want to gloat come back to it after the draft. though I'd not suggest that. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvan1973 said:

Nailed it.   1000%

Yeah I doubt he shows up for a while. Most knew the Browns would take a QB 1st, I did anyway. I didn't think it would be Mayfield but a QB it was.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 8:13 AM, Indeee said:

Guys/Girls

 

Look this is a guaranteed no brainer that I'm shocked no one is seeing here. Regardless of what Mayock, Kiper, McShay all say, the Browns will NOT take a QB at 1, it will be Barkley and here's why.

 

There are 3 Qb's that are the "top" prospects this year. Rosen, Darnold, and Allen. Mayfield is the 4th. Anyway, IMO going on a few things I have read so far and that I agree with, the Browns view these three guys virtually the same. All have different skill sets however none really separate themselves from one another as clear cut favorites so....

 

Browns take best player at 1 which is Barkley.

 

That means Giants would trade out 2nd overall pick or take a QB. Lets say Giants trade with Jets. Jets take Rosen. Or if Giants take Rosen, That leaves Darnold and Allen. 

 

Colts trade pick 3 or take Chubb. Lets say Colts trade with Bills. Bills take Darnold. That leaves Allen or lets say Colts stay put and take Chubb that leaves Allen and Darnold.

 

Browns on clock at 4, either pick from 2 still available or take whoever is left.

 

Browns get RB and QB. End of story. Based on where the Browns sit in the draft there is no way the Browns don't come away with both positional players of need and Dorsey knows this.

 

My point is there is NO WAY this scenario doesn't play out this way except the name of the QB the Browns might get.

 

Makes NO sense for the Browns to take a QB at one and every so called pundit should know that.

 

Barkley will be a Brown 1000% Lock!!

 

 

I hope you arent a stock broker or palm reader.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Nailed it.   1000%

Lol...really the fact that you remembered this thread is amazing. Hope I never say 1000% lock on anything....but if I did I would expect someone to call me out too lol.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 9:50 PM, jvan1973 said:

Nailed it.   1000%

 

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 10:02 PM, dgambill said:

Lol...really the fact that you remembered this thread is amazing. Hope I never say 1000% lock on anything....but if I did I would expect someone to call me out too lol.

 

I just came on and looked for this thread as I was hoping @Indeee was going to come on and "take their lumps". 

 

I am sure they would have been on if Barkley had landed #1 but I spent more posts than I should have saying nothing in the draft is a lock.  It fell on deaf ears, and I assume this will too.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DaveA1102 said:

 

 

I just came on and looked for this thread as I was hoping @Indeee was going to come on and "take their lumps". 

 

I am sure they would have been on if Barkley had landed #1 but I spent more posts than I should have saying nothing in the draft is a lock.  It fell on deaf ears, and I assume this will too.

Most guys just come back next year making the same claims about a new guy, and when they get called out for being wrong the previous year, it's conveniently ignored at best, meticulously excused at worst.  Not a soul would care if someone was like "Yeah, I was dead wrong last year, but here's why I'm right this year."  Instead we get, "I would've been right if the Browns FO didn't suck so bad like it does every year, but this year blah blah blah."

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2018 at 10:21 AM, Indeee said:

I've been bumping this as I believe it's relevant with all the flack I have been getting regarding this post, considering it was posted before the combine even started. Everybody wants to chastise me yet I don't have a right to keep this post relevant? When it does turn out to be factual I will be gloating 1000% and if for some slim chance I am wrong, I will take my lumps as well. 

hope you didnt have too much money on that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Most guys just come back next year making the same claims about a new guy, and when they get called out for being wrong the previous year, it's conveniently ignored at best, meticulously excused at worst.  Not a soul would care if someone was like "Yeah, I was dead wrong last year, but here's why I'm right this year."  Instead we get, "I would've been right if the Browns FO didn't suck so bad like it does every year, but this year blah blah blah."

 

100%! :thmup:

 

Even if the post was something like "I cant see anything other than Barkley No1" as an opinion, but it was the constant "lock" chat that was just too much for me.

 

As you say, if you make big claims, face big consequences, and I would actually have some respect if they came back and took the egg on their face like a champ.  Although I wont be holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DaveA1102 said:

 

100%! :thmup:

 

Even if the post was something like "I cant see anything other than Barkley No1" as an opinion, but it was the constant "lock" chat that was just too much for me.

 

As you say, if you make big claims, face big consequences, and I would actually have some respect if they came back and took the egg on their face like a champ.  Although I wont be holding my breath.

Well, and there were a ton of people who thought he was the best player in the draft.  If you're wrong, hey - it's just because someone saw things a little differently.  I mean, the guy did go No. 2 overall.  That's close enough to say you were almost right.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DaveA1102 said:

 

100%! :thmup:

 

Even if the post was something like "I cant see anything other than Barkley No1" as an opinion, but it was the constant "lock" chat that was just too much for me.

 

As you say, if you make big claims, face big consequences, and I would actually have some respect if they came back and took the egg on their face like a champ.  Although I wont be holding my breath.

Oh no doubt...to say "I think" or "they should" is one thing. To say write this down or its 1000% lock...without being part of the draft room I think is a being a bit presumptive...and an *. I don't think I've ever said 1000% lock on anything but I've been pretty certain of my opinions. The draft is such a surprise I don't see how anyone could be certain of anything. I thought Darnold was a lock to go #1...that he had the most upside of all the qbs and Cleveland took Tyrod to buy them some time until he plays....but I would have been wrong. I do take my lumps when I'm wrong. I will admit to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dgambill said:

Oh no doubt...to say "I think" or "they should" is one thing. To say write this down or its 1000% lock...without being part of the draft room I think is a being a bit presumptive...and an *. I don't think I've ever said 1000% lock on anything but I've been pretty certain of my opinions. The draft is such a surprise I don't see how anyone could be certain of anything. I thought Darnold was a lock to go #1...that he had the most upside of all the qbs and Cleveland took Tyrod to buy them some time until he plays....but I would have been wrong. I do take my lumps when I'm wrong. I will admit to it.

And he still could wind up being the best QB of the class, none of them have stepped on the field.  If everything pans out where they all hit their potential, it c ould be as simple as one guy is better one year and the other guy is better the next year.  We'll see.   No doubt this was a fun draft class.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Well, and there were a ton of people who thought he was the best player in the draft.  If you're wrong, hey - it's just because someone saw things a little differently.  I mean, the guy did go No. 2 overall.  That's close enough to say you were almost right.

 

Yes, and actually, there were many who thought any one of the 3 were the best in the draft:  Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson all had those who had proclaimed them the best of an elite group.  It's all perspective, and none were 1000% locks. And we all know the best of the round 1 grade QB's vault to the top of the draft slots, but not necessarily best player list. That upsets the apple cart too.

 

Unfortunately for the prediction, not only did Barkley go second and not first, his 4th QB on his list was the one taken first. And then the Browns passed on Chubb on their second pick (#4) !!

 

NFL / Draft ... no such thing as 'locks'.  100% or 1000%.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's keep the banter truthful, but lightweight and respectful, though. I don't want to have to lock this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OffensivelyPC said:

And he still could wind up being the best QB of the class, none of them have stepped on the field.  If everything pans out where they all hit their potential, it c ould be as simple as one guy is better one year and the other guy is better the next year.  We'll see.   No doubt this was a fun draft class.

 

Hey, what about the Browns and Bills GMs that did not draft QBs in round 1 in our Gavin mock draft? :thmup: #draggingyourleg 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Hey, what about the Browns and Bills GMs that did not draft QBs in round 1 in our Gavin mock draft? :thmup: #draggingyourleg 

Haha, I still believe Josh Allen is not the answer, and I was kinda sorta right about the not taking Lamar Jackson until the second - he was one pick away.  Still, you all were correct about reaching for QBs, as much as I didn't want to do it.  Still it turns out about half of my draft picks were reaches from a few picks to almost a full round so it's not like I ended up not reaching for anything LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Yes, and actually, there were many who thought any one of the 3 were the best in the draft:  Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson all had those who had proclaimed them the best of an elite group.  It's all perspective, and none were 1000% locks. And we all know the best of the round 1 grade QB's vault to the top of the draft slots, but not necessarily best player list. That upsets the apple cart too.

 

Unfortunately for the prediction, not only did Barkley go second and not first, his 4th QB on his list was the one taken first. And then the Browns passed on Chubb on their second pick (#4) !!

 

NFL / Draft ... no such thing as 'locks'.  100% or 1000%.

I still didn't get them passing up Chubb for Denzel Ward.  Perhaps we'll see in the upcoming years.  If he ends up being a lockdown corner, it makes more sense.  Still it wasn't a terrible reach - though Garrett and Chubb on the ends would have been, I think, a devastating combination.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Haha, I still believe Josh Allen is not the answer, and I was kinda sorta right about the not taking Lamar Jackson until the second - he was one pick away.  Still, you all were correct about reaching for QBs, as much as I didn't want to do it.  Still it turns out about half of my draft picks were reaches from a few picks to almost a full round so it's not like I ended up not reaching for anything LOL.

 

At least you and Chris Ballard have that in common. :) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2018 at 11:07 PM, Four2itus said:

 

I am actually surprised he went at #2. I expected 4 at best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, csmopar said:

 

I love it when people make guarantees like this. LOL

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Most guys just come back next year making the same claims about a new guy, and when they get called out for being wrong the previous year, it's conveniently ignored at best, meticulously excused at worst.  Not a soul would care if someone was like "Yeah, I was dead wrong last year, but here's why I'm right this year."  Instead we get, "I would've been right if the Browns FO didn't suck so bad like it does every year, but this year blah blah blah."

"WE ALL IN ON ___________ YA'LL!!!!"

 

7 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I still didn't get them passing up Chubb for Denzel Ward.  Perhaps we'll see in the upcoming years.  If he ends up being a lockdown corner, it makes more sense.  Still it wasn't a terrible reach - though Garrett and Chubb on the ends would have been, I think, a devastating combination.

The Browns' top 2 picks show that analytics are still very important to their FO.

 

The analytics guys seem to value CB's more than pass rushers, in that essentially a bad pass rusher just doesn't get to the QB while a bad CB gives up significantly more yards and potentially a TD. Sacks are also, on average, not a common occurrence, which is partially why we view them with such significance. Pressure in general is still a relevant factor, but doesn't outweigh quality CB value.

 

While there's merit in this, the scarcity of quality pass rushers vs quality CB's is what drives up the inherent value of quality pass rushers. Also keep in mind that from an analytics standpoint, Chubb was a very average pass rusher, but a fantastic run stopper, so his value falls even more below Ward's to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shive said:

"WE ALL IN ON ___________ YA'LL!!!!"

 

The Browns' top 2 picks show that analytics are still very important to their FO.

 

The analytics guys seem to value CB's more than pass rushers, in that essentially a bad pass rusher just doesn't get to the QB while a bad CB gives up significantly more yards and potentially a TD. Sacks are also, on average, not a common occurrence, which is partially why we view them with such significance. Pressure in general is still a relevant factor, but doesn't outweigh quality CB value.

 

While there's merit in this, the scarcity of quality pass rushers vs quality CB's is what drives up the inherent value of quality pass rushers. Also keep in mind that from an analytics standpoint, Chubb was a very average pass rusher, but a fantastic run stopper, so his value falls even more below Ward's to them.

LOL at we all in.

 

But to your other point,  i agree somewhat. What I think the great coverage analytics seem to assume is a competent pass rush. Weve all seen Brady sit in the pocket for 10 seconds and throw to a wide open whomever. Where a average or good pass rush might cut it down short enough where the QB must either run, be forced to throw or run, you just cant expect great coverage past the initial routes naturally breaking down - someone EVENTUALLY gets open.

 

I do agree a bad CB getting burned opens up the possibility of a huge play. But that is masked by a better pass rush. Even if the Colts had an excellent secondary,  I just cant agree it is more important than a great pass rush, analytics aside.

 

If anything, the two things are interdependent - you need them both working in concert. I think from a team valuation standpoint,  GMs see the edge rushers as most important because they are paid the highest and rarely hit the market, whereas even top tier CBs find their way to free agency with just a little more regularity. 

 

Its not an end to the debate, of course, but I think the truest analysis would result in saying if coverage is bad, great pass rush is diminished and if the pass rush is bad, great coverage is marginalized. You need competent functionality from both for sustained success.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OffensivelyPC said:

LOL at we all in.

 

But to your other point,  i agree somewhat. What I think the great coverage analytics seem to assume is a competent pass rush. Weve all seen Brady sit in the pocket for 10 seconds and throw to a wide open whomever. Where a average or good pass rush might cut it down short enough where the QB must either run, be forced to throw or run, you just cant expect great coverage past the initial routes naturally breaking down - someone EVENTUALLY gets open.

 

I do agree a bad CB getting burned opens up the possibility of a huge play. But that is masked by a better pass rush. Even if the Colts had an excellent secondary,  I just cant agree it is more important than a great pass rush, analytics aside.

 

If anything, the two things are interdependent - you need them both working in concert. I think from a team valuation standpoint,  GMs see the edge rushers as most important because they are paid the highest and rarely hit the market, whereas even top tier CBs find their way to free agency with just a little more regularity. 

 

Its not an end to the debate, of course, but I think the truest analysis would result in saying if coverage is bad, great pass rush is diminished and if the pass rush is bad, great coverage is marginalized. You need competent functionality from both for sustained success.

I agree 100%.

 

That's where I think a pure analytics approach is flawed. It doesn't necessarily take into account the interdependency of the pass rush and CB coverage, just looks at each in a vacuum. Of course, their stance on this probably goes deeper than anything I mentioned above, but I still think your last paragraph hits it right on the head.

 

Edit: This was actually something that was a topic of discussion on the PFF Forecast podcast the other day (there's 2 PFF podcasts and the guys on this one are HEAVY into analytics). I can't buy as much into this podcast as much as I do the other PFF one, but it's definitely interesting to hear someone talk about football in a way that you've never really thought about before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shive said:

I agree 100%.

 

That's where I think a pure analytics approach is flawed. It doesn't necessarily take into account the interdependency of the pass rush and CB coverage, just looks at each in a vacuum. Of course, their stance on this probably goes deeper than anything I mentioned above, but I still think your last paragraph hits it right on the head.

 

Edit: This was actually something that was a topic of discussion on the PFF Forecast podcast the other day (there's 2 PFF podcasts and the guys on this one are HEAVY into analytics). I can't buy as much into this podcast as much as I do the other PFF one, but it's definitely interesting to hear someone talk about football in a way that you've never really thought about before.

LOL it's so funny you mention that. I was legit listening to that podcast on my way home from work yesterday and I was like, man I wonder if he heard that podcast.  I heard what they were saying and I just rolled my eyes.  When I sat back and thought about it, they did have a point, just not the dispositive point.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 8:50 AM, rockywoj said:

I hope the OP is correct about Barkley.

 

Then I hope the Browns become enamoured with a particular QB after the NYGs take their guy, get spooked about the Colts trading out of the 3 spot, thus trading with the Colts to move back up one spot, giving the Colts the Browns’s first 2nd round pick, in addition to the 4th overall.

 

THEN I hope the NYJs become enamoured with a particular QB, but are direly fearful they’ll lose that guy to the Broncos.  Thus, NYJ swap the 6 spot to move up to the number four spot, giving the Colts both of NYJ’s 2nd rounders to do so.

 

Then at number six, the Colts solidify their OL by taking Quenton Nelson, who lives up to the hype, going on to have a HOF career at OG.  To boot, the Colts would then have FOUR 2nd round picks to really bolster their roster.  Ergo, Colts turn the # 3 overall pick into the # 6, 33, 37, & 49 picks.  As well, they have their own 2nd rounder which is 36th overall.

 

Dreaming!

 

After going back and looking at this thread I just have a couple of questions. Do you know the Powerball numbers for the next drawing and got any good stock tips? Wow! You NAILED it! 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

After going back and looking at this thread I just have a couple of questions. Do you know the Powerball numbers for the next drawing and got any good stock tips? Wow! You NAILED it! 

 

lol Thanks!  I was slightly off, though, in that one of the second rounders actually acquired is for next year and all of the picks actually acquired were done so via one trade, instead of the two trades I projected.  :)

 

I was very pleased when Ballard made the trade, though, putting the Colts into the 6 slot and essentially getting the three 2nd round picks that I felt would be what I deemed as outstanding value to move from the 3 spot to the 6 spot.  Only difference in actuality from my projection is that instead of the # 33 spot, that 2nd rounder is instead next year, but if NYJ nearly bottom dwells again, that pick might just also be a high 2nd rounder!  

 

And yes, then having reality cap off with the pick of Nelson, whom I wanted even if the Colts were in the # 3 spot, well, just icing on the cake.

 

I am indeed proud of my projected “dream” scenario being pretty darn close to the reality that transpired. :)

 

Re: Stock tip, buy nvidea (NVDA) if it falls back into a valley on a 5% to 10% retraction.  I also like Nutrion (NTR) for their dividend return and appreciation upside.  I feel the same way about Store Capital (STOR).

 

Sorry, can’t help you on Powerball numbers.  That I’m reserving for myself.  ;)

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

LOL it's so funny you mention that. I was legit listening to that podcast on my way home from work yesterday and I was like, man I wonder if he heard that podcast.  I heard what they were saying and I just rolled my eyes.  When I sat back and thought about it, they did have a point, just not the dispositive point.

I had to go back and listen to that part again to make sure I got their take correct. I like the different perspective they offer, but yea, definitely an eye roll every now and then.

 

One thing I see as a constant factor for them is identifying traits, stats, etc. that, in the grand scheme, don't occur often and therefore, don't have as much value. The pass rush vs coverage piece has a little bit of merit, but not entirely. The one I really can get behind is that WR's whose defining trait is their ability to catch contested balls present an extremely lower value vs a WR that may not catch contested balls well, but can consistently get separation. Contested catches occur extremely infrequently, whereas a WR creating separation can occur pretty much all the time. This is why I think a guy like Dante Pettis went higher than expected and a bunch of the "size, speed, poor separation, but great at contested catches" guys fell.

 

TD;DR: Rate of occurrence is a big piece of the puzzle for the analytics guys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2018 at 10:21 AM, Indeee said:

When it does turn out to be factual I will be gloating 1000% and if for some slim chance I am wrong, I will take my lumps as well.

 

Is you "taking your lumps" also a "1000% lock" ?   haha

 

Santa might be a little late with all of your lumps this Christmas... there's a lot of lumps in his bag...

 

800px_COLOURBOX8294769.jpg

 

Alright, there's my one lump for ya @Indeee , Merry Christmas!!!  :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shive said:

I had to go back and listen to that part again to make sure I got their take correct. I like the different perspective they offer, but yea, definitely an eye roll every now and then.

 

One thing I see as a constant factor for them is identifying traits, stats, etc. that, in the grand scheme, don't occur often and therefore, don't have as much value. The pass rush vs coverage piece has a little bit of merit, but not entirely. The one I really can get behind is that WR's whose defining trait is their ability to catch contested balls present an extremely lower value vs a WR that may not catch contested balls well, but can consistently get separation. Contested catches occur extremely infrequently, whereas a WR creating separation can occur pretty much all the time. This is why I think a guy like Dante Pettis went higher than expected and a bunch of the "size, speed, poor separation, but great at contested catches" guys fell.

 

TD;DR: Rate of occurrence is a big piece of the puzzle for the analytics guys.

I agree with you, but I will add one thing - separation is a multi-faceted concept.  Gaining separation through route running is the primary concept that most of us think of, but the ability to position your body and win contested catches is, at least in my opinion, also separation.  It's just not what most of us think of.  Certainly, though, the attribute of creating separation through speed and running routes with strong breaks and effective fakes takes precedence over fighting of body positioning  Still, whether it's route running and athleticism or body positioning, either of which results in a throw where the QB can place it only where the WR can snag it has value, particularly when we are talking about where on the field the ball is thrown.  Dante Pettis in between the 20s might have more value than Courtland Sutton on the sideline and redzone throws.  But in the red zone and 3rd and mid-long, Courtland Sutton might have the advantage.  It's all about scheme and the QBs strengths (not to mention, of course, the WRs strengths).  

 

When I look for a receiver, I'm looking at both (and this goes back to the analytics and where it has some merit, but not the entire merit), but I have to assume the QB can make the desired throw - not the collegiate QB, but in the NFL.  Receiver 1 might create separation for YAC and gain a first down over the middle of the field, but Receiver 2 could run a deeper route and win up high or over the sidelines.  Put those two things together and you have a means to achieve the goal for that play.  Of course, we all know football isn't an equation and any number of things can go wrong, the QB doesn't set right, pressure comes up the middle or outside, the player in coverage is holding the receiver and doesn't get called, or he makes a spectacular play.  None of these things compute mathematically, and that's precisely because football can't be reduced to equations except maybe probability.  Naturally, you have coaches and scouts who develop their preferences based on what they see and take in the analytics and athletic measurements as a confirming measure of what you see on tape.  They may lean towards the tape or the analytics a little heavier than the other, but to disregard one in favor of the other is folly, and that's what I think the guys on the podcast got wrong.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2018 at 10:21 AM, Indeee said:

I've been bumping this as I believe it's relevant with all the flack I have been getting regarding this post, considering it was posted before the combine even started. Everybody wants to chastise me yet I don't have a right to keep this post relevant? When it does turn out to be factual I will be gloating 1000% and if for some slim chance I am wrong, I will take my lumps as well. 

When are you gonna take your lumps?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

When are you gonna take your lumps?

Whats funny is he's been on since you've resurrected this thing

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2018 at 9:04 AM, Indeee said:

The overall consensus on this forum ever since I started this topic is that I'm crazy in my original assessment of how this would go down and the reasoning and the fact nothing is a lock/guarantee. Regardless of all this value talk or opinion on whether a team should take "x" or draft a certain way or think a certain way, I'm standing pat with what I know will happen and it makes perfect sense.

 

 

You're not crazy, as many (but not all!) thought Barkley was #1 overall caliber.  But it is true, and proven once more, nothing is a lock/guarantee. 

 

Quote

ALL of these QB's in this class have faults and not one is heads above the other. That's what makes this scenario plausible and unique. The RB is a Lock at 1, bank it.

 

All the QB's do hav eflaws, but  not all teams rate tjhem the same.  Fact. RB at #1? Not banked.

 

Quote

Especially after the Taylor signing. Taylor hasn't thrown for over 3000 yards in 4 years, so if you believe he is going to come in and light it up as a passer you're clearly not paying attention. There can only be 2 QB's selected out of 4 available by the time the Browns pick again at 4 and if the Browns like both Darnold and Allen for example, they will get one of them as Rosen is coveted by at least the Jets and potentially the Bills. Barkley will be the pick, he is the best player in this draft hands down.  

 

Tyrod took the Bills to the playoffs last year, and you mention all of the top 2018 QB's... except one.  THE one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Ryan Grigson is the Browns Senior Personnel Executive and if he has any input....It's Baker Mayfield!! Whoops!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.