Analytics | Page 5 | Barking Hard

Analytics

Listening to SiriusNFL this morning and they had Brian Billick on. They asked him about analytics...and he responds that he not only USED them back in 1992, he wrote about it in his book. I am sure those analytics were much more rudimentary, but still, it's not as new as some think.

...and this thought that it is all numbers is wrong. It incorporates every single aspect of the scouting reports, including behavior, legal issues, systems played in, coaching, interview success....all of that is put in and considered. It isn't some put in the numbers, hit a button, and a score pops out. It shows positives and negatives of each candidate, and the final decision is made by people who review the reports developed.
 
Ron Wolf kinda made himself the poster boy of being technologically left behind. Happens to all of us at some point and it's understandable: Learning shit takes time, so if you're not really gonna be needing it, why bother?

It's the guys still in the league trying to hold back the future who have some difficult conversations in their near futures.
 
DawgFan said:
Listening to SiriusNFL this morning and they had Brian Billick on. They asked him about analytics...and he responds that he not only USED them back in 1992, he wrote about it in his book. I am sure those analytics were much more rudimentary, but still, it's not as new as some think.

...and this thought that it is all numbers is wrong. It incorporates every single aspect of the scouting reports, including behavior, legal issues, systems played in, coaching, interview success....all of that is put in and considered. It isn't some put in the numbers, hit a button, and a score pops out. It shows positives and negatives of each candidate, and the final decision is made by people who review the reports developed.
Click to expand...

And herein lies a concern:

In analytics, when one seeks to make an evaluation, one first breaks down the various tasks into component parts in an effort to achieve a superior evaluation. For example, interview success can be broken down into binary questions about various aspects of interview performance such as relative ease and comfort, phrasing, correctness, completeness of answers, voice quality etc.

Answer each of those questions appropriately and add up the result for an overall evaluation of the interview performance. Presumably, this methodology, if the questions and weight of each question is insightfully applied, will provide a superior evaluation of interview success and also provide insight on how interview performance may be improved. Furthermore the answers to the questions are data that can be collected into a spreadsheet and combined with other data to provide a data driven evaluation of the total person.

However, a question can be legitimately asked whether this methodology for evaluating an interview performance or other aspect of a particular job is actually superior to a simple overall evaluation of interview performance. I would contend that it can be if the questions to be answered are truly insightful and weight is applied appropriately. However, it needs to be understood that despite the appearance of objectivity due to the mathematically combining of subjective evaluations of the component parts, it is still subjective.
 
Brownsfan said:
However, it needs to be understood that despite the appearance of objectivity due to the mathematically combining of subjective evaluations of the component parts, it is still subjective.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree....and it is in that subjectivity that the 'anti-analytics' people should take solace. No matter how you collect information (I won't say data because people make that numbers) it is always in some way subjective and therefore guided by the individuals and their desired goal. It therefore puts a huge weight on the people collecting the information (scouts, coaches, GM).

Further, the analysis is also subjective, because the criteria used is manipulated to produce the types of outcomes you are looking for. Additional weight on speed, intelligence, leadership, clean history...whatever.

It is not for the analytics department to determine those weights, but rather to reflect the weights desired by the HC/GM to produce the type of players they desire.

So for drafting and signing FA's (or keeping players), the overall analysis is based off of the HC/GM player preference.

For analysis of things like practices/injuries/situational decisions....those are straight data analytics and are merely informational...not rules.
 
My objectively left at 1-31, came back when Dorsey started stocking the team with talent, and left again when I found out we are back to what got is to 1-31...........
 
Last edited:
The important thing is DePodesta's record down the stretch in 2019 and last year, too, but only in the game's we won. The ones we lost were all on Freddie and Freddie is all on Dorsey.

Now let's move on knowing DePo is a golden god. So do we win 13 or 14?!

(I'm accepting that this place is gonna be Batshit Crazytown for a while with our new dark passenger and his mates.)
 
It is an interesting list, especially all the parts about saving money, not paying depth players, being able to cancel contracts after 2 years ect. Reads like the Mike Brown Bengals philosophy of NFL and confirms why DePodesta can fail at an epic level and still is in the power seat: Jimmuh is more concerned with saving $$$ and maximizing profits over winning Championships. He is truly to ning this team like a local truck stop.
 
Obliterates any last molecules who think there aren't key positions NFL teams build around, and would prefer to cluster their cap there: QB and OT on offense, edge and CB on defense.

Baker, Myles, and Denzel are set. They have a shit ton of money at WR and very little at OT, though. We're gonna see a pretty big investment at OT for sure, both free agency and the draft.

And when those three guys get paid, we'll see dollars shifting away from WR. Doesn't mean we'll get worse, probably will get better, but we'll have at least one starter on his rookie deal.

I keep looking at the 49ers because I just love so much of what they've done. They have three non-star RBs adding up to one of the league's best rushing attacks behind a very good (but not terribly expensive) OL. Any of those three guys can get hurt or replaced and it does not damage the bottom line at all.

WR? They drafted Deebo in 2 and made their biggest move to sign Sanders with no real concern that he turns 33 this Spring. Kittle is the true #1 and is on his rookie deal. The NFL is a season to season proposition built around the HC-QB core and then OT, edge, and CB.

Ties in some to Jimmy Johnson as well. He said you build a team around the QB and the DL. SF has obviously leaned into the DL, so have the Browns.

What's not mentioned even when overlapping the universal key positions with Johnson are skill players. You can certainly make the case that you want familiarity with targets so some continuity there is good, at least with your top two, regardless of position. Like Gronk and Edelman or Kittle and Deebo, who likely get big 2nd deals.

RBs and OBLBs are generally to be plugged in and out with exceptions for very special backs like (say) Marshawn Lynch, a guy who can give you 30 carries and 40 minutes of possession. There's no doubt Nick Chubb is that kind of back. At OBLB, the exception is for the QB of the defense who also plays at a Pro Bowl level.

That could definitely be Schobert. I would lean into both Chubb and Scho for second deals, and I don't feel that very often for those positions.
 
Alo said:
I get the Sashi context for the SPARQ/athletic testing slander. But if we're being honest here, how do we think Paton & the Vikes landed on Danielle Hunter (4.5 sacks in his time at LSU) as a third round mega-bargain? Just pure dumb luck, or...

View attachment 1610

Those Minny dudes also went with a testing freak OL in the second frame in '18 — unlike Corbett, O'Neill has been able to stay on the outside & play at a reasonably high level (70.8 PFF grade).
Click to expand...

The issue here is, you're talking about the Vikings. Depos last round of drafting SPARQ guys produced a goose egg. That's what happens when you run an NFL team with a baseball sparq moneyball guy. To make matters worse, they've hired an inexperienced yes man as GM. Add that up and it equals 1-31. We've seen how this ends. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is ludicrous... ...
 
There also is the Haslam factor.

Jimmy imposed himself in the draft room and Farmer relented to draft JFF. That's what worries me more than Berry and Depo cause at least those guys have done some sort of scouting of players. They both have a reasonably good idea of what's going to happen. But if Jimmy comes in and says take player B over the consensus player A...we're fucked. The old man can seriously screw shit up. Again.
 
jaydog said:
There also is the Haslam factor.

Jimmy imposed himself in the draft room and Farmer relented to draft JFF. That's what worries me more than Berry and Depo cause at least those guys have done some sort of scouting of players. They both have a reasonably good idea of what's going to happen. But if Jimmy comes in and says take player B over the consensus player A...we're fucked. The old man can seriously screw shit up. Again.
Click to expand...

And there is that too
 
jaydog said:
There also is the Haslam factor.

Jimmy imposed himself in the draft room and Farmer relented to draft JFF. That's what worries me more than Berry and Depo cause at least those guys have done some sort of scouting of players. They both have a reasonably good idea of what's going to happen. But if Jimmy comes in and says take player B over the consensus player A...we're fucked. The old man can seriously screw shit up. Again.
Click to expand...

What worries me is DePo and Jimmy pushed for Berry because he won't tell them to fuck off if they do try and push to make decisions they shouldn't be making.

At least with a guy like Dorsey, you know his reputation for being stubborn and hard-nosed was going to have him making decisions. We're now back in a position where we don't know if those previous influences of others fistfucking the cookie jar is going to re-emerge.

People look back on Dorsey dismissing a report from the analytics department as a negative on him. Threw it in the bin and made a joke about it or something? But at least he was willing to tell them to fuck off if they were trying to insert themselves in to his process.

What did we want from that, what outcome? The answer is either that he should have at least taken the information in to account, but also potentially, "He should have listened and followed what they wanted."

Perhaps that story emerging revealed not that Dorsey was set in his ways, we already knew that, but that a certain department in Berea does not take kindly to their direction not being strictly followed. You don't want our input? Fine, we don't want you in the building.

What I don't know is if Berry is here because he's talented and will work closely with Stefanski to bring his vision about, or if it's because he'll work with Haslam and DePo to bring their vision about.
 
The Haslam's need to just step away and let these guys do their jobs unmolested. The one report said Jimmy would ask questions of these guys about the other guys and it created an atmosphere of paranoia and backstabbing in Berea. Jimmy really needs to pull a Randy Lerner and just let these guys do their thing. The time to ask questions will be when 1st and 2nd round picks can't even make the rotation at their positions. And he should talk to the GM Berry about that. That's as simple as it is.

If Jimmy doesn't like the answer then he can fire him. But he doesn't have to fire Stefanski for that shit. This keeps some continuity in the building. The reverse is if the next Joe Thomas walks through that door and Stefanski isn't starting him. Talk to Stefanski and if you don't like the answer you can fire him, but you don't have to fire Berry and Depo if they chose the right guy. Continuity remains on some level.
 
I see the take here, I just don't think it's the reality of the situation. Dorsey has a track record of his own that's pretty damn consistent. He does not get along well with a strong coach... and now add that he's pretty openly anti-analytics, which cuts directly against where the elite franchises are headed.

Like I said, it would be a different undertaking to put him at the point of an organizational change at this point. You'd look at his makeup and aim at a young coach who's willing to let Dorsey have the wheel... but somehow a young coach who's a bit old fashioned? I'm saying it would be complicated.

I really think that's true. There's zero doubt we had to make a change and I doubt either Stefanski or McDaniels liked the idea of being Dorsey's "guy." They both had deeply considered plans to present, their own visions.

I do not believe the Haslams went into this rubbing their hands together, eager to get Dorsey out so they could control things. I do not believe that was the conversation. I believe it was very much about "silos" and "factions," as a shit ton of insiders have written. The objective was 100% "alignment." The collaborative organization, front-edge on info management and a coach who didn't see that as eating his spinach or something.

They got exactly what we read they wanted.
 
Stray Dawg said:
My objectively left at 1-31, came back when Dorsey started stocking the team with talent, and left again when I found out we are back to what got is to 1-31...........
Click to expand...

Excuse me while I play my incredibly tiny violin for the what, 11 wins difference of fuck all that he made in the end. We were trending in the wrong direction and while I regret firing him AND Freddy Kitchens, it's evident he was let go for a reason... the same reasons we've villified other FO folks for acting and we're gonna quibble over 5 wins and 7 wins? It's not like we're playoff teams either season with the shit coaching we've had.
 
Back
Top Bottom