The Counter Argument To Cleveland's "MoneyBall" Approach In the Draft

Hello fellow members of The Steelers Fans. AskQuestionsLater here with a counter argument towards the uptick of "MoneyBall" in the draft and talent evalution. Specifically, I will be focusing on No. of picks in the draft, stat production and combine times; culminating into the AFC North itself. Before I begin, I would like to point out that this is just my opinion. In addition, I will be using counter arguments to BleacherReport's recent article; which can be found here:


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ging-the-way-nfl-teams-assemble-their-rosters



With that out of the way.. let's get started.



Quantity May Not Always Yield a Quality of its Own:

In the 2016 NFL Draft, Cleveland opted for a unique strategy that has been around in the NFL for many years but has not been put to this extent. Known as the "MoneyBall" scheme, teams often trade down for more picks as opposed to put all their eggs in the basket to acquire what they believe to be a "transcendent" talent or the face of the franchise. In total, Cleveland selected 14 picks. That is quite a bit of investments being put into a franchise that definitely needs a soul transplant before getting to the other vital organs. The key mainly though of MoneyBalling the draft is that while you may not get superstars right away, you will have a number of high upside projects to work with before finding that transcendent player. While I do not have a problem with this, how Cleveland and other teams allocate these picks using mainly pSPARQ is a source of concern with me. For those of you who are unaware, pSPARQ is an athletic metric tool used to determine how well a college measures towards his peers and uses various algorithms to determine a percentage to use to find his level of NFL ready athletic ability. While this is a helpful tool to use, keep in mind that these equations are only for the players athletic abilities, not his actual game level talent, strengths or weaknesses. If anything, here is a quote from the 3stigmaathlete site itself:

"pSPARQ is not perfect and will not yield a perfect representation of any player’s athletic profile. It is meant to give us an idea of where a given player stands athletically relative to his peers."


Notice how that, outside of mathematically calculating the percentile using a players height, weight, speed, arm length, and other combine measurables, nothing else is noted. Just because player A is superior athletically to player B does not mean player B has just enough athleticism with good football level talent to surpass player A. In addition, while player A does have the higher "ceiling", finding the right system for him to thrive in is tricky as there are a plethora of obstacles a coach needs to figure out; tangibles and intangibles already being a pre-requisite. If player A has the intangibles but lacks the tangibles for a defensive coordinators specific scheme, no matter how good he is, he will not reach his absolute potential.


Now the same can be stated for average athletes as while they have the higher "floor", expecting them to perform Troy Polamalu esque feats is ludicrous. Those types of players are sound and productive, but not always impactful whereas "ceiling" level players will always showcase "flashes" of talent but ultimately might never unleash it snap after snap due to a myraid of reasons; health and desire topping the list. However, those who are both at the collegiate level have become more overvalued over time; leading to my second counter argument regarding production.



"The Numbers Game" is Not Always Successful in the NFL:


To increase a weakness for any team, an investment in the draft must be able to perform and eventually exceed that team's scouts and coaches expectations. Be it being instinctive, a high football IQ, an athletic genius, or an otherworldly talent, a team usually looks for a player to be athletic enough with a good resume on his college career or be an athletic marvel and have enough talent to ease him into the process of playing the game. However, new trends are being created in the facet that having both will guarantee either a Day 1 impact or someone who will explode given his previous athletic feats + college production. Again, both of these outcomes often depend on that players previous scheme fit, how well he fits with yours, his strengths/weaknesses and how to fine tune them, level of competition that player has played in, and most importantly as an alarming-rate growing trend, how versatile is said player.


Before I begin, let us give credit Paul DePodesta for using the "MoneyBall" approach as Cleveland's primary source. Using a tool to build a team without relying on the traditional moniker that is "tape is king" is truly incredible and I do hope that such a strategy is useful towards helping Cleveland become relevant again. However, not using tape in addition towards anatlytic and metric usage is a bit of a gamble. Emmanuel Ogbah, Carl Nassib, and Corey Coleman are all production machines; Coleman being a tier one athlete. The issue is that their production came mainly from either their level of competition or their schematic philosophies of their coaches. For Coleman, the Big XII is notorious for its frantic, fast paced, high octane offenses. Granted, his highlight reels are truly special, but given the fact that the Big XII has always placed an emphasis on quick strike capability over an actual battle, I do have concerns that his ability may not be maximized given the lack of arm strength of Robert Griffin III. The same can also be stated for Carl Nassib. Granted, the B1G Conference is as close to the SEC in terms of "NFL ready" as the ACC and some teams of the Pac-12, but in terms of Penn State's schedule last year, Carl's production is not all that impressive; doubly so since Austin Johnson created opportunity for him to get after the quarterback. In addition, he is more raw than Cleveland is giving him credit for. His motor and desire are what you look for, but for him to be an impact player is something Cleveland should have looked elsewhere. For Emmanuel Ogbah, while his production numbers are incredible, he really is not much of what you want as an edge rusher. "But AQL, he has the size and speed. Why would he not be?" Here is his combine numbers.



NFL 2016 Combine Results:

40 time: 4.56

20 time: 2.68

10 time: 1.58

Bench Press: 20

Vertical Jump: 35 1/2

Broad Jump:10'1"

Short Shuttle: 4.50

3 Cone: 7.26

Arm Size: 34 3/4 inches

Hand Size: 10 1/2 inches.



These number do look impressive. However, there is often one caveat towards this entire dilemma; Ogbah is no doubt an EDGE rusher, but he is not suited towards a 3-4 scheme unless Cleveland is switching to a 4-3 look. Why? These three key combine attributes for combine testing as explained by Bleacher Report's Justis Mosqueda:

"
When going up against an offensive tackle in pass protection, an edge defender should be aligned with his inside number on the bookend's outside number. Attacking with an inside arm in a "one arm is longer than two" approach, a pass-rusher should never have to use his outside arm, rendering arm length useless.

Even against the run, the outside arm shouldn't be used frequently, unless it's actively trying to punch up an offensive lineman's arm, as an edge defender's assignment is to keep containment responsibilities. A 4-3 defensive end or 3-4 outside linebacker should keep his outside shoulder clean in both run and pass situations."



Both of the bolded are key for edge rushers. In terms of athleticism, Ogbah trumps Bosa, but in terms of technique, Bosa vs. Ogbah. This goes back to my "Quantity" section in the facet that while Bosa is not a tier one athlete, he has enough athleticism to make up for it with exceptional technique; being more flexible (6.89 vs. 7.50 for the 3 cone and 4.21 vs. 4.50 on the short shuttle) icing on the cake. No matter how well Ogbah uses his length on the pass rush, his hands and technique need to not only be explosive, but precise as shown below in the picture by Hau'oil Kikaha:










"I would argue that the 40-yard dash is the least important drill in terms of edge-defender evaluation at the combine. The short shuttle measures ankle flexion, the three-cone measures hip flexibility and the combination of the 10-yard split from the 40-yard dash and the vertical and broad jumps combine to give us a look at a prospect's lower-body explosion."


Now, Ogbah has the 10 yard split, vertical and board jump numbers down pat. The issue is his lack of bend and agility as an EDGE rusher. There are some cases that this can easily be overlooked in the case of Bud Dupree. While his short shuttle (4.47 vs. 4.5 flat) and 3 cone (7.49 vs. 7.26) are about even with Ogbah's, Dupree's explosiveness ( 1.60 vs. 1.58 10 yard split, 42 inch vs. 35 inch. in vertical, and 11'6 vs. 10'1 in board jump) are what make Dupree such a special player. Further going into why Dupree may be able to get away with his explosiveness is that, using the WALDO fourmula (a tool used to measuring a players explosion) Bud Dupree is the amond best of all defensive players since the metric was first tracked in 1999 and the most explosive for a defensive end since 2005. That's is correct. In terms of explosive power, Bud Dupree > Jadeveon Clowney. Now, I do not have Emmanuel's on hand, but Dupree's WALDO rating is at 2. Going off by Ogbah's current times and a rough estimate, Ogbah's is at best a 1.4, which is good, but not great. Even if we are not accounting for the lack of bend and flexibility, one thing that really lets Ogbah down is his motor. Even going back to some of his dominant games, there are times when Ogbah decides to unleash all that talent at once to win, and more often than not, he decides not to. This is ominously reminiscent of his own member of his class in Robert Nkemdiche. However, Nkemdiche's talent is a anvil compared to Ogbah's hammer.


Now, many of you are now wondering "Well AQL... if he does not have the bend, should his length not be considered a factor?" Well... again, no. Arm length really means nothing, as noted by Justiq earlier


Again though, while I do praise Cleveland's new found strategy to employ metrics and analytic's, relying on them all at once will not always yield positives; a good transition into final counter argument.



Analytics In A Traditional Division May Prove Costly:


In this era of football, addressing needs in the draft while finding talent that will not only assist your team but tough it out against your arch-enemy has been and will always be the goal. The key is how each team addresses their specific needs. For Baltimore, they want to pound the others into dust. For Cincinnati, it is all about being balanced in all areas. For Pittsburgh, transform athletes who show considerable promise on tape and mold them into football players. All of these ways have shown success; Pittsburgh's obviously the most successful since the merger. For Cleveland.... using analytics and metrics seems to be a new guideline for them. For me, that is fine. However, over-relying on said form of science over the clique that "Proof is in the pudding" narrative can lead to problems down the road.


Granted, to Cleveland's credit, they still do not have their franchise quarterback. That being said, this was obviously a foundation draft and Cleveland is obviously prepping for their next guy. I am just unsure as to their current method of picking prospects yield another miss on the quarterback position for at least the 31st time in terms of the number of quarterback changes.


Essentially, this is, in no way, shape or form, a bashing towards the Cleveland Browns or their fanbase. As a football fan (especially if you are a Steeles fan), you would want to beat your opponents at their best; arch-enemies above all else. It truly is not fun nor fair when your longtime arch-rival keeps shooting itself in the foot preventing your team from pushing itself to their absolute limits. Cincinnati.., for all their shenanigans, did push Pittsburgh to play at their best this year. To make a point that you are truly better than your peers, you must play them when they are at their best; something that Cincinnati was in 2015 since 2005. Baltimore does this routinely and has helped us gain some memorable and infamous events. Cleveland, at one point, was Pittsburgh's rival, but since Paul Brown's legendary infamous comment of never winning anything, Cleveland..... well... has not anything; especially after their revival. If Cleveland wants to get better (something I am sure they can do) they simply need to apply more than just science to examine propsects. Then and only then will Cleveland can regain relevancy. If not, then Cleveland will be more of the same. Cleveland has the coach. All they need are the pieces to become relevant and personally, I do not think they are that far off from doing so. I just hope Paul's vision and Hue Jackson's idealistic and views will yield to what Cleveland could be capable of.


*Phew.... sighs of relief after much research and dedication



Anyway fellow members, what do you think of Cleveland's approach along with BleacherReport's article? Is "MoneyBall" analytic's truly the next generation of talent evaluation? Is Cleveland on to something special should they get their guy? Would you want a competitive Cleveland team for the Steelers to potentially hoist the Lombardi in arguably the toughest division in the NFL to ultimately prove they are above the rest? Discuss and enjoy!


One more thing though. If you have something to ask, you can always "AskQuestionsLater"

 

Ogbah is a guaranteed bust so no Cleveland's approach is poor.

 

The Clowns might have done a great job in stockpiling draft picks but only time will tell at what price. If you pass up on a franchise quarterback, then you'd better use those draft picks to replicate the 2001 ratbirds defense to overcome your own version of Trent Dilfer.

It's tough to pass up on a marquee qb that can pretty much ensure success for a ten-to-fifteen year window. A guy like Peyton Manning or Cam Newton who can keep you competitive for years no matter who he is surrounded by. Sure there are your Alex Smith's and Tim Couch's but all I'm saying, Mistake by the Lake, is that you better hope you didn't pass up on the next Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers at #2 while you stockpile your roster with fifteen-year old shortstops from Venzuela.

 

It's all well and good to have tons of picks, but unless you pick the right guys it won't matter. Sure on paper it looks good. If you get a pick right 33% of the time, why not draft 12 players instead of 6? Then you can have 4 good players instead of two! But in reality it isn't always what it seems.

First of all you'll likely miss out on top flight QB's. The majority of starting NFL QB's are first round picks. The later into the draft you trade back to in order to gain picks, the less chance you have of grabbing a top option QB. Brees, Brady, and Wilson are exceptions to the rule. Also, you usually have to give things up in order to gain more picks. This usually involves dropping way down the draft board, which theoretically decreases the chance of that pick turning into a good player in the first place.

Cleveland has had a plethora of picks in recent years. They had the ability to draft Odell Beckham Jr. And David Carr and wound up with Justin Gilbert and Johnny Manziel... As long as they keep drafting like that, they will continue to suck. It doesn't matter how many picks you have if you take the wrong guys year in and year out.

 

I can't vote. I believe both yes and no, with the statement behind them, are both equally true.

Therefore, I'm going to go drink a beer and ponder the question.

Edit: I have stopped pondering. Only, the pondering.

 

@askyerquestions later...

Nice dissertation!!
You should get some college level credits for that!!...
Find a way to turn that into a paper!

(I`m not being sarcastic.. If I was, this would be in green font,)
That was a good read...

As I read the original article, and yours, I noticed one similarity..

Analytics, ideally, is more of a "supplement", to scouting/ judging "football i.q."..."heart", "Position match-ups w/ Division rivals,", etc...

You said that yourself, yet you want to debate the original Author, as if they said it was an absolute, be-all, end all to approaching the draft...

There are too many nuances, involved in drafting players(fit with team, position of need/character/injury history, etc...), to just let a computer run a "model" of the players` "measureables", and set your draft board for you...

It is a helpful tool, but, as you pointed out,

Some teams are gonna want to get more "bites at the apple"(as Podesta described the Clown`s draft this year)...

It was pointed out earlier, but it bears repeating...

Bottom feeding teams, have more holes on their roster, than SB competeing teams...

It makes more sense for them to take their "chances", on more "lottery tickets"...

While a team like us, might be willing to give them 2 or 3 of our picks, for a shot at a player we think has a better percentage of success, than average...

Bottom line, it`s still a gamble.....

No guarantees in the draft, gotta grade it 3 years from when it happened!!

 

The Browns are desperate that's why they turned to analytics, they have sucked for so long what they were doing wasn't working.

 

The Browns are probably the wrong team to choose because what they have been doing has not worked for many years. So why not try something new, if it doesn't work oh well, they are still the Browns. I would be interested if a mildly successful team switched their strategy like a Houston Texans or Vikings or something like that.

In my opinion what do the Browns have to lose?

Analytics while important in showing part of the picture can't be the only item taken into consideration. When that happens you end up with NBA teams like the Sixers or the Rockets who have talent but have zero clue on how to play as a team.

Coaching stability is also a big part of the picture. The Browns are the anti-successful franchise, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

 

Analytics doesn't tell the entire story of weather a player will be good or a bust. It's just a "piece" of the picture; and not even a majority of the picture at that. The Browns are a desperate organization who are grasping at straws to try and be a credible organization again.Right now, it seems that their analytics philosophy is the dominant, de facto aspect of their decision making. After they have marginal success (but not enough to overthrow the powers in this division) I suspect they will come back and balance their thinking out with actually seeing on the field production of a player and a players intangibles of leadership, accountability, etc.etc.

 

Analytics worked in baseball because its as equally boring.

 

No matter how many rookies you draft when the games start you can only have eleven on the field, and under the CBA practice time is so limited coaches dont have the time to fully evaluate a new player to know if he is legit or not, they will spend most of their time evaluating their high draft picks and all those late round picks will fall victim to the training camp cuts most of their 14 rookies cant make the final 53 roster, so if they keep 5 or even 7 of the 14 they drafted that would mean some one they cut slipped through the cracks...........

 

Oh might I also add another very simple argument.

The Browns could have 60 draft picks.

All 60 are still going to Cleveland.

 

To the Browns credit, they've made the correct moves so far this off-season. I'm not going to totally dismiss them; I've got my eye on the Browns.

 

Analytics does have a place in football but more so geared for team tenancies and what not. From a individual evaluation standpoint it becomes a little tricky. Football after all is the ultimate team sport where one change in variable causes a chain reaction in other variables. Baseball was made for analytics; football not so much.

 

Goldfish-like attention span prevents me from reading the whole thing, but if the crux of the moneyball argument is trade down for more pics every year, I disagree. No team could survive that kind of roster churn, and would be essentially exchanging mediocre players for different mediocre players.

When a team needs to rebuild, having a lot of picks makes sense. Most perpetually rebuilding teams fail for a lot of reasons other than talent evaluation though.

Good quarterbacks must be taken early. There will be no more Tom Brady-like discoveries.

 

I don't knoooooooooow, evaluating QB's is still the hardest thing to do in the draft process. I'd almost be willing to bet that in the next 4-5 years, another good QB is going to be found from the 4th round and beyond.

 

Bolded topic is now what Cleveland is leaning on. While the MoneyBall tactic does have it's mertis, there are literally infinite variables to factor into Gridiron football.

 

My thoughts exactly. I want the Browns to become relevant again. I am just uncertain that the method they are using is the correct route.

 

Right, but none of those good QBs will play for the Browns. I do expect them to have 6-8 QBs over the next 5 years.

 

I hear ya, but I'm not going to just dismiss them just yet. In 1999, we saw a Rams team go from dead last in their division, all the way to win a Super Bowl. Greatest " last to first" story we've seen in modern football. That Rams team gave all these bottom feeding franchises hope. I learned that if it happened for the Rams, it could happen again.
So I'm not dismissing what the Browns have started to do. Because as of late ( couple of months) their making logical decisions on laying their foundation.

 

I think the question is measurables vs. immeasurales. data of any type, can be analyzed. You can analyze how # of hot dogs r consumed effects game time play, and if its interpreted to be an effective predictor , then it will be studied and analyzed. Things like integrity, maturity, self-awareness are not so easily quantified and require different forms of evaluation.
I think a relevant movie that shows that it is one in the same is, "What the BLEEP do we know?" It shows how science and spirituality are merging at the quantum level. So measurable data analysis and non-measurable esoteric analysis are possibly one in the same in the end. For instance a players broad jump may be a similar indicator to willingness to move past challenging life obstacles, but both of these things may be indicators of 'quick burst' ability.

 

or instead of measurables vs. immeasurables, maybe its like some we are more practiced at measuring than others.