NFL.coms Lance Zierlein said on the networks Move the Sticks podcast that the Browns didnt place first-round value on the No. 17 pick they dealt as the centerpiece of the package for Beckham due to a dearth of first-round talent in the upcoming NFL draft.
Report: Browns dont see 1st-round value in traded pick
I had heard that the Browns considered there to be 15 players that are first-round players in this years draft, Zierlein said. That sounds about right. About 15 guys who are first-round picks. Analytics is always about quantifying value so, for them, that 17th pick, they considered that a second-round player, generally speaking.
The article is only interesting for repeating this point. The rest is a crap on Gettleman article that is not worth the read in my opinion. However, this is the most ridiculous rationalization in dealing the pick of it was part of the consideration. Both sides Ofcourse want PR wise to say the got the better end of the deal but this is a bit much. Not sure if this is at the same level of Giants getting two 1st round picks with Peppers spinwhich I dont mind as much as this Cleveland spin. Not sure what analystics they are using but to assume that all 15 teams in front of you will take the 15 players you see as first rounders is absurd. 17 would also mean you wouldnt have to trade too much to move up into the 12-15 range either.
Does everyone really only think there are 15 first round players in this draft? This is the first I hearrd about it. Also, if true is Gettleman looking to trade up with it, trade down or sit and let someone fall to him?
Link - (
New Window )
Double Bizarro World, maybe??
Nice BS spin by the Browns. What a load of bull.
Never happens.
spin away.
Will obviously hurt even more for them if Beckham does not work out as hoped for and if any player picked at 17 or later turns into a special player, a "1st round talent".
Just because they feel only 15 players are 1st round worthy, does not make it so.
It is also perspective. The Browns have better talent than the Giants, so they aren't as needy in the draft - kind of a weak point.
And to fill in the gaps since this was published:
2014 CJ Mosely*
2015 Arik Armstead
2016 Keanu Neal*
2017 Jonathan Allen
2018 Derwin James*
Yeah, tell me another one about the 17th pick not being a first rounder. I like our chances.
Someone will slip it happens every draft,
I'll believe in the Browns when they actually do something.
Dollars to donuts, the Beckham trade blows up in their faces.
God hates the Browns. Everyone knows it, except Cleveland.
...that they have one of the NFL's premier Drama Queens at WR.
Why the FU** would they be prattling on about the 17th pick?
Isn't it enough that every sports pundit has given them an A+ in the OBJ trade?
They now need to put an extra layer of icing on their cake about the F-ing 17th pick?
Something doesn't smell right with the Mistake by the Lake.
...that they have one of the NFL's premier Drama Queens at WR.
Why the FU** would they be prattling on about the 17th pick?
Isn't it enough that every sports pundit has given them an A+ in the OBJ trade?
They now need to put an extra layer of icing on their cake about the F-ing 17th pick?
Something doesn't smell right with the Mistake by the Lake.
There could be something to this point. Why the need for more spin. They are now trying to say they gave up very little to get Beckham. It is just strange and funny.
Link - ( New Window )
I don't think Jon Dorsey has to sell anything to his fans other than OBJ..
Double Bizarro World, maybe??
I agree!
I think my head just exploded! Wow reality is getting very thin.If you say something it must be true. The world is going crazy.
If they go 8-8 this year, that Hype Train is gonna go over a cliff.
so I am supposed to give a shit about their grades, why? The only thing Dorsey has done right since he got there was pick Mayfield.
Nothing new here or significant
That Panther SB team was basically inherited by Gettleman
Then last year's draft was a 1 person draft (Barkley) and after that, the talent level dropped off.
Quote:
It conveniently forgets to mention that the Panthers played in the Super Bowl under Gettlemen and his firing by the Panthers owner was under suspicious circumstances.
That Panther SB team was basically inherited by Gettleman
Disagree. He inherited some good pieces I'll give you that. Call me crazy but I don't think a team goes 15-1 and plays in a Super Bowl with an incompetent general manager.
Quote:
In comment 14350925 Pascal4554 said:
Quote:
It conveniently forgets to mention that the Panthers played in the Super Bowl under Gettlemen and his firing by the Panthers owner was under suspicious circumstances.
That Panther SB team was basically inherited by Gettleman
Disagree. He inherited some good pieces I'll give you that. Call me crazy but I don't think a team goes 15-1 and plays in a Super Bowl with an incompetent general manager.
I live in Carolina, '15 the only good pick was Daryl Williams as Shaq Thompson and Funchess was very underwhelming. Then in '16 after the SB run fans were furious with selecting bust Vernon Butler at DT in the 1st round as he was clearly a luxury
#17 will be a get... Stay put Dave!!!
The Giants made a good trade so far. Let's see what they do with the picks they've acquired.
If the Browns have a functional, analytical front office they do year-over-year analysis, evaluate the talent quality in tiers in the resource pool, and make valuations. If butted up against the average first round pool, 2019 drops at a lower than historical threshold, you should trade out.
Quote:
I live in Carolina, '15 the only good pick was Daryl Williams as Shaq Thompson and Funchess was very underwhelming. Then in '16 after the SB run fans were furious with selecting bust Vernon Butler at DT in the 1st round as he was clearly a luxury
Okay. So he missed a few picks, nobody bats 1,000. Jerry Reese certainly didn't. I think there are some fair criticisms to make of Gettlemen but to portray him as a complete buffoon is inaccurate (which is what the article that the OP linked implied).
Of course, if you use the "inherited" logic you can't blame Gettlemen for the past season because he "inherited" a 3-13 team.
Gettleman's record with the Panthers over four years 40-23-1. Same four year time period for Reese 26-38. I'm willing to give Gettlemen a chance.
How many Giants fans want Reese back?
who cares, you got the 17th best crack at picking the top player of this draft...
I think it's a good spot for our needs. 2-3 of the 1st round OTs should be there, Bradbury, Hockenson, possibly every WR available, Burns or Oliver could fall due to other teams scheme fits, the top 2 Clemons DL should be there. It's a good pick for the Giants.
who cares, you got the 17th best crack at picking the top player of this draft...
Oh yes, Reese & his "rows"... Too bad they found out late the whoever set up the room, had the chart upside down.
You can spin things in perpetuity and come to any conclusion you want.
How many Giants fans want Reese back?
Thanks Fatman. With how much Gettleman is criticized around here I was shocked at how good his record was in Carolina.
The Browns' need to continue to spin this trade is really odd.
Total BS
How many Giants fans want Reese back?
That cover's it succinctly.
FOH Cleveland...
But questioning the value of the trade doesn't equate to calling Gettleman a buffoon. There's a small group of purposeful agitators on every topic. The vast majority of criticism I read on here about Gettleman is pointed and fair. Criticizing this trade is fair ground.
Point-of-fact, he's made some good, bad, head scratching, and too-early-to-tell moves.
I personally don't like his approach and I suspect the Giants won't be much better this year. I suspect his approach is critically flawed and will never work.
Whenever I don't like what the Giants do, I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong and this time and the Giants are dynamite.
Or more likely Beckham as a proven commodity is more valuable than the back end of their group of 15 -- and they'd rather take the proven player than the:
1) inherent crapshoot of the draft
2) the risk they don't get a player they grade high
This isn't a controversial perspective for them -- they think it's a shallow draft so trading for an All Pro player makes sense.
The Browns' need to continue to spin this trade is really odd.
Would help Dallas trading their now #24 pick for Amari Cooper look much better
Quote:
...that they have one of the NFL's premier Drama Queens at WR.
Why the FU** would they be prattling on about the 17th pick?
Isn't it enough that every sports pundit has given them an A+ in the OBJ trade?
They now need to put an extra layer of icing on their cake about the F-ing 17th pick?
Something doesn't smell right with the Mistake by the Lake.
There could be something to this point. Why the need for more spin. They are now trying to say they gave up very little to get Beckham. It is just strange and funny.
This is curious. All of a sudden they want to devalu the trade -Diva types dont respond well to not being the shiny diamond
Quote:
thought there were 15 players that are top 1st round picks then trading 17 is stupid because I guarantee at least 3-5 of their "alleged" top 15 players would be there at 17.
Or more likely Beckham as a proven commodity is more valuable than the back end of their group of 15 -- and they'd rather take the proven player than the:
1) inherent crapshoot of the draft
2) the risk they don't get a player they grade high
This isn't a controversial perspective for them -- they think it's a shallow draft so trading for an All Pro player makes sense.
except that isn't what they said. Someone is trying to claim they don't think 17 was a 1st rounder because they only think 15 players are worthy of the first round, but you and I both know that more than one of those 15 players will be there at 17 making in their minds a solid first round pick. Also that wasn't all we got, but you know that. Who is replacing Peppers there for him? Doesn't matter they added yet another 15 mil + WR to their team.
Would you trade Peppers for a 2nd rounder next year?
He made a very good trade. Now he has to execute beyond just acquiring Peppers.
Quote:
Allen, Williams and Bosa. After that the talent level drops off.
Then last year's draft was a 1 person draft (Barkley) and after that, the talent level dropped off.
Actually that was pretty much the consensus last year, in terms of pure talent at his position, Barkley was on a tier by himself. Lots of pundits agreed. Problem was/is how valuable is the position?
That's funny as hell though that they feel a need to send out spin re the trade. Isn't everyone in Cleveland elated?
Except for the minor point that Peppers actually was a first round pick, yeah... sure.
OK it's all spin, I agree. But some spin spins faster than others.
C'mon Browns. Wake the hell up.
Lets not put the Giants decision making above any team for the near term...
Hope all is well.
Quote:
reese would talk about "rows" of players.
who cares, you got the 17th best crack at picking the top player of this draft...
Oh yes, Reese & his "rows"... Too bad they found out late the whoever set up the room, had the chart upside down.
I laughed at this
Lets not put the Giants decision making above any team for the near term...
It literally can't be. This is literally nonsense.
GMs who spout this crap could say that there is a hard break in talent between the top 16 and the next 16, but that would be nonsense too. Show me one draft where anything like that has proven to be true.
A GM might say that there are more potential pro-bowl players in one draft versus others, and that might be true to a degree, but I'd be willing to bet that drafts for the most part have very similar results over time. There might be one or two every ten years where there proves over time to be an unusually high or low number of stars or busts, but that can't be shown until 4-5 years after the fact.
Stuff like this annoys the shit out of me. Can you tell?
While we are at it, can we stop using Jerry Reese's dumbass "rows" terminology, which was nothing more than his attempt to make the ranking of prospects seem more complicated than it is. Drafts are vertical, not horizontal. You arrange the prospects in order, and delete them when they are picked. After your own picks, you might rearrange the order a bit because your needs have changed slightly. When your turn comes, you take the highest rated player on the list. This is not theoretical physics, people.
While we are at it, can we stop using Jerry Reese's dumbass "rows" terminology, which was nothing more than his attempt to make the ranking of prospects seem more complicated than it is. Drafts are vertical, not horizontal. You arrange the prospects in order, and delete them when they are picked. After your own picks, you might rearrange the order a bit because your needs have changed slightly. When your turn comes, you take the highest rated player on the list. This is not theoretical physics, people.
In comment 14352531 Pete in VA said:
While we are at it, can we stop using Jerry Reese's dumbass "rows" terminology, which was nothing more than his attempt to make the ranking of prospects seem more complicated than it is. Drafts are vertical, not horizontal. You arrange the prospects in order, and delete them when they are picked. After your own picks, you might rearrange the order a bit because your needs have changed slightly. When your turn comes, you take the highest rated player on the list. This is not theoretical physics, people.
There is nothing wrong with the rows system of ranking players, especially as you get later in the draft. In fact it is probably a lot better for placing true value on players.
Obviously at the top there is some separation - say Bosa vs Allen or Williams vs Gary vs Wilkins, but after the top 6 players, things get closer. So ranking players in groups makes it easier especially when the time between picks drops to 5 minutes.
Probably listing players is more the way your mind works vs other people's. To me it is easier to group similar values than fight other tiny differences in ability.
[quote] In comment 14351301 Amtoft said:
Quote:
thought there were 15 players that are top 1st round picks then trading 17 is stupid because I guarantee at least 3-5 of their "alleged" top 15 players would be there at 17.
Or more likely Beckham as a proven commodity is more valuable than the back end of their group of 15 -- and they'd rather take the proven player than the:
1) inherent crapshoot of the draft
2) the risk they don't get a player they grade high
This isn't a controversial perspective for them -- they think it's a shallow draft so trading for an All Pro player makes sense. [/quote
But its not a shallow draft by any objective source. Why put that out other than to spin it. They. OBJ and no one is crapping on them for the deal. So one drafted after 15 will be one an all pro star. Just a PR statement.
Not all minds organize the same way. Just because you like to do it your way does not make it the right way nor does it make it wrong. That is the way your mind organizes and I am not saying that is wrong - it is a personal preference.
In my thinking the rows/groups allows for greater flexibility. You can take similarly rated OL put them in a group alongside DL similarly rated or DBs. Allows for quick reference when on the clock.
It is just a way to organize for ease of reference.
Louder amps - ( New Window )
Quote:
Fine. So in your list you put a space between #123 and #124, and another space between #133 and #134. Voila, you've created a group of 10 players of approximately equal value.
Not all minds organize the same way. Just because you like to do it your way does not make it the right way nor does it make it wrong. That is the way your mind organizes and I am not saying that is wrong - it is a personal preference.
In my thinking the rows/groups allows for greater flexibility. You can take similarly rated OL put them in a group alongside DL similarly rated or DBs. Allows for quick reference when on the clock.
It is just a way to organize for ease of reference.
My real issue is not with anything you are saying, but rather with Reese's implication that his row system was adding a layer of deeper analysis, which it did not. I was not a fan of Reese.