| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Deadpulse
Joined: 16 Oct 2008
Posts: 12705
Location: Boston MA
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | Pat Mahomes 10? 
I like his upside more than a lot of this year's QB's but he is a huge gamble |
It's a good spot for him though. Good coaches, no pressure to step in and perform immediately, a solid QB to learn from, and a team that can win without him even if he does see the field.
_________________
Sigs-Taking Requests
2016 Adpot-A-Patriot: Jimmy Garropolo
70% 496yds 4 TD 0 INT 117.1 PR |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mcmurtry86
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 32062
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Browns - three first round picks and no QB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biggbrd
Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Posts: 702
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Browns - three first round picks and no QB |
With the amount of picks they have next year, one would assume they can be pretty mobile. Realistically, they probably weren't going to compete next year anyway. Why not stock up on other positions if there's nobody you like this year, knowing you probably have the ability to get whoever you like next year? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biggbrd
Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Posts: 702
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Anybody that's falling/might enter Pats territory that you're excited about? I don't really follow the draft muhc, so wouldn't really have a clue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deadpulse
Joined: 16 Oct 2008
Posts: 12705
Location: Boston MA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Browns - three first round picks and no QB |
When everyone else is taking out mortgages to nab sub-par prospects in a weak class
_________________
Sigs-Taking Requests
2016 Adpot-A-Patriot: Jimmy Garropolo
70% 496yds 4 TD 0 INT 117.1 PR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donut
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 13161
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Browns - three first round picks and no QB |
I think they're doing it right. Rather wait for 2018 and just give Kessler another shot than draft a bust. Its a light class in general but awful QB class.
I really like what Lynch did. Good start to rebuild w/ Foster and Thomas.
Though McCaffery's brother
| Quote: | | Dylan McCaffrey, accepting Male HS Ath of Yr at Co HOF: "As you can tell my parents have chosen to be w/favorite child in family.'' |
| biggbrd wrote: | | Anybody that's falling/might enter Pats territory that you're excited about? I don't really follow the draft muhc, so wouldn't really have a clue. |
Zach Cunningham, Tarell Basham, and Marcus Maye are 3 I'd like. Though I do wonder if Derrick Rivers could stand up at LBer.
_________________
 | dhunt2402 wrote: | | You're like the patron saint of roster bubble players |
Adopt a Patriot: Eric Rowe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I_GET_SAX
Joined: 17 Nov 2012
Posts: 11318
Location: Ramster on the Sig
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Donut wrote: | | I dont hate the deal that much but not for tribusky. I'd get it for Thomas but not him. They need help pretty much everywhere and signed Glennon. Good move by lynch lol |
Tribusky is so bad. Bears got raked over coals here by a rookie GM. Browns and 49ers actually had an above average first day which can't always be said. He didn't even know what a hard count was.
_________________
Red Sox, Pistons, Tar Heels Basketball, Crimson Tide Football, Bruins Hockey, Tottenham Hotspur
*Adopt a Sox: Andrew Benintendi*
Last edited by I_GET_SAX on Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bluemushrooms
Joined: 10 Dec 2013
Posts: 2916
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Surprised Bears took Trubisky over Garroppolo. Or that the Pats didn't want that super bundle of picks the Bears gave up to move to #2
_________________
-Sig made by BenderRodriguez
2016 Adopt a Patriot: LeGarrette Blount
2015 Adopt a Patriot: James White
| FirstDownFaulk wrote: | | Chimdi is Love. Chekwa is Life. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nextsuperstar
Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Posts: 1860
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Deadpulse wrote: | | mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Browns - three first round picks and no QB |
When everyone else is taking out mortgages to nab sub-par prospects in a weak class |
The Browns are that guy who tells everyone that he is saving his money to buy a house, but ends up living in Mom's basement at age 40. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1ForTheThumb
Joined: 06 Dec 2016
Posts: 398
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Browns - three first round picks and no QB |
I actually like what they did. I didn't like any of the QB's in this years class. Adding Garrett, and Peppers to there defense. I'm unsure how Peppers will be utilized, but he's someone I'm going to follow in the league for sure.
Bears trading up for Mitch after just signing Glennon was laugh out loud funny.
I was shocked the Chiefs traded up and gave up that much for Pat Mahomes. Feel like they're going to regret that big time.
Watson went to the perfect spot for him to succeed.
Overall, pretty boring night, mostly due to the Patriots not having a first rounder. But after seeing 3 WR's go top 10, and how the board shook out, I'm content with having Cooks and Butler instead of #32. Seems like Butler to NO is dead with the Saints selection of Lattimore.
_________________
(XXXVI) (XXXVIII) (XXXIX) (XLIX) (LI) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcmurtry86
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 32062
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I love the "Moneyball" talk around the Browns. I'm sure Browns fans would be happy with the end result of Billy Beane's Moneyball strategy - no titles and only one trip to the ALCS (where they got swept).
Stockpiling draft picks, when you have an awful roster makes sense. Even when you have a good roster, there's some value in large draft classes. But without a QB, they're not going anywhere.
And by the time they draft a QB in 2018 or 2019, and that guy solidifies (maybe) into a good player, they're going to have to re-sign all of these draft picks.
The idea of building a good core of talent for 2-4 years and then adding a QB is stupid in the NFL because of the short careers, short contracts and high variability to drafting. Not to mention, them ending up 7-9 next year with Kessler/Osweiler is probably one of the worst things that could happen to them since they'll miss out on a chance to take an elite QB prospect and it probably means Kessler/Osweiler were useful enough to make them hesitant in trading picks for a veteran or signing a FA for tens of millions of dollars.
I'd also posit that there's very little "Moneyball" in what the Browns are doing. I don't really see what market inefficiencies Cleveland is exploiting. There's nothing inherently "Moneyball" in drafting lots of players. And the A's best run (early-2000's) was on the backs of having elite, superstar players at key positions (the big 3 starters, Foulke in the bullpen, Giambi/Tejada/Chavez. Their run fizzled out when "Moneyball" strategy (and their economic reality) led to their best players leaving for bigger paychecks and the "market inefficiency" guys weren't nearly as good. On top of that, their big time starting pitchers got hurt/inconsistent/moved on to other teams and were never replaced.
There's a lot of good lessons in what Billy Beane did in Oakland. I don't think many, if any, of them are applicable to what the Browns are doing. And there were plenty of not so good outcomes from Beane's strategy (short window of success, overly reliant on consistently good drafting or big years from otherwise mediocre guys).
In a lot of ways, the Pats have been the best representation of a football version of "Moneyball" in terms of identifying players or skills which were underutilized elsewhere. Easier to do when you have an elite QB and a coach/GM with job security though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
candyman93
Joined: 02 Dec 2009
Posts: 59121
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | I love the "Moneyball" talk around the Browns. I'm sure Browns fans would be happy with the end result of Billy Beane's Moneyball strategy - no titles and only one trip to the ALCS (where they got swept).
Stockpiling draft picks, when you have an awful roster makes sense. Even when you have a good roster, there's some value in large draft classes. But without a QB, they're not going anywhere.
And by the time they draft a QB in 2018 or 2019, and that guy solidifies (maybe) into a good player, they're going to have to re-sign all of these draft picks.
The idea of building a good core of talent for 2-4 years and then adding a QB is stupid in the NFL because of the short careers, short contracts and high variability to drafting. Not to mention, them ending up 7-9 next year with Kessler/Osweiler is probably one of the worst things that could happen to them since they'll miss out on a chance to take an elite QB prospect and it probably means Kessler/Osweiler were useful enough to make them hesitant in trading picks for a veteran or signing a FA for tens of millions of dollars.
I'd also posit that there's very little "Moneyball" in what the Browns are doing. I don't really see what market inefficiencies Cleveland is exploiting. There's nothing inherently "Moneyball" in drafting lots of players. And the A's best run (early-2000's) was on the backs of having elite, superstar players at key positions (the big 3 starters, Foulke in the bullpen, Giambi/Tejada/Chavez. Their run fizzled out when "Moneyball" strategy (and their economic reality) led to their best players leaving for bigger paychecks and the "market inefficiency" guys weren't nearly as good. On top of that, their big time starting pitchers got hurt/inconsistent/moved on to other teams and were never replaced.
There's a lot of good lessons in what Billy Beane did in Oakland. I don't think many, if any, of them are applicable to what the Browns are doing. And there were plenty of not so good outcomes from Beane's strategy (short window of success, overly reliant on consistently good drafting or big years from otherwise mediocre guys).
In a lot of ways, the Pats have been the best representation of a football version of "Moneyball" in terms of identifying players or skills which were underutilized elsewhere. Easier to do when you have an elite QB and a coach/GM with job security though. |
Question, do you like what the Celtics are doing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcmurtry86
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 32062
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| candyman93 wrote: | | mcmurtry86 wrote: | I love the "Moneyball" talk around the Browns. I'm sure Browns fans would be happy with the end result of Billy Beane's Moneyball strategy - no titles and only one trip to the ALCS (where they got swept).
Stockpiling draft picks, when you have an awful roster makes sense. Even when you have a good roster, there's some value in large draft classes. But without a QB, they're not going anywhere.
And by the time they draft a QB in 2018 or 2019, and that guy solidifies (maybe) into a good player, they're going to have to re-sign all of these draft picks.
The idea of building a good core of talent for 2-4 years and then adding a QB is stupid in the NFL because of the short careers, short contracts and high variability to drafting. Not to mention, them ending up 7-9 next year with Kessler/Osweiler is probably one of the worst things that could happen to them since they'll miss out on a chance to take an elite QB prospect and it probably means Kessler/Osweiler were useful enough to make them hesitant in trading picks for a veteran or signing a FA for tens of millions of dollars.
I'd also posit that there's very little "Moneyball" in what the Browns are doing. I don't really see what market inefficiencies Cleveland is exploiting. There's nothing inherently "Moneyball" in drafting lots of players. And the A's best run (early-2000's) was on the backs of having elite, superstar players at key positions (the big 3 starters, Foulke in the bullpen, Giambi/Tejada/Chavez. Their run fizzled out when "Moneyball" strategy (and their economic reality) led to their best players leaving for bigger paychecks and the "market inefficiency" guys weren't nearly as good. On top of that, their big time starting pitchers got hurt/inconsistent/moved on to other teams and were never replaced.
There's a lot of good lessons in what Billy Beane did in Oakland. I don't think many, if any, of them are applicable to what the Browns are doing. And there were plenty of not so good outcomes from Beane's strategy (short window of success, overly reliant on consistently good drafting or big years from otherwise mediocre guys).
In a lot of ways, the Pats have been the best representation of a football version of "Moneyball" in terms of identifying players or skills which were underutilized elsewhere. Easier to do when you have an elite QB and a coach/GM with job security though. |
Question, do you like what the Celtics are doing? |
I don't follow basketball so I have no idea what they're doing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deadpulse
Joined: 16 Oct 2008
Posts: 12705
Location: Boston MA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | | candyman93 wrote: | | mcmurtry86 wrote: | I love the "Moneyball" talk around the Browns. I'm sure Browns fans would be happy with the end result of Billy Beane's Moneyball strategy - no titles and only one trip to the ALCS (where they got swept).
Stockpiling draft picks, when you have an awful roster makes sense. Even when you have a good roster, there's some value in large draft classes. But without a QB, they're not going anywhere.
And by the time they draft a QB in 2018 or 2019, and that guy solidifies (maybe) into a good player, they're going to have to re-sign all of these draft picks.
The idea of building a good core of talent for 2-4 years and then adding a QB is stupid in the NFL because of the short careers, short contracts and high variability to drafting. Not to mention, them ending up 7-9 next year with Kessler/Osweiler is probably one of the worst things that could happen to them since they'll miss out on a chance to take an elite QB prospect and it probably means Kessler/Osweiler were useful enough to make them hesitant in trading picks for a veteran or signing a FA for tens of millions of dollars.
I'd also posit that there's very little "Moneyball" in what the Browns are doing. I don't really see what market inefficiencies Cleveland is exploiting. There's nothing inherently "Moneyball" in drafting lots of players. And the A's best run (early-2000's) was on the backs of having elite, superstar players at key positions (the big 3 starters, Foulke in the bullpen, Giambi/Tejada/Chavez. Their run fizzled out when "Moneyball" strategy (and their economic reality) led to their best players leaving for bigger paychecks and the "market inefficiency" guys weren't nearly as good. On top of that, their big time starting pitchers got hurt/inconsistent/moved on to other teams and were never replaced.
There's a lot of good lessons in what Billy Beane did in Oakland. I don't think many, if any, of them are applicable to what the Browns are doing. And there were plenty of not so good outcomes from Beane's strategy (short window of success, overly reliant on consistently good drafting or big years from otherwise mediocre guys).
In a lot of ways, the Pats have been the best representation of a football version of "Moneyball" in terms of identifying players or skills which were underutilized elsewhere. Easier to do when you have an elite QB and a coach/GM with job security though. |
Question, do you like what the Celtics are doing? |
I don't follow basketball so I have no idea what they're doing |
Stockpiling draft picks
Basketball is a different beast and a lot of Murts's points don't apply due to roster size, transition from college to pro levels being vastly different (especially when you factor in the curve for QB's like Murts talks about)
_________________
Sigs-Taking Requests
2016 Adpot-A-Patriot: Jimmy Garropolo
70% 496yds 4 TD 0 INT 117.1 PR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lancerman
Joined: 06 Feb 2011
Posts: 8685
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| candyman93 wrote: | | mcmurtry86 wrote: | I love the "Moneyball" talk around the Browns. I'm sure Browns fans would be happy with the end result of Billy Beane's Moneyball strategy - no titles and only one trip to the ALCS (where they got swept).
Stockpiling draft picks, when you have an awful roster makes sense. Even when you have a good roster, there's some value in large draft classes. But without a QB, they're not going anywhere.
And by the time they draft a QB in 2018 or 2019, and that guy solidifies (maybe) into a good player, they're going to have to re-sign all of these draft picks.
The idea of building a good core of talent for 2-4 years and then adding a QB is stupid in the NFL because of the short careers, short contracts and high variability to drafting. Not to mention, them ending up 7-9 next year with Kessler/Osweiler is probably one of the worst things that could happen to them since they'll miss out on a chance to take an elite QB prospect and it probably means Kessler/Osweiler were useful enough to make them hesitant in trading picks for a veteran or signing a FA for tens of millions of dollars.
I'd also posit that there's very little "Moneyball" in what the Browns are doing. I don't really see what market inefficiencies Cleveland is exploiting. There's nothing inherently "Moneyball" in drafting lots of players. And the A's best run (early-2000's) was on the backs of having elite, superstar players at key positions (the big 3 starters, Foulke in the bullpen, Giambi/Tejada/Chavez. Their run fizzled out when "Moneyball" strategy (and their economic reality) led to their best players leaving for bigger paychecks and the "market inefficiency" guys weren't nearly as good. On top of that, their big time starting pitchers got hurt/inconsistent/moved on to other teams and were never replaced.
There's a lot of good lessons in what Billy Beane did in Oakland. I don't think many, if any, of them are applicable to what the Browns are doing. And there were plenty of not so good outcomes from Beane's strategy (short window of success, overly reliant on consistently good drafting or big years from otherwise mediocre guys).
In a lot of ways, the Pats have been the best representation of a football version of "Moneyball" in terms of identifying players or skills which were underutilized elsewhere. Easier to do when you have an elite QB and a coach/GM with job security though. |
Question, do you like what the Celtics are doing? |
Celtics would trade every single one of their picks if a star came out. They also only have to build a 5 man roster and a bench.
Browns will never go anywhere without a QB.
_________________
Signature |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
