• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Browns hire Andrew Berry

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Soda said:
So, you're not scouting, but you have a trove of information that needs to be taken into account? How is that being constructed? Not by scouts.
Click to expand...

How are scouts evaluating players?

40 time? 3 cone drill? On-field statistics?

How are those being tabulated?
 
Let's all focus on the topic at hand, not the individuals making the points. There are several examples on both sides of the discussion weaving in and out of personal attacks and the topic of front office experience/responsibility. Nobody is going to change any minds if all these personal digs are thrown in.

What I hear Soda voicing in many of his posts is that in the past, he personally wanted to believe each regime change was going to be the change that corrects errors of the previous one. Now, he is not going to just assume that plugging one hole is the answer, because another hole might be on its way. That part is reasonable to me.

What I see Moz and a few others saying is that a consultant assessing the front office from an outsiders perspective can be beneficial, especially if there is a pattern of flawed leadership. I do understand that consultants cannot carry all the burden of decision made as they consulted, so that is a fair statement.

If I look back at the consultants I've had to work with in education, I'd say there were four wastes of money for every quality consultant I've been stuck with, but we really won't know if DePodesta is an asset or not until this new front office gets their hands dirty.

Can't change the past, but you can process what happened to make sure it goes better in the future.
 
CBBI said:
That didn't succeed to be perfectly clear.

Given what each regime inherited, the case could be made that Dorsey and the Green Bay crew only winning 13 games in 2 years is more disappointing than the Brown/DePodesta crew winning 1 game in 2 years given the expectation levels in place for both teams at the time.

2019 was a far worse season than 2016 or 2017 in my opinion. Those 2016 and 2017 teams were AT BEST gonna win 4 times (aka still last place).

The 2019 team is arguably (probably?) the biggest disappointment since 1999.
Click to expand...
This is very fair, but I think most of us agree that the failure mostly was due to coaching. Now, Dorsey hired him, so he certainly gets some blame as well. But I would have liked to see Dorsey & co retained with a new coach, if at all possible. I find it very difficult to believe Dorsey threw away possibly his last GM job over Freddie Kitchens.
 
Ohio said:
This is very fair, but I think most of us agree that the failure mostly was due to coaching. Now, Dorsey hired him, so he certainly gets some blame as well. But I would have liked to see Dorsey & co retained with a new coach, if at all possible. I find it very difficult to believe Dorsey threw away possibly his last GM job over Freddie Kitchens.
Click to expand...

Dorsey kept Hue on for another season, then hired Freddie Kitchens.
 
Randolphkeys said:
Let's all focus on the topic at hand, not the individuals making the points. There are several examples on both sides of the discussion weaving in and out of personal attacks and the topic of front office experience/responsibility. Nobody is going to change any minds if all these personal digs are thrown in.

What I hear Soda voicing in many of his posts is that in the past, he personally wanted to believe each regime change was going to be the change that corrects errors of the previous one. Now, he is not going to just assume that plugging one hole is the answer, because another hole might be on its way. That part is reasonable to me.

What I see Moz and a few others saying is that a consultant assessing the front office from an outsiders perspective can be beneficial, especially if there is a pattern of flawed leadership. I do understand that consultants cannot carry all the burden of decision made as they consulted, so that is a fair statement.

If I look back at the consultants I've had to work with in education, I'd say there were four wastes of money for every quality consultant I've been stuck with, but we really won't know if DePodesta is an asset or not until this new front office gets their hands dirty.

Can't change the past, but you can process what happened to make sure it goes better in the future.
Click to expand...

This is all fair, but I don't see DePo as a "consultant". He's CSO & needs to have some accountability. We haven't even heard of him shifting actors on his team after the organization failures. What accountability does he even have?
 
Soda said:
This is all fair, but I don't see DePo as a "consultant". He's CSO & needs to have some accountability. We haven't even heard of him shifting actors on his team after the organization failures. What accountability does he even have?
Click to expand...

To the owner.

Perhaps the fact that he's survived the last few regimes, and they're finally starting to respect his opinion and put him out in front of this new hiring process would acknowledge the possibility that he's been on the right side of history within the building.

As opposed to the alternative.
 
Ohio said:
This is very fair, but I think most of us agree that the failure mostly was due to coaching. Now, Dorsey hired him, so he certainly gets some blame as well. But I would have liked to see Dorsey & co retained with a new coach, if at all possible. I find it very difficult to believe Dorsey threw away possibly his last GM job over Freddie Kitchens.
Click to expand...

If it’s true that Dorsey took the binder from the analytics team threw it in the garbage and said “okay now let’s talk ball boys” then he simply had to go. He didn’t align with the overarching philosophy of the owner and he didn’t align with the overall trend of where the game is headed.
 
Last edited:
AZ_ said:
How are scouts evaluating players?

40 time? 3 cone drill? On-field statistics?

How are those being tabulated?
Click to expand...

I'd think they're using that stuff as supplemental, but still racking-up miles. What I question is how are you ranking players from the strategy office?
 
Even if you take it as fact, "best talent evaluator since '99" is hardly a reason to keep someone around. It's really not saying a lot in regards to this franchise.
 
Soda said:
I'd think they're using that stuff as supplemental, but still racking-up miles. What I question is how are you ranking players from the strategy office?
Click to expand...
You provide models and trends.

You let the scouts know that over the past two decades, x% of players who fit the following criteria have gone on to do y.

You let them know that players drafted in the first round who fail to meet Z metric haven't made a pro bowl since 1972.

This is why we're having such a problem with you painting this as a bad thing. You keep saying that everyone else is putting up straw men, but you're shitting on an entire field you appear to not understand.

The absolute worst case scenario is the GM and Scouting department weighing this information and saying "We understand the info, but we're comfortable selecting this player anyways"

Like, as long as everyone is doing their jobs, there isn't a downside to having additional information.
 
Out of the Rafters at the Q said:
You provide models and trends.

You let the scouts know that over the past two decades, x% of players who fit the following criteria have gone on to do y.

You let them know that players drafted in the first round who fail to meet Z metric haven't made a pro bowl since 1972.

This is why we're having such a problem with you painting this as a bad thing. You keep saying that everyone else is putting up straw men, but you're shitting on an entire field you appear to not understand.

The absolute worst case scenario is the GM and Scouting department weighing this information and saying "We understand the info, but we're comfortable selecting this player anyways"

Like, as long as everyone is doing their jobs, there isn't a downside to having additional information.
Click to expand...

It's actually very far from that. I work in data, so I understand how they can be used optimally & how easily they can be used to a detriment or to enforce group think. My beef is not with "more information". My beef is also not with Andrew Berry and his background with former regimes.

You guys that put a laugh emoji on my posts all try to straw-man that my position is "data = bad" and it's fully disingenuous if you actually retain the content of the posts you laugh at. My position is that you have people that don't know how to apply the data "driving the bus". Or, if they know how to apply the data, it sure hasn't manifested itself into much. This group, quite literally, have done nothing to prove they deserve the clout they have. I'm not sold based on you telling me you wanted "coach X" 3-years after the fact.

And then you have the folks that are leaning on "Jimmy finally learning how to get out of his own way"... Based on what? Your opinion of the guy he's listening to this time? It sure can't be based off of what he's proven to us thus far.
 
Ohio said:
This seems like a false narrative. Wasn’t Hue forced on Dorsey by Haslam? That’s what I recall reading by all accounts.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you have more trust in accounts than I do, especially with this media set.
 
Soda said:
My position is that you have people that don't know how to apply the data "driving the bus".
Click to expand...

Andrew Berry drafted 3 pro bowlers in 2 drafts and acquired enough assets to turn that into two top 5 picks as well.

So...why are we implying that they didn't know how to use the data?
 
Soda said:
It's actually very far from that. I work in data, so I understand how they can be used optimally & how easily they can be used to a detriment or to enforce group think. My beef is not with "more information". My beef is also not with Andrew Berry and his background with former regimes.

You guys that put a laugh emoji on my posts all try to straw-man that my position is "data = bad" and it's fully disingenuous if you actually retain the content of the posts you laugh at. My position is that you have people that don't know how to apply the data "driving the bus". Or, if they know how to apply the data, it sure hasn't manifested itself into much. This group, quite literally, have done nothing to prove they deserve the clout they have. I'm not sold based on you telling me you wanted "coach X" 3-years after the fact.

And then you have the folks that are leaning on "Jimmy finally learning how to get out of his own way"... Based on what? Your opinion of the guy he's listening to this time? It sure can't be based off of what he's proven to us thus far.
Click to expand...

What makes you assume that Andrew Berry doesn't know how to integrate data into the decision making process?

The previous regime was openly at war with each other over being completely unable or unwilling to integrate data into that process, which seems absurd on its face. But given the knowledge that DePo has now been given MORE of a say would have me inclined to believe that he's been on the right side of history in the eyes of an ownership group that has largely went against them in recent history.

If you want to argue that they don't measure up to the analytics staff employed by other successful teams, maybe that is an argument actually worth having. We have no idea, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top