Browns hire Andrew Berry

[Soda]

Really? I don't see Amherst ever stating that a single decision was made with a 100% focus on data and no traditional scouting.

What's the ethos behind the post, then? Is it just a inconsequential take on why we shouldn't discount Berry? As if we're discounting Berry?

 

[Jack Brickman]

Really? I don't see Amherst ever stating that a single decision was made with a 100% focus on data and no traditional scouting.

Further, I don't think any of us that are in favor of the Browns moving to a more analytic approach want decisions to be made entirely by data. We just want our front office guys to be smart enough to realize that data can help them make more informed decisions in combination with traditional film grinding and player interviews.

That's, you know, how good teams operate.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

What's the ethos behind the post, then? Is it just a inconsequential take on why we shouldn't discount Berry? As if we're discounting Berry?

Ask him.

If you think you're having a discussion with people who want to make decisions based on data alone, then you're sorely mistaken. Maybe that's the problem.

Nobody wants that.

 

[AZ_]

Oh, and Alex Van Pelt COACHED the South team at the Senior Bowl.

Optimal.

 

[Soda]

He has an established track record from his time in baseball.

Between his education, his track record in baseball, and his time in the NFL, I don't think he's some dolt. I have faith that he's probably able to provide some good, valuable information because he hasn't given me a reason to doubt him (and it's honestly not hard. As b00bie pointed out, if you want to say he might not be as good as other analytics front office personnel, I will gladly entertain that point. But it seems that you're arguing he's a net negative, which comes across as either naive or purely antagonistic).

Even if you ignore everything he's done in his lifetime, you have to show some reason to doubt the man other than you feel like it.

My opinion is based on what he's done in his time with the Browns. I don't know that you're ever going to be a good leader if your specialty is questioning everyone, which is what his role in the MLB was (if you believe Andrew Brandt). If you exist to question everything, then who is going to actually make the calls? If it's not him, then he's got too much influence.

If b00bie is right, and I hope he is, then I'll eat crow like I have before when I've been wrong. That said, I'm done with faith based on the actions (or lack of actions) made by Haslam. It's just as much of a leap of faith to assume that DePo has risen to power by proving to be right behind the scenes as it is to believe what I do.

 

[CBBI]

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.

I think it was a combination of a lot of factors that sealed Dorsey's fate.

Let's assume all of the rumors that have leaked out over the last month or so are true...

1. Dorsey hired Kitchens after what amounted to a sham coaching search and did so against the recommendation of DePodesta and Berry.

2. Dorsey had an openly antagonistic relationship with DePodesta and his team and ultimately refused to use the information that the analytics staff was attempting to provide for him.

3. Dorsey hired Kitchens because he wanted an inexperienced coach he could control after somewhat famously losing the power struggle to Andy Reid in Kansas City. This included filling out Kitchens' assistant staff for him and also being involved in determining playing time for various players.

4. Dorsey did not want to fire Kitchens.

5. Once Haslam fired Kitchens anyway, Dorsey still refused to have a harmonious relationship with DePodesta and once again preferred to bring on a coach he would be able to control.

John Dorsey was good at one specific element of being a general manager. He knows how to evaluate talent at a reasonably high level.

Everything else was basically awful.

Evaluating and acquiring coaching talent? Bad
Working in conjunction with other members of the front office? Bad
Factoring in character in player evaluations? Bad
Being skilled in player relations and contract negotiations? Bad

He's a good (arguably very good) old school, trust your gut, eye test scout. He's not particularly good at any other part of being a GM.

 

[Soda]

Oh, and Alex Van Pelt COACHED the South team at the Senior Bowl.

Optimal.

Again, I'm glad you think that the whole set-up was optimal, but I just don't buy that. That'd be lying to myself. Our GM wasn't there. Bill B. was there on day one.

 

[AZ_]

My opinion is based on what he's done in his time with the Browns. I don't know that you're ever going to be a good leader if your specialty is questioning everyone, which is what his role in the MLB was (if you believe Andrew Brandt). If you exist to question everything, then who is going to actually make the calls? If it's not him, then he's got too much influence.

If b00bie is right, and I hope he is, then I'll eat crow like I have before when I've been wrong. That said, I'm done with faith based on the actions (or lack of actions) made by Haslam. It's just as much of a leap of faith to assume that DePo has risen to power by proving to be right behind the scenes as it is to believe what I do.

Essentially abandoning logic for blind pessimism, as you’re doing here with DePo, whom we don’t know nearly enough about to judge, is just not a rational argument either.

Literally nobody is doing anything other than judging these guys on merit. We don’t have any argument to make for DePo on merit, but FWIW you seem to be antagonizing folks who aren’t willing to just throw shade on him.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

My opinion is based on what he's done in his time with the Browns. I don't know that you're ever going to be a good leader if your specialty is questioning everyone, which is what his role in the MLB was (if you believe Andrew Brandt). If you exist to question everything, then who is going to actually make the calls? If it's not him, then he's got too much influence.

If b00bie is right, and I hope he is, then I'll eat crow like I have before when I've been wrong. That said, I'm done with faith based on the actions (or lack of actions) made by Haslam. It's just as much of a leap of faith to assume that DePo has risen to power by proving to be right behind the scenes as it is to believe what I do.

Soda, let's take a look at the two things you said back-to-back:

1. Paul DePodesta doesn't make decisions
2. Paul DePodesta has too much influence

Do you see the problem here?

His role is to provide information to the General Manager, who makes the decisions with regards to personnel.

Your false equivalency doesn't fly because, after being asked for a single piece of information to support your stance multiple times, you have provided nothing.

This is why people are labeling your takes as blind pessimism. The blind is because you haven't provided a single item to back up your stances, and the pessimism, well, I'm sure even you'll agree that part's accurate.

 

[Soda]

Essentially abandoning logic for blind pessimism, as you’re doing here with DePo, whom we don’t know nearly enough about to judge, is just not a rational argument either.

Literally nobody is doing anything other than judging these guys on merit. We don’t have any argument to make for DePo on merit, but FWIW you seem to be antagonizing folks who aren’t willing to just throw shade on him.

I think I'm presenting my opinion in a pool of people who like the guy because of what he stands for and I'm getting panned for it. It's taken him 5 years with the organization to gain the ear of the owner. The CSO needs to show his worth far sooner than that & I think failing to do so doesn't bode well on his merit.

 

[Soda]

Soda, let's take a look at the two things you said back-to-back:

1. Paul DePodesta doesn't make decisions
2. Paul DePodesta has too much influence

Do you see the problem here?

His role is to provide information to the General Manager, who makes the decisions with regards to personnel.

Your false equivalency doesn't fly because, after being asked for a single piece of information to support your stance multiple times, you have provided nothing.

This is why people are labeling your takes as blind pessimism. The blind is because you haven't provided a single item to back up your stances, and the pessimism, well, I'm sure even you'll agree that part's accurate.

If he's standing behind the scenes able to criticize everything people do without having to answer for his own influence, or lack thereof, I find that to be problematic. That's what consultants do, not CSOs. Coming in with the "told ya so" after the fact doesn't resonate with me anymore.

Would his stint with the Dodgers be substantive? Or is his job with the Mets the only thing we're supposed to look at?

 

[AZ_]

I think I'm presenting my opinion in a pool of people who like the guy because of what he stands for and I'm getting panned for it. It's taken him 5 years with the organization to gain the ear of the owner. The CSO needs to show his worth far sooner than that & I think failing to do so doesn't bode well on his merit.

Would speak more to me about Haslam than anything else, not being able to convince folks who don’t want to be convinced.

But I see your point.

 

[Jack Brickman]

I think I'm presenting my opinion in a pool of people who like the guy because of what he stands for and I'm getting panned for it. It's taken him 5 years with the organization to gain the ear of the owner. The CSO needs to show his worth far sooner than that & I think failing to do so doesn't bode well on his merit.

So your position is that it's DePodesta's fault that Haslam ignored his good advice in favor of the advice of guys like Hue Jackson and John Dorsey?

 

[CBBI]

Again, I'm glad you think that the whole set-up was optimal, but I just don't buy that. That'd be lying to myself. Our GM wasn't there. Bill B. was there on day one.

John Lynch, who mind you had literally zero front office experience at the time, was hired by the 49ers after the Senior Bowl ended in 2017 and he just won NFL Executive of the Year, ya know?

There's just more than one way to skin the front office cat my dude.

 

[Soda]

So your position is that it's DePodesta's fault that Haslam ignored his good advice in favor of the advice of guys like Hue Jackson and John Dorsey?

Why do you "blindly" (word of the day) assume that his "good advice was ignored"? The logic doesn't take me there. Is it the Wickersham piece about McDermott? The fact that he's the last man standing? Every assumption making him look good requires a leap of faith somewhere. I'm not taking that leap this time.