Cleveland Browns 2020 Regular Season Thread

[The Human Q-Tip]

I do not want to be a party pooper....

Too late.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

That's a possible variance, but no one can calculate the likelihood. What I DO know is that in 2019 our scheme was so ridiculously inefficient and implemented that we took a team talented enough to win the superbowl and only won 6 games. Week by week we would throw away our gameplans.

I'm not pretending nothing can go wrong, I'm comparing it to a year when EVERYTHING not named Chubb went wrong. Baker, OBJ, o-line, d-line, CBs, coaching... it all went wrong, and we finished 6-10.



We have no idea if the left tackle we draft will start. We have no idea if we will sign Peters or another LT that can start. We have no idea if we'll make a trade. What we DO know is that our options leave very little room for the LT we have to be as bad as G-Rob. That's what we're comparing here. We're not looking at the variances that can go wrong. That's a deep rabbit hole that could turn out in a myriad of ways - not only for the Browns but for every team in the NFL.

What we're using as a baseline is the clusterfuck that was last year. How much worse can get it? Think about that - besides Chubb and Priefer's ST (which was decent), how much worse can it get?



Baker doesn't need 'fixing'. He's not broken at all - he was severely misutilized. He has room to improve for sure, but I don't think it gets worse for him. We saw the bottom for him.



I think in a vacuum you are generally right, but any Browns fan can watch last season and see that our 6 wins were just on talent alone. Just about everything that could've gone badly actually went badly.



Again, I'm not guaranteeing anything. We could snag Travis Kelce or George Kittle and your argument about variance would still hold. That's kind of a funky way to look at it. Same with G-Rob (who was awful btw) - we could get the best LT from last year and your argument about variance would still hold.

That's just a weird way to look at it, particularly as a counter-argument against someone (me) who made no guarantees. I only said it's likely the LT we acquire is better than G-Rob. Obviously we have the entire offseason to see if we improve there but the front office is doing everything right so far.

I think you're pushing statistics without context. Variance is real, but how do you measure the likelihood of variance to swing one way or the other? Roll a die 10 times. The Browns went 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1. That's how I see last year - practically everything went wrong. Repeat the process and sure, maybe the 5 becomes a 3 but it's unlikely you'll get as many 1's.

If the team goes 6-10 when everything goes badly, does that mean they can get worse if they improve in almost every foreseeable area? Absolutely. We could go 4-12 next year. However, when we break down what went wrong last year (primarily coaching, which had a domino effect on every part of the offense), the likelihood it all happens that way again seems low to me.

No guarantees, but I don't see the coaching being as bad as it was with Freddie.

I agree completely. If you look only at the increase in talent from last year to this year, then maybe. But your point that just about everything that could go wrong last year did (with the exception of an injury to Baker) is spot-on. So in terms of variance from last year, it seems to me that (barring Baker getting injured) the worst case for this year would be last year.

 

[Lee]

Not going to even guess, I learned one thing from having 1,000,000 new head coaches the last 20 years, you really need to see how the team responds to the new regime to have any clue how many they will win.

 

[CBBI]

We haven't discussed enough how absolutely pathetic the Cowboys secondary is and how their new DC, Dom Capers, is way past his prime.

To be fair the Cowboys DC is actually Mike Nolan...

....who hasn't been an NFL DC since 2014 and may very well be past his prime like Capers.

 

[Jordan]

Normally I reach impasses at this point, so I stop responding, but I actually think we may be getting somewhere. Let me start here.

I think you're pushing statistics without context. Variance is real, but how do you measure the likelihood of variance to swing one way or the other? Roll a die 10 times. The Browns went 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1. That's how I see last year - practically everything went wrong. Repeat the process and sure, maybe the 5 becomes a 3 but it's unlikely you'll get as many 1's.

So I think you and I are talking about different things. When I say variance, I mean that assuming we have a normal distribution of outcomes, 95% of these outcomes will fall between two standard deviations of the mean in either direction. Anything outside of those two is an outlier.

Going into last season, the standard deviations for the Browns' results were driven by two highly variable factors: a second-year quarterback and a rookie head coach. Most models I saw projected the mean wins over thousands of simulations somewhere between 8-9... but the standard errors were massive. Most predictions I saw had the range of outcomes between 5 wins at the low end and 12 at the high end. I think most people would tell you landed in the range of outcomes attributable to statistical variance.

My problem is that I also think this season is close to that degree of varying outcomes. Most bayesian forecasting predicts Baker to be close to a top-15/16 quarterback this year given his play during his first year as well as his draft position. But here is what is interesting... the range of outcomes is massive. PFF has a (very small but within the range of outcomes) chance of Baker performing at an MVP level this year. The low-end has him closer to Marcus Mariotta's performance last season.

I think the talent is marginally better and there is less variance for Baker at the low-end of outcomes. I think Stefanski brings an equal amount of risk as Freddie did last year. As a result, my guess is most statistical forecasts will place the Browns around the same number of projected wins, but smaller standard deviations. I.E., whereas 5-11 was within the normal range of outcomes last season, my guess is that number is closer to 6-10.

To your point, however, I do agree that aspects contributing to the total variance (Freddie being awful, Myles getting suspended for the last quarter of the season, and injuries to both starting defensive backs) were all probably outliers. But the overall outcome was not.

That's a possible variance, but no one can calculate the likelihood. What I DO know is that in 2019 our scheme was so ridiculously inefficient and implemented that we took a team talented enough to win the superbowl and only won 6 games. Week by week we would throw away our gameplans.

See, I think we really disagree here. I fundamentally do not believe the Browns had a roster anywhere close to Super Bowl contention. We had one net-positive defensive back and he missed half the season (Denzel), our pass-rush was anemic outside of Myles, we had some of the worst linebacker play in the league, and had an offensive line with two starters that were serious net-negatives.

I'm not pretending nothing can go wrong, I'm comparing it to a year when EVERYTHING not named Chubb went wrong. Baker, OBJ, o-line, d-line, CBs, coaching... it all went wrong, and we finished 6-10.

I know... and I have no idea why I need to keep telling you that I do not think you are saying nothing can go wrong. I see where you are coming from.

We have no idea if the left tackle we draft will start. We have no idea if we will sign Peters or another LT that can start. We have no idea if we'll make a trade. What we DO know is that our options leave very little room for the LT we have to be as bad as G-Rob. That's what we're comparing here. We're not looking at the variances that can go wrong. That's a deep rabbit hole that could turn out in a myriad of ways - not only for the Browns but for every team in the NFL.

Sure... but is the improvement from G-Rob (a net negative in pass protection and a net neutral in run protection) to a rookie (at best net neutral to both) or Peters (net positive in pass, net neutral in run) substantial enough to provide us with an extra win? Maybe... I just am not entirely sure Baker's sacks were all the offensive line's fault. I think coaching had a lot to do with that, however, and moving to an outside-zone scheme should solve this issue. So I actually can probably come around to your view on this.

What we're using as a baseline is the clusterfuck that was last year. How much worse can get it? Think about that - besides Chubb and Priefer's ST (which was decent), how much worse can it get?

No, I totally agree! All I am saying that it is very likely we see improvement in play, but that it does not translate to three extra wins.

Baker doesn't need 'fixing'. He's not broken at all - he was severely misutilized. He has room to improve for sure, but I don't think it gets worse for him. We saw the bottom for him.

So I do not agree with the method Kevin Cole uses here, but I do agree with the results based on a marginal effects model I run myself.

Breaking down the futures of the first-round QBs of the 2018 draft class | NFL News, Rankings and Statistics | PFF

PFF data scientist Kevin Cole puts the quarterbacks of the 2018 draft class under the microscope to attempt to forecast their career upsides.

www.pff.com

Basically, I am finding that you are right, we have absolutely seen Baker's floor, and that is probably the 21st-ish best quarterback in the NFL. That is a great spot for the Browns.

I do think there will be challenges he faces in Stefanski's scheme, though. FOr example, one of the b ig keys to the outside-zone offense is that the ball absolutely has to get out quickly. The receivers run shorter route trees than in Freddie's vertical system. This means that Baker is going to need to be comfortable siting in the pocket and reading coverages pre-snap. Stefanski will throw in a lot of play-action bootlegs to help Baker a bit, but at the end of the day, Baker needs to improve his pre-snap analysis.

I think this is the likely outcome, by the way. But, in the world where he does not, my guess is his sack rate goes up pretty significantly, though the accuracy probably still sees a spike up. Against, in the worst world, we are talking 21st-ish best QB in the NFL. I think his ceiling of outcomes is extraordinarily high, however.

I think in a vacuum you are generally right, but any Browns fan can watch last season and see that our 6 wins were just on talent alone. Just about everything that could've gone badly actually went badly.

100% agreed... I think some of the coaching was good (defensive backs and special teams, mainly), but it was so horrendous on all other levels that it made it difficult for the team's talent to win.

Again, I'm not guaranteeing anything. We could snag Travis Kelce or George Kittle and your argument about variance would still hold. That's kind of a funky way to look at it. Same with G-Rob (who was awful btw) - we could get the best LT from last year and your argument about variance would still hold.

That's just a weird way to look at it, particularly as a counter-argument against someone (me) who made no guarantees. I only said it's likely the LT we acquire is better than G-Rob. Obviously we have the entire offseason to see if we improve there but the front office is doing everything right so far.

If the team goes 6-10 when everything goes badly, does that mean they can get worse if they improve in almost every foreseeable area? Absolutely. We could go 4-12 next year. However, when we break down what went wrong last year (primarily coaching, which had a domino effect on every part of the offense), the likelihood it all happens that way again seems low to me.

No guarantees, but I don't see the coaching being as bad as it was with Freddie.

Right, I know we agree here. I really do not think you are guaranteeing nine wins.

I would disagree that adding Kelce or Kittle is within my argument about variance. In fact, I would argue that means you misunderstand what variance means. As I stated previously, variance is any result within two standard deviations of the means. Adding KIttle or Kelce is an outlier - it is so unlikely that no statistical model would place value on it.

Just like models for the Chiefs generally predicted a range of outcomes that is smaller for the Chiefs, because last year there was substantially less uncertainty for the Browns. Mahomes missing two games due to injury is of course a possible outcome, but it was generally considered at the very far end of what would not be considered an outlier. But the Chiefs trading Mahomes for a second round pick was possible, but obviously did not receive much statistical weight due to the unlikely nature of it.

All I am saying is that I think the variance of outcomes within a normal distribution is probably larger than you do. It seems like you think last season was an outlier. That is totally fair! I think our disagreement is that I really do not think last season was an outlier, but ended somewhere between one- and two-standard deviations away from the mean because of how horrendous the coaching staff was... I also think, because it is a first-time head coach, that same variance is possible (if unlikely) this season.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

To be fair the Cowboys DC is actually Mike Nolan...

....who hasn't been an NFL DC since 2014 and may very well be past his prime like Capers.

Holy shit, I thought it was Capers.

I knew it was a totally washed up former GB DC, though

 

[Jordan]

Holy shit, I thought it was Capers.

I knew it was a totally washed up former GB DC, though

I am expecting an offensive uptick... but out of all of those teams, I do think Cowboys are most likely to completely collapse. That defense is, uh, not good in pass coverage.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

I am expecting an offensive uptick... but out of all of those teams, I do think Cowboys are most likely to completely collapse. That defense is, uh, not good in pass coverage.

They also have two linebackers who have a major problem with injuries and dipping performance and a pass rush that is based on Lawrence and two guys who might not play in the NFL next year. Let's also not forget their DT's kind of suck too, although adding McCoy probably helps.

Cowboys are totally clusterfuck built team. They have mismatched pieces and valued somethings way overboard while not valuing others.

 

[Vee-Rex]

All I am saying is that I think the variance of outcomes within a normal distribution is probably larger than you do. It seems like you think last season was an outlier. That is totally fair! I think our disagreement is that I really do not think last season was an outlier, but ended somewhere between one- and two-standard deviations away from the mean because of how horrendous the coaching staff was... I also think, because it is a first-time head coach, that same variance is possible (if unlikely) this season.

This sums it up nicely, probably a lot better than I was putting it. I took one statistics class in college (haha) so I have an idea of what you're getting at.

I do think Freddie's awfulness was an outlier in that it's unlikely to happen again, but it does make a ton of sense why it happened to me. I'd feel exactly the way you do if I looked at it without context. Freddie tried to stubbornly and relentlessly browbeat downfield passing into an offense without the QB type or offensive line to support it. Even the top 2 WRs are smaller guys that can put a little strain on the QB in terms of ball placement. Pretty sure defenses had us figured out early in the year as well.

Stefanski is a first-time head coach and present the same risk for sure. However, as you put it - I think it's unlikely because within context we see an offense that fits our QB a ton better.

While I feel like I know exactly why we failed last year, it does scare me that I was very confident last year. I was sure that offense would succeed, and then Freddie went and let his cockiness get the best of him. While I don't think that would happen with Stefanski I'm definitely more reserved about it than I was last year.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

My biggest concern going into last year was the offensive line. We had question marks at both tackle positions, and had traded away a Pro Bowl guard. It seemed like a huge blind spot about which the GM really didn't seem to care.

Berry is a breath of fresh air as far as the OL concerned. Obviously Conklin was a huge get, but so was Bill Callahan, who I imagine was a bit more expensive than the average OL coach. That, plus the FO's heavily reported interest in the top OT's, makes me feel a shitload better going into this season. At the bare minimum, we should be an even better running team.

 

[macbdog]

Not going to even guess, I learned one thing from having 1,000,000 new head coaches the last 20 years, you really need to see how the team responds to the new regime to have any clue how many they will win.

Wrong

13-3

Super Bowl appearance. SB cancelled by 2021 coronavirus outbreak. At halftime. With Browns winning by 30. Commish declares it a draw.

 

[red.]

 

[Los216]

My biggest concern going into last year was the offensive line. We had question marks at both tackle positions, and had traded away a Pro Bowl guard. It seemed like a huge blind spot about which the GM really didn't seem to care.

Berry is a breath of fresh air as far as the OL concerned. Obviously Conklin was a huge get, but so was Bill Callahan, who I imagine was a bit more expensive than the average OL coach. That, plus the FO's heavily reported interest in the top OT's, makes me feel a shitload better going into this season. At the bare minimum, we should be an even better running team.

Damn. I haven't posted in a while and I totally forgot that we got Jack Conklin lololololol. Fuck yeah. I think I was the one who posted it first too. Damn that's crazy lolololol.

 

[Hurl Bruce]

Thought I'd get fake schedule season going.

 

[SanduskyCav]

Thought I'd get fake schedule season going.

I understand you said it is fake… My question is how did you even find this guy lol he has 5 followers haha