I found some more intelligent life in Cleveland! Joel W Cade kinda takes Bucky Brooks behind the woodshed for his "confirmation bias".
Bucky says Dorsey likes big, strong-armed quarterbacks. I've already said "you mean like Alex Smith and Tyrod Taylor?", but Joel tosses in a few more.
Every quarterback Dorsey has participated in acquiring has been accurate. So I don't need any bias: Dorsey likes accurate quarterbacks!
But Joel also talks about "old school" vs analytics, and shares my fear that Dorsey might indeed ignore a bunch of red flags and draft Allen because he "looks the part".
As Joel and I point out, analytics was developed to minimize subjectivity (read: confirmation bias).
All these "old school guys" have become Branch Allenians, and need to be kidnapped and deprogrammed. They're ignoring a whole bunch of historical data and alarm bells going off, just as they can't seem to remember the bad passes or bad games (100% vs top level competition).
No! All they remember seeing are those beautiful, arcing long bombs.
Now, Paul DePodesta is trying desperately to get out of the basement in Berea to reach Dorsey with his intelligence analyses.
However, as Joel himself points out, it's very possible that John Dorsey does not, in fact, agree with Mel Kiper about Josh Allen.
And Bucky Brooks talking about "potential" over production needs to think again---you can't do that with quarterbacks! More accurately, not with top ten (let alone top one) draft picks.
See my last post: Some guys are incapable of processing quickly enough, ever! (Why does MKC keep talking about Allen's great "processing speed"? Does she think he proved that on a white board or what come on man!)
You can't project things like that for a first overall quarterback! Dorsey can't play craps with this pick are you kidding me?
What tf is the upside? He eventually becomes slightly better than some of the other guys!? He eventually completes over 59% of his passes?
Knock-knock anybody home? Know why these rumors have traction? Ask Jeremiah--because they're the BROWNS!
HE says it's a dumb pick, but just expects Dorsey to do it! And the Browns still haven't fixed the technical glitch that keeps me from emailing or texting Dorsey! DePodesta might be our only hope!
Actually, I do think that Bucky and a lot of these guys are off the mark. Their "analysis" of Dorsey's "tastes" and inclinations is extremely superficial and subjective. I still can't believe Mayock said he'd draft Allen this year because he drafted Mahomes last year...I mean just wow!
A couple of the mocks have the Browns trading down from four calm down for three firsts and a third from Buffalo at twelve. I said three firsts and a third didn't you hear me?
One of them has Denzel Ward down there for them, and he might be! But the other has them drafting an outside linebacker who can passrush...eventually.
Brilliant! Hell why not Paea? I mean I know they don't need a DT, but that guy is pretty special!
Then at 22 they get a left tackle in one draft (except the wrong one).
The goober who picks Ward at four over Barkley and Fitzpatrick is sticking to his guns. It's just sad.
The majority seem to have the Giants standing pat and drafting Chubb. A couple have them picking a quarterback second overall, and a couple more have them trading down.
I have no idea. They're kind of in between, because they can contend right now but also need Eli junior and more talent in general. But I do know that if they stand pat Barkley has as good a shot as Chubb does...and a quarterback has a shot too (throw a dart blindfolded ok?)
I want 3:1 on this but I'll say they trade the pick and stockpile (and a quarterback goes second overall).
If I'm right, Bradley and Chubb are both there at four (along with Fitzpatrick), and one top four quarterback.
On this planet, Denzel Ward is one tier below the aforementioned three players, but for my purposes here, we'll lump him in:
If the Giants trade down, and/or quarterbacks are drafted one through three, any trade-down by Dorsey means a quarterback at four, and all four of these position players still there.
Now, Lamar Jackson will go in the top ten as well (you'll have to trust me on this one).
This literally means that Dorsey could trade down as low as 9th and still get one of these players for sure.
The math is the math, and the Bills' 12th overall pick is three slots lower.
If you'd stop spazzing out for a moment, I would point out to you that
A: Dorsey could trade UP, using a LOWER second round pick (and some chump-change, or Jamar Taylor or something) to get to 8 or 9 and guarantee one of these guys.
B: ...you aint ready for this, but deal with it: He could just draft Paea or Guice or Ridley (assuming Ward isn't there...which he might be).
C: He could trade down again to lock up a third 2019 first round pick, and...
If you are into reality, you know that the Browns will win at least six (more likely 7-9) games in 2018 with the players they already have. They will ideally have their quarterback situation resolved...assuming it's not Allen...
The Browns are not, and can not, be ready to overcome the Steelers in 2018. This is about 2019 AND BEYOND DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
...well...I can see the other side of this argument too: Barkley or Chubb could be huge, and maybe I'm overly negative about the Steelers' awesomeness...
Still, the better you do, the lower you draft.
For this team, at this time, is a Chubb or Barkley worth more than a bunch of extra high draft picks in 2018 and 2019?
Maybe not, since:
1: This draft class is jam-packed with stud running backs, and nearly as deep at cornerback, and also at project left tackles (not bad at defensive tackle either...a bunch of big/tall possession receivers too)
2: The 2019 draft class will be different, and the stars could align...get it?
Ok but if he just takes Chubb or Barkley instead I'll force myself to deal with it somehow -sigh-. I just hate leaving money on the table.
I analytically prefer Chubb, because we can still get an almost-Barkley later...no almost-Chubbs in this draft. But if Chubb aint there, I -sigh- could settle for Barkley...
Last call okbye
No comments:
Post a Comment