Interesting Stats on Browns' Picks

[Barry]

Jordan Elliott’s 91.4 PFF pass-rush grade since 2017 ranked 1st among NFL Draft DTs

Delpit forced incompletions at a higher rate than any other top safety in the NFL Draft.

Jacob Phillips was the best tackler in college football last year.

And of course Wills is arguably the best OT to come out this year.

Looks like our FO is laser-focused on certain qualities at each position and goes from there.
 

[tiamat63]

9 minutes ago, Barry said:

Jordan Elliott’s 91.4 PFF pass-rush grade since 2017 ranked 1st among NFL Draft DTs

Delpit forced incompletions at a higher rate than any other top safety in the NFL Draft.

Jacob Phillips was the best tackler in college football last year.

And of course Wills is arguably the best OT to come out this year.

Looks like our FO is laser-focused on certain qualities at each position and goes from there.
 

The issue is creating a certain "tunnel vision" based on a lone metric for a position.  

Deshone Kizer had the highest QB rating off of play action throws I believe in the entire NCAA for the 2016 season?   PFF highlighted this and Sashi at the time laser focused on that particular metric while ignoring most everything else.   Including the fact that, when he was throwing from a straight drop, the kid was an absolute wildcard and displayed as much at Notre Dame.  (Pretty sure I have a link on this board around that time which I highlighted that very thing)

PFF also doesn't quantify "how" a pressure is calculated.  One of my biggest knocks on Kinlaw coming out this year was his "shock and awe" style tactics.  Once an Oline adjusted to the shock, there was no more awe.  This also coincided with him ended up on the ground further and further along a game went - See: vs North Carolina.      If a big body just launches himself into a blocker with no regard for assignment, technique and control yet still gets the pressure, I don't necessarily count that as a "win".    Because what you've done is expose your limited skill set in regards to functioning within the structure of the defense itself.    I think that's another reason why Kinlaw became such a fast riser with senior bowl practices.  Sure he dominated simple 1 on 1 drills, but that dominance didn't always translate or show up during the course of the 2019 season itself when you have to play your assignment as your coaches intend.   

[Unsympathetic]

Ugh. Sure, Phillips was the best tackler in college football.. and in the NFL, he'll be a great drag-down tackle imitator of D'Qwell Jackson.

If he can't get into position to employ that tackling skill because he's just not athletic enough to be anything other than a ST contributor.. it's a whiff.

[Dutch Oven]

More people not trusting The Process. 🙄

[D Bone]

11 minutes ago, Dutch Oven said:

More people not trusting The Process. 🙄

Don't make me follow you around. 

[Tour2ma]

59 minutes ago, Dutch Oven said:

More people not trusting The Process. 🙄

a/k/a... Dutch's Disciples...

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, Barry said:

Jordan Elliott’s 91.4 PFF pass-rush grade since 2017 ranked 1st among NFL Draft DTs

Delpit forced incompletions at a higher rate than any other top safety in the NFL Draft.

Jacob Phillips was the best tackler in college football last year.

(based on what?)

And of course Wills is arguably the best OT to come out this year.

arguably...but again, based on what?

Looks like our FO is laser-focused on certain qualities at each position and goes from there.
 

Well, again, they have done stat based drafting before....and we would up with either busts or journeymen  (Nassib).  

Here, it looks like maybe they combined  stat based with instinct based drafting (incorporating some of the Dorsey style?)

Hopefully it works out. 

[Barry]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

The issue is creating a certain "tunnel vision" based on a lone metric for a position.  

Deshone Kizer had the highest QB rating off of play action throws I believe in the entire NCAA for the 2016 season?   PFF highlighted this and Sashi at the time laser focused on that particular metric while ignoring most everything else.   Including the fact that, when he was throwing from a straight drop, the kid was an absolute wildcard and displayed as much at Notre Dame.  (Pretty sure I have a link on this board around that time which I highlighted that very thing)

PFF also doesn't quantify "how" a pressure is calculated.  One of my biggest knocks on Kinlaw coming out this year was his "shock and awe" style tactics.  Once an Oline adjusted to the shock, there was no more awe.  This also coincided with him ended up on the ground further and further along a game went - See: vs North Carolina.      If a big body just launches himself into a blocker with no regard for assignment, technique and control yet still gets the pressure, I don't necessarily count that as a "win".    Because what you've done is expose your limited skill set in regards to functioning within the structure of the defense itself.    I think that's another reason why Kinlaw became such a fast riser with senior bowl practices.  Sure he dominated simple 1 on 1 drills, but that dominance didn't always translate or show up during the course of the 2019 season itself when you have to play your assignment as your coaches intend.   

Great answer. Yes, there is always the question of whether one finds 'hidden value' in focusing on one metric or whether they do so at their own peril, as you suggest. I can't help but compare DePodesta's approach with what he did in baseball. 

He was a big proponent of using on-base percentage (OBP) as a key metric in determining success, and it works. But unlike football, OBP is much easier statistic to work with than anything in football, as it's binary- you either get on base or you don't. For example, it almost doesn't matter if a batter can hit a curve ball or not, or whether he is strong with inside pitches and weak with outside ones, etc. Because the bottom line is how many times is he able to reach base. (Yes, it's possible to improve an OBP if you improve his ability to hit a curve ball but you are now getting further away from the key metric). 

In football there are a lot more factors, as you suggest, Kizer being a great example. If you were to simplify it into one sentence for a player you could ask, for example, "Is Phillips' tackling percentage related to his being able to diagnose plays quickly, or is it the 'D'Quell' factor?" or "Does Delpit's coverage skills make up for his lack of tackling  ability (and if its correctable)?" In other words do their strengths mask, or outweigh, their weaknesses? At that point you then think about scheme and what your demands will be with him, etc.

So returning back to the Brown's FO, we see their devotion to certain metrics. It's worth noting that PFF's top players in recent drafts have fared no better than other prognosticators' picks, however (at least that's what I read on here). What will be interesting to see this coming year is how successful the FO is in integrating the other factors into a player's evaluation and seeing the results. 

[mjp28]

37 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

a/k/a... Dutch's Disciples...

Sounds like a gay motorcycle club......scary !      

[Orion]

4 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

Sounds like a gay motorcycle club......scary !

...now that's funny!

[tiamat63]

19 minutes ago, Barry said:

 

So returning back to the Brown's FO, we see their devotion to certain metrics. It's worth noting that PFF's top players in recent drafts have fared no better than other prognosticators' picks, however (at least that's what I read on here). What will be interesting to see this coming year is how successful the FO is in integrating the other factors into a player's evaluation and seeing the results. 

This is where it's important to reconcile stats and metrics with film.    Does what I see on tape support the conclusion of the letter/number grade?     Also, how can I commit to a process of continuous self-examination of my methods in reaching the grades that are assigned?

This is where I break with such 3rd party sites as PFF at times.   Their proprietary model strikes me as their God with final results not subject to question.   When the Browns took Corey Coleman, that was PFF's #1 ranked receiver.      I watched 2 hours of him and came back to laugh at the pick.               I don't make 6 figures to evaluate prospects, but it was pretty stunning how hard I broke with their assessment of our top 2 players that year - Coleman and Ogbah.

 

It isn't a science by any means.  But there are things that cannot be quantified by numbers that still mean a great deal often revealed with "traditional" scouting - route mastery, footwork, hand usage/placement, striking ability on blockers, etc etc.       I'm only now seeing the analytic crowd and the "football player" crowd begin to make peace with each other and finally realize that these two systems can exist in harmony as a vehicle to delivery quality prospects.     To the extent such a combination holds within the Browns FO though?  I'm not sure.

[mjp28]

1 minute ago, tiamat63 said:

This is where it's important to reconcile stats and metrics with film.    Does what I see on tape support the conclusion of the letter/number grade?     Also, how can I commit to a process of continuous self-examination of my methods in reaching the grades that are assigned?

This is where I break with such 3rd party sites as PFF at times.   Their proprietary model strikes me as their God with final results not subject to question.   When the Browns took Corey Coleman, that was PFF's #1 ranked receiver.      I watched 2 hours of him and came back to laugh at the pick.               I don't make 6 figures to evaluate prospects, but it was pretty stunning how hard I broke with their assessment of our top 2 players that year - Coleman and Ogbah.

 

It isn't a science by any means.  But there are things that cannot be quantified by numbers that still mean a great deal often revealed with "traditional" scouting - route mastery, footwork, hand usage/placement, striking ability on blockers, etc etc.       I'm only now seeing the analytic crowd and the "football player" crowd begin to make peace with each other and finally realize that these two systems can exist in harmony as a vehicle to delivery quality prospects.     To the extent such a combination holds within the Browns FO though?  I'm not sure.

Stats, stats, stats might get you drafted at a certain spot it's the pure guts and getting hit in the mouth that make the team along with football IQ and splendid coaching, specialized weight training and diet, etc, etc, etc.

I believe in the numbers -but- trust the FO's final judgement......I just hope that they know what they're doing.

Easy, huh ?

[Barry]

12 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

This is where it's important to reconcile stats and metrics with film.    Does what I see on tape support the conclusion of the letter/number grade?     Also, how can I commit to a process of continuous self-examination of my methods in reaching the grades that are assigned?

This is where I break with such 3rd party sites as PFF at times.   Their proprietary model strikes me as their God with final results not subject to question.   When the Browns took Corey Coleman, that was PFF's #1 ranked receiver.      I watched 2 hours of him and came back to laugh at the pick.               I don't make 6 figures to evaluate prospects, but it was pretty stunning how hard I broke with their assessment of our top 2 players that year - Coleman and Ogbah.

 

It isn't a science by any means.  But there are things that cannot be quantified by numbers that still mean a great deal often revealed with "traditional" scouting - route mastery, footwork, hand usage/placement, striking ability on blockers, etc etc.       I'm only now seeing the analytic crowd and the "football player" crowd begin to make peace with each other and finally realize that these two systems can exist in harmony as a vehicle to delivery quality prospects.     To the extent such a combination holds within the Browns FO though?  I'm not sure.

Two points from the above: It's too bad that the marriage of analytic evaluation and the 'football player' is personality-driven, and that there isn't really a way to make it structural (with Dorsey being the proof). That's why it is so important that once you get a successful FO team you do everything you can to keep it together. Best way is for the FO to keep bringing in guys they like and promoting them once they prove themselves.

Second, a little off-the-point but I was reading a book about U.S. diplomacy and the author pointed out that, strangely, the U.S. diplomatic corps does not have a mechanism where they self-evaluate and analyze their mistakes in negotiations with other countries. At least in a formalized way. It's a bit unbelievable if you think about it. 

It sounds like PFF (and probably many football operations) might suffer from the same failure. Do they go back and ask why did we grade a guy this way and where did we fail to see his upside (or downside)? I would think that that would help them a lot, and it would certainly be an interesting article if they were to publicize it, though it may be giving away too many corporate secrets.

[tiamat63]

2 minutes ago, Barry said:

Two points from the above: It's too bad that the marriage of analytic evaluation and the 'football player' is personality-driven, and that there isn't really a way to make it structural (with Dorsey being the proof). That's why it is so important that once you get a successful FO team you do everything you can to keep it together. Best way is for the FO to keep bringing in guys they like and promoting them once they prove themselves.

Second, a little off-the-point but I was reading a book about U.S. diplomacy and the author pointed out that, strangely, the U.S. diplomatic corps does not have a mechanism where they self-evaluate and analyze their mistakes in negotiations with other countries. At least in a formalized way. It's a bit unbelievable if you think about it. 

It sounds like PFF (and probably many football operations) might suffer from the same failure. Do they go back and ask why did we grade a guy this way and where did we fail to see his upside (or downside)? I would think that that would help them a lot, and it would certainly be an interesting article if they were to publicize it, though it may be giving away too many corporate secrets.

 

I think it's a combination of personality AND results driven.  If the analytics approach yielded overwhelmingly better results,  then you'd be more inclined to lean that way.   But like I pointed out with Corey Coleman, sometimes they get it WAY wrong.  And that wrong pick generally ends up being pretty obvious pretty damn fast.   And the success or failures at the highest level of picks are the most visible and generally going to be where people tend to formulate their opinion on the effectiveness of a given approach.

PFF, Foreign Diplomacy, self-analysis.   As humans we conditioned to not look inward first for solutions.

[Barry]

17 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

Stats, stats, stats might get you drafted at a certain spot it's the pure guts and getting hit in the mouth that make the team along with football IQ and splendid coaching, specialized weight training and diet, etc, etc, etc.

I believe in the numbers -but- trust the FO's final judgement......I just hope that they know what they're doing.

Easy, huh ?

Yep. With all the analysis, gut feelings, film, etc involved you'd think that people would have a good handle on it. Yet we consider someone very successful if they have a 50% hit rate. Not the kind of stats I'd want when getting on a plane.

[mjp28]

2 hours ago, Barry said:

Yep. With all the analysis, gut feelings, film, etc involved you'd think that people would have a good handle on it. Yet we consider someone very successful if they have a 50% hit rate. Not the kind of stats I'd want when getting on a plane.

........"Good morning fliers this is your pilot, we have a 73% chance of a successful landing today, ahhh maybe 64%. See you later I hope."......

Yes stats and spreadsheets have their place but they are just tools.   Hopefully yours are better than your opponents in sports.

[blitzz2]

We can talk stats all day, presume that all the analytics tell a story. Don't mean nothing. It's all about their motivation once they get to camp, what attitude they bring day in and day out to make the team. When and if they do, do they become complacent or are they that hungry ass dog that everyone thought they were when the Browns drafted them. I'll wait till the season starts to draw an opinion.

[Unsympathetic]

Interview w Stefanski - includes important discussion of "analytics" role.

Must-Read on Browns recent history

Much of the commentary on this thread can be updated with the above two links.. please go to them because they're.. reality.

[TexasAg1969]

10 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

a/k/a... Dutch's Disciples...

 

9 hours ago, mjp28 said:

Sounds like a gay motorcycle club......scary !      

I had more of an image of Stormy Daniels running around with a rolled up Forbes magazine in her hand.😂

[Dutch Oven]

9 hours ago, mjp28 said:

Sounds like a gay motorcycle club......scary !      

Scary how? Scared you might secretly be attracted to said motorcycle club? 

You boomers are adorable. 

[mjp28]

17 minutes ago, Dutch Oven said:

Scary how? Scared you might secretly be attracted to said motorcycle club? 

You boomers are adorable. 

No I was more into the ones that hung around Satan's Inferno on the west side of downtown Youngstown way back when........long gone now.

Satan's was an amazing place, used to go there with a Viet Nam green beret buddy that I worked with down the mill.

Oh yeah grandpa Boomer stories.   

[The Gipper]

6 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

No I was more into the ones that hung around Satan's Inferno on the west side of downtown Youngstown way back when........long gone now.

Satan's was an amazing place, used to go there with a Viet Nam green beret buddy that I worked with down the mill.

Oh yeah grandpa Boomer stories.   

The Misfits home;clubhouse  was just on the edge of Norton.....they killed a guy who just wanted to turn his car around, and chose their driveway to do it...having no clue where he was. 

[Tour2ma]

3 hours ago, Dutch Oven said:

You boomers are adorable. 

I resemble that remark!

[gumby73]

On 4/25/2020 at 1:49 PM, tiamat63 said:

PFF, Foreign Diplomacy, self-analysis.   As humans we conditioned to not look inward first for solutions.

riddle me this.. I don't believe Woods would share any of his "real" plans on what his defensive scheme he really may bring..but it would make good sense to believe his 4-3 base alignment statement makes sense..

In 2019, the 49'ers team coverage grade from PFF was 92.5..9'ers played a zone coverage 3 shell on over 70% of their reg. season snaps..To the tone of allowing the 2nd fewest per pass plays--Primary was a 3 deep zone scheme..Tied Pats for fewest 1st down completions with 149 in 2019...  

Is this ^^ the same 70% basics of what most would say is playing a base nickel package? or Big Nickel? or Which 2 LBer's early look to be in the mix in nickel packages? and thanks! to whenever ya can get to this.. Gone Birthday Fishing 🎣

[jrb12711]

On 4/25/2020 at 1:49 PM, tiamat63 said:

 

I think it's a combination of personality AND results driven.  If the analytics approach yielded overwhelmingly better results,  then you'd be more inclined to lean that way.   But like I pointed out with Corey Coleman, sometimes they get it WAY wrong.  And that wrong pick generally ends up being pretty obvious pretty damn fast.   And the success or failures at the highest level of picks are the most visible and generally going to be where people tend to formulate their opinion on the effectiveness of a given approach.

PFF, Foreign Diplomacy, self-analysis.   As humans we conditioned to not look inward first for solutions.

Call me a crazy old man, but I think in this data driven world scouts tend to look past the very simple "eye test" of prospects. I'm a data-driven man. I think tools like the ones noted are neat to consider when evaluating mid-tier guys, or how to thread the needle on two similar prospects.

You mentioned Kizer, and I think he's a perfect example of this. That dude when he looked bad on tape looked awful. I mean truly dreadful, and it was largely against elite competition. Meanwhile, you look at the tape of a dude like Joe Schobert (already miss him) and it's evident this dude is a football player. I swear, I think such a large reason New England has been so successful is they follow this to a huge degree. I'm curious to see how that safety they took ends up.

[calfoxwc]

40 minutes ago, jrb12711 said:

You mentioned Kizer, and I think he's a perfect example of this. That dude when he looked bad on tape looked awful. I mean truly dreadful, and it was largely against elite competition. Meanwhile, you look at the tape of a dude like Joe Schobert (already miss him) and it's evident this dude is a football player. I swear, I think such a large reason New England has been so successful is they follow this to a huge degree. I'm curious to see how that safety they took ends up.

Exactly. So many times, the Browns have drafted on physical talent, combine stats etc. But they end up with guys who flunk out in the NFL.

    What is missing is the love for the game. Guys like Joe Thomas - his story of refusing to come out of a game on his long streak when a coach sent in another LT to give him a break. Then there are guys who want the paychecks, but are more interested in their parties and dope, etc.

   I'm curious bigtime to see how Kyle Dugger (safety) and Logan Wilson (lb), and Jeremy Chinn... how they do in the NFL. I had Dugger and Wilson in my stupid mock draft because I decided they were football players.

[tiamat63]

6 hours ago, gumby73 said:

riddle me this.. I don't believe Woods would share any of his "real" plans on what his defensive scheme he really may bring..but it would make good sense to believe his 4-3 base alignment statement makes sense..

In 2019, the 49'ers team coverage grade from PFF was 92.5..9'ers played a zone coverage 3 shell on over 70% of their reg. season snaps..To the tone of allowing the 2nd fewest per pass plays--Primary was a 3 deep zone scheme..Tied Pats for fewest 1st down completions with 149 in 2019...  

Is this ^^ the same 70% basics of what most would say is playing a base nickel package? or Big Nickel? or Which 2 LBer's early look to be in the mix in nickel packages? and thanks! to whenever ya can get to this.. Gone Birthday Fishing 🎣

 The differences in our base alignment will vary game to game.   One of the more important reasons I believe Billings was brought it.   I do believe you're going to be some odd, 3 man fronts that will involve vernon (should he be on the roster) and Myles in 2pt stances.    Probably not much, but it will be in there.    As I pointed out from watching the 2018 Broncos tape, I think our more common base look will closely resemble some of the things the Seahawks did with their under calls vs teams like the Steelers & Ravens.  While we'll favor the over and speed approach with Jobi and Sheldon vs teams like Tennessee & Cincy.  

    I'm trying to follow your meaning on the nickel package comments though?   Nickel is nickel - 5 DB's.   Big nickel is just another add on term for preferring a safety as the 3rd DB instead of a more "traditional" corner.   In all honesty, "Big nickel" is a thing that has been around for quite some time minus the recently popular label.   As far back as I can remember (with clarity) for a prime example - Cie Grant for the Buckeyes in 2002.   He was a DB that bulked up and moved to "LB". It gave the Buck defense some speed at the WILL spot  and the ability to better matchup with some slot receivers and TE's that teams like Purdue, NorthWestern, and OOC opponents like Texas Tech & Washington State deployed with all of their 11 personnel + hurryup.  At this point, soon to be 18 years ago, wide split "spread" offenses, zone dominant, read option, and sight adjustment teams weren't all the rage at major universities.  It was kind of niche' and even scoffed at because lesser football schools used those schemes to help combat the talent disadvantage.  Remember Joe Tiller and his "basketball on grass" comments.       This meant  Heacock didn't have to constantly sub out DB's which let OSU go out, make their calls and play fast on defense on almost any down.          That group really was ahead of their time on the collegiate level.

 And to answer your question on the 2LB's.   Goodson will be 1, the other really depends on how camp shakes out.  Phillips was not the dime backer when I watched LSU play Georgia.  And a couple times he wasn't even in with the nickel group.  I'm sure that was matchup specific, but I'm not about to pencil his name in there right now.       So I'll say Mack Wilson for the moment.

4 hours ago, jrb12711 said:

Call me a crazy old man, but I think in this data driven world scouts tend to look past the very simple "eye test" of prospects. I'm a data-driven man. I think tools like the ones noted are neat to consider when evaluating mid-tier guys, or how to thread the needle on two similar prospects.

You mentioned Kizer, and I think he's a perfect example of this. That dude when he looked bad on tape looked awful. I mean truly dreadful, and it was largely against elite competition. Meanwhile, you look at the tape of a dude like Joe Schobert (already miss him) and it's evident this dude is a football player. I swear, I think such a large reason New England has been so successful is they follow this to a huge degree. I'm curious to see how that safety they took ends up.

 The "eye test" is everything to me.  Of course it goes just beyond a simple gauge of "looking" like a football player.  You can be big, strong, fast and what have you... but if I can't see evidence of you processing the chess match in front of you as it unfolds, then you're just an athlete.    Data should back up film and vice versa.   If you grade well, I'm going to want to verify why and how you achieved that grade.  If the tape looks good, I'm going to want to see how you test out when how your play has been put to a grading system.      In the end, I will always trust my "traditional" scouting.     Because as I've said multiple times through my years on this board - there are metrics such as catching ability, route command and footwork, eye discipline, hand usage, etc etc...  none that have a quantified metric for them.    Sure, you can assign a personal grade.  For example, I find that Jedrick Wills has quality feet and I'm giving him a B+ grade there.    But to develop a true metric system that you can compare footwork to footwork on from prospect to prospect coupled with the route, the opponent, the coverage and so forth...?    I haven't seen one put forth yet.  And I'm not even sure how you would begin to even try.

 As for Dugger?  As bad as the Browns have been in the 2nd round with a few position groups the last 20 years,  the Patriots might be every bit as bad as the Browns with DB's in that regard.   History is not on Dugger's side with this one.    I honestly couldn't believe some of the misses until I went back and use PFR to read the picks.  

 

3 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

 

   I'm curious bigtime to see how Kyle Dugger (safety) and Logan Wilson (lb), and Jeremy Chinn... how they do in the NFL. I had Dugger and Wilson in my stupid mock draft because I decided they were football players.

 You got it right on him being the higher pick.   But see the bolded just above.  

[gumby73]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

     I'm trying to follow your meaning on the nickel package comments though?   Nickel is nickel - 5 DB's.   Big nickel is just another add on term for preferring a safety as the 3rd DB instead of a more "traditional" corner.   In all honesty, "Big nickel" is a thing that has been around for quite some time minus the recently popular label.   As far back as I can remember (with clarity) for a prime example - Cie Grant for the Buckeyes in 2002.   He was a DB that bulked up and moved to "LB". It gave the Buck defense some speed at the WILL spot  and the ability to better matchup with some slot receivers and TE's that teams like Purdue, NorthWestern, and OOC opponents like Texas Tech & Washington State deployed with all of their 11 personnel + hurryup.  At this point, soon to be 18 years ago, wide split "spread" offenses, zone dominant, read option, and sight adjustment teams weren't all the rage at major universities.  It was kind of niche' and even scoffed at because lesser football schools used those schemes to help combat the talent disadvantage.  Remember Joe Tiller and his "basketball on grass" comments.       This meant  Heacock didn't have to constantly sub out DB's which let OSU go out, make their calls and play fast on defense on almost any down.          That group really was ahead of their time on the collegiate level.

 And to answer your question on the 2LB's.   Goodson will be 1, the other really depends on how camp shakes out.  Phillips was not the dime backer when I watched LSU play Georgia.  And a couple times he wasn't even in with the nickel group.  I'm sure that was matchup specific, but I'm not about to pencil his name in there right now.       So I'll say Mack Wilson for the moment.

   

Thank you Tia, and perfectly explained...i thought i knew both concepts between nickel's. and your version leaves a clear picture.. I was listening to Mike Renner at Pff on the radio & browns draft breakdown adding Delpit.. Renner kept confusing the conversation with Nickel & Woods at 9'ers great %age of 3 cover zone shells..Anywho,, Renner see's alot of us playing  Ward, Greedy,Kevin Johnson, Delpit & Joseph.. with some better depth at safety in Zendejo & Redwine & CB T.Mitchell. Also, Renner loves the pick of Phillips, but only see's us playing with 2 LB'ers a lot.. but am like you, thinking now Renner knows nothing about us adding Goodson so Jacobs just won't be handed the keys like Renner thinks...one of these days we may just find out..thanks again

[tiamat63]

2 minutes ago, gumby73 said:

Thank you Tia, and perfectly explained...i thought i knew both concepts between nickel's. and your version leaves a clear picture.. I was listening to Mike Renner at Pff on the radio & browns draft breakdown adding Delpit.. Renner kept confusing the conversation with Nickel & Woods at 9'ers great %age of 3 cover zone shells..Anywho,, Renner see's alot of us playing  Ward, Greedy,Kevin Johnson, Delpit & Joseph.. with some better depth at safety in Zendejo & Redwine & CB T.Mitchell. Also, Renner loves the pick of Phillips, but only see's us playing with 2 LB'ers a lot.. but am like you, thinking now Renner knows nothing about us adding Goodson so Jacobs just won't be handed the keys like Renner thinks...one of these days we may just find out..thanks again

No reason to thank me.  But I believe that's what I offer over most anyone that covers the NFL as a whole.   There's just too many moving parts, too much personnel, for one person to give a truly informed decision on every team without some "Huh?" moments.    Team specific analysts are really where it's at.

RE: Renner.   Sounds like he believes that Delpit will win the centerfielder spot in our single high shells.  It's possible he does just that, but Sendejo won't make it easy for him.   So if he's starting, that means he has earned it.    You can play cover 3 from damn near any personnel, but I'm not sure what MR is referring to.  If he believes we'll be in nickel most of the time, well, you don't have to be a paid analyst to make that assessment.   I think the difference here is this - will we be playing the bulk of our nickel with a 3rd corner, such as Mitchell or Johnson? Or will most of our nickel be with a 3rd safety?  In which case the likely candidate for that spot is Delpit given his size and having some athletic traits over Sendejo and Karl Joseph in man coverage.   Plus a solid opportunity to showcase his proof on improved tackling.

I would expect an employee of PFF to love the Phillips pick, he was rated highly by them.   But if he thinks JC will be in on the nickel sets as the 2nd backer, then that means Goodson will be outside and Phillips has won the ILB spot.   LIke I said, a lot of moving parts.