NFL: Extreme Moneyball

[Mr Janny]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...the-browns-jets-bills-and-competitive-balance

An interesting look at what the Browns, Jets, and Bills are doing. It remains to be seen if this approach will work at all. The author breaks down why it would work differently from baseball. Still, with the Jets and Bills, they have to contend with New England in their division, so I can understand why they might be inclined to try a different approach. And the Browns... the Browns are just desperate for anything resembling a step forward. The traditional approach to team building has not been working for them. If you're Cleveland, can your fans really tell the difference between tanking and trying hard?

 

[jbindm]

I don't see tanking ever taking hold as a common strategy in the NFL over the long term. As the author notes, the NFL is structured for a quick turnaround. And with a postseason that is a single game elimination format, there's always a decent chance of a wild card team catching lightning in a bottle or benefitting from a questionable call or two to advance or even win a championship. It's not like the NBA or MLB where the better team will almost always emerge out of a seven game series. NFL owners are going to remember that in the long run it's better for their team to be fighting for the last wild card spot in Week 17 than it is for a fanbase to be discussing the next #1 overall pick in November.

 

[Mr Janny]

I don't see tanking ever taking hold as a common strategy in the NFL over the long term. As the author notes, the NFL is structured for a quick turnaround. And with a postseason that is a single game elimination format, there's always a decent chance of a wild card team catching lightning in a bottle or benefitting from a questionable call or two to advance or even win a championship. It's not like the NBA or MLB where the better team will almost always emerge out of a seven game series. NFL owners are going to remember that in the long run it's better for their team to be fighting for the last wild card spot in Week 17 than it is for a fanbase to be discussing the next #1 overall pick in November.

I agree with you, but I also see why those specific franchises would be willing to try risky, unproven tactics to attempt to change their track.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I don't see tanking ever taking hold as a common strategy in the NFL over the long term. As the author notes, the NFL is structured for a quick turnaround. And with a postseason that is a single game elimination format, there's always a decent chance of a wild card team catching lightning in a bottle or benefitting from a questionable call or two to advance or even win a championship. It's not like the NBA or MLB where the better team will almost always emerge out of a seven game series. NFL owners are going to remember that in the long run it's better for their team to be fighting for the last wild card spot in Week 17 than it is for a fanbase to be discussing the next #1 overall pick in November.

Those franchises have failed becoming even mediocre. You are right that being average pays in the NFL -- but those guys are perpetual bottom-feeders.

 

[jbindm]

Those franchises have failed becoming even mediocre. You are right that being average pays in the NFL -- but those guys are perpetual bottom-feeders.

Sure, and that's why they're trying the moneyball approach now. But if/when they give up on that and go back to the tried and true methods for failure the moneyball movement in the NFL will go away.

 

[Mr Janny]

Off topic, but have I mentioned how much I enjoy football business strategy talk with you guys? I know it's not for everybody, but it's something I really enjoy. Free agency, salary cap, cuts, pre-season, etc. I gobble that stuff up. Jbindm, I can always count on you to respond with good, well informed stuff, even if I don't always agree with it. And Sigmapolis, I will never complain about post length in this realm.

Ok, enough touchy-feely crap.

My prediction is that the Browns are really the only team that has a shot to make the moneyball approach have any success(if it can be successful at all) The Jets and Bills have vocal fanbases, and their owners won't have the stones to stick with it. They'll fire the current regime, eventually, and bring in people who will go the more traditional route.

The Browns will give it a longer leash, and I think they could get moderately better, but just having the same staff in place for a good length of time might be as important as their moneyball strategy. Cleveland has been way too quick on the trigger to fire coaches. Consistency in the front office is going to be beneficial for the organization, regardless of their player personnel strategy. That said, "success" is a relative term, and for a team like the Browns, that might be 8-8 for two years in a row, which wouldn't exactly be a ringing endorsement for Moneyball.

 

[jbindm]

Off topic, but have I mentioned how much I enjoy football business strategy talk with you guys? I know it's not for everybody, but it's something I really enjoy. Free agency, salary cap, cuts, pre-season, etc. I gobble that stuff up. Jbindm, I can always count on you to respond with good, well informed stuff, even if I don't always agree with it. And Sigmapolis, I will never complain about post length in this realm.

Ok, enough touchy-feely crap.

My prediction is that the Browns are really the only team that has a shot to make the moneyball approach have any success(if it can be successful at all) The Jets and Bills have vocal fanbases, and their owners won't have the stones to stick with it. They'll fire the current regime, eventually, and bring in people who will go the more traditional route.

The Browns will give it a longer leash, and I think they could get moderately better, but just having the same staff in place for a good length of time might be as important as their moneyball strategy. Cleveland has been way too quick on the trigger to fire coaches. Consistency in the front office is going to be beneficial for the organization, regardless of their player personnel strategy. That said, "success" is a relative term, and for a team like the Browns, that might be 8-8 for two years in a row, which wouldn't exactly be a ringing endorsement for Moneyball.

Yeah, as I get older I find myself less and less interested in the actual games and more interested in the franchise and ops side of it. We have an excellent pro sports forum...lots of good opinions.

I'll be interested to see if Jimmy Haslem can stay patient with the Moneyball approach in Cleveland. Like you said, Cleveland has cycled through a lot of coaches already since he bought the team and maybe he'll change but he doesn't strike me as a patient man. FWIW, I think the Browns might be getting closer to decent. For all the moves they made recently, it's not like they gave up any key contributors. Erving has been a bust, and Haden has been living off his reputation for a while now. So by dropping them they're maybe not tanking so much as they are shedding dead weight. But then it becomes a question of when they turn the corner. I don't think they truly believe that Kizer is the answer at QB. If they land in the top five next year I think they'll go QB again.

 

[harimad]

Those franchises have failed becoming even mediocre. You are right that being average pays in the NFL -- but those guys are perpetual bottom-feeders.

I don't see Moneyball working in the NFL. The datapoints are too few and far between. It works masterfully in baseball, with its 162-game schedule. Football? 16 games? It's a crapshoot. Great rosters sometimes don't make the playoffs. They don't gel in time, they get injured, whatever... Football is unpredictable.

GMs, not beancounters, drive good football teams. The Bills were last good when, you guessed it, Bill Polian was their GM. When he left the organization, the disintegration began. If the Bills get another great GM and let him rebuild the team, they'll be great again. It's as simple as that.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Yeah, as I get older I find myself less and less interested in the actual games and more interested in the franchise and ops side of it. We have an excellent pro sports forum...lots of good opinions.

I'll be interested to see if Jimmy Haslem can stay patient with the Moneyball approach in Cleveland. Like you said, Cleveland has cycled through a lot of coaches already since he bought the team and maybe he'll change but he doesn't strike me as a patient man. FWIW, I think the Browns might be getting closer to decent. For all the moves they made recently, it's not like they gave up any key contributors. Erving has been a bust, and Haden has been living off his reputation for a while now. So by dropping them they're maybe not tanking so much as they are shedding dead weight. But then it becomes a question of when they turn the corner. I don't think they truly believe that Kizer is the answer at QB. If they land in the top five next year I think they'll go QB again.

Maybe the plan is just to keep intentionally sucking until they land a franchise quarterback in the draft. Pretty much every competitive team in the league did so.

Why try to be good when you do not have that straw to stir the whole drink?

 

[boone7247]

In the major soccer leagues, it is more profitable to be a middle of the road team than a championship-winning team. So for those teams that want to turn a better profit the promise that we will be better in the future, nets them extra income in the present, and may become a habit. The Browns currently have $60+m of cap space. That is a lot of cash flowing into ownership. Now in European soccer, you have promotion-relegation, so sucking isn't beneficial, but if you can be a mid-tier team you can make bank for ownership. Now the NFL is a little different, and sucking for a few years with the promise to fans that you will compete in 3-4 years time, could be a boon for ownership.

I am convinced the Bears franchise has it figured out. They have been a mid-tier at best team for the better part of a decade and a half now, that family depends on the income of the team. Hence there hasn't been a true commitment to winning, especially since after their Super Bowl appearance.

 

[CyJack13]

Off topic, but have I mentioned how much I enjoy football business strategy talk with you guys? I know it's not for everybody, but it's something I really enjoy. Free agency, salary cap, cuts, pre-season, etc. I gobble that stuff up. Jbindm, I can always count on you to respond with good, well informed stuff, even if I don't always agree with it. And Sigmapolis, I will never complain about post length in this realm.

Ok, enough touchy-feely crap.

My prediction is that the Browns are really the only team that has a shot to make the moneyball approach have any success(if it can be successful at all) The Jets and Bills have vocal fanbases, and their owners won't have the stones to stick with it. They'll fire the current regime, eventually, and bring in people who will go the more traditional route.

The Browns will give it a longer leash, and I think they could get moderately better, but just having the same staff in place for a good length of time might be as important as their moneyball strategy. Cleveland has been way too quick on the trigger to fire coaches. Consistency in the front office is going to be beneficial for the organization, regardless of their player personnel strategy. That said, "success" is a relative term, and for a team like the Browns, that might be 8-8 for two years in a row, which wouldn't exactly be a ringing endorsement for Moneyball.

I don't know, I don't think anyone would ever consider any Philly fanbase to be a quiet, intelligent fan base and they totally bought into The Process for rebuilding the 76ers. I think the most important thing teams can do when they are rebuilding this way is be totally transparent with their plan. Don't say you're trying to compete every year when you're obviously trading away good players for future assets. I think most fans will be patient as long as there is a clear plan in place. When you're cycling through front offices and going from one strategy to the next year to year, that's when fans get really upset.

But I would agree that football is tougher for a full scale rebuilding strategy like this to work. In baseball, you can control the flow of talent through the minor leagues. So you can build up talent in the minors before starting the clock on the contracts. Football doesn't have that option and it also isn't a sport where landing one guy can totally change your franchise immediately like basketball. I like seeing teams try different routes though, as an NBA fan it's been real interesting seeing how Philly's rebuild has worked out and the same will go for the Browns' current rebuild if they stick with it.

 

[Sigmapolis]

In the major soccer leagues, it is more profitable to be a middle of the road team than a championship-winning team. So for those teams that want to turn a better profit the promise that we will be better in the future, nets them extra income in the present, and may become a habit. The Browns currently have $60+m of cap space. That is a lot of cash flowing into ownership. Now in European soccer, you have promotion-relegation, so sucking isn't beneficial, but if you can be a mid-tier team you can make bank for ownership. Now the NFL is a little different, and sucking for a few years with the promise to fans that you will compete in 3-4 years time, could be a boon for ownership.

I am convinced the Bears franchise has it figured out. They have been a mid-tier at best team for the better part of a decade and a half now, that family depends on the income of the team. Hence there hasn't been a true commitment to winning, especially since after their Super Bowl appearance.

They spent a TON of money on Cutler when most everybody would have been very happy to have let him walk for somebody 90% as good and 20% the cost.

They paid bank to be "just not quite good enough" with him, to be fair.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Maybe the plan is just to keep intentionally sucking until they land a franchise quarterback in the draft. Pretty much every competitive team in the league did so.

Why try to be good when you do not have that straw to stir the whole drink?

Quoting myself here, haha, but I wanted to add something...

Developing a good roster without (at least) an above average quarterback can leave you in this weird, low-ceiling and high-floor purgatory. Houston is the poster-child for this, and I think you could probably but somebody like Cincinnati in this column, as well. I think Denver has recently pigeonholed itself here, too, and KC, despite their great defenses.

If the goal is a championship, you can have a lackluster roster (the Packers, Colts, etc.) with a great quarterback and still be a legitimate threat. You will still have less of a chance than the super-teams with both (Patriots, Falcons, Steelers), but you have an outside shot. When you have a good team but nothing at QB, history says a first-round exit is your ceiling.

Look at Oakland -- found Carr, and now all is well with the silver and black.

That would be nice compared to the last fifteen years of Browns football, but you figure at this point if you are going to suffer, might as well suffer for the right outcome.

 

[boone7247]

They spent a TON of money on Cutler when most everybody would have been very happy to have let him walk for somebody 90% as good and 20% the cost.

They paid bank to be "just not quite good enough" with him, to be fair.

NFL QBs rarely cost 20% of what Cutler got paid, and Cutler wasn't near as bad as what people have made him out to be. Many other problems besides him, specifically the offensive line. But they sold hope, kept selling out the stadium. That puts money in their pockets.

 

[Tedcyclone]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...the-browns-jets-bills-and-competitive-balance

An interesting look at what the Browns, Jets, and Bills are doing. It remains to be seen if this approach will work at all. The author breaks down why it would work differently from baseball. Still, with the Jets and Bills, they have to contend with New England in their division, so I can understand why they might be inclined to try a different approach. And the Browns... the Browns are just desperate for anything resembling a step forward. The traditional approach to team building has not been working for them. If you're Cleveland, can your fans really tell the difference between tanking and trying hard?

In this year, with USC's quarterback almost certainly going pro, I WOULD TANK. That guy is a chance for any of these teams to move forward. Then you draft offensive and defensive lineman for years.

 

[StormnClone58]

Quoting myself here, haha, but I wanted to add something...

Developing a good roster without (at least) an above average quarterback can leave you in this weird, low-ceiling and high-floor purgatory. Houston is the poster-child for this, and I think you could probably but somebody like Cincinnati in this column, as well. I think Denver has recently pigeonholed itself here, too, and KC, despite their great defenses.

If the goal is a championship, you can have a lackluster roster (the Packers, Colts, etc.) with a great quarterback and still be a legitimate threat. You will still have less of a chance than the super-teams with both (Patriots, Falcons, Steelers), but you have an outside shot. When you have a good team but nothing at QB, history says a first-round exit is your ceiling.

Look at Oakland -- found Carr, and now all is well with the silver and black.

That would be nice compared to the last fifteen years of Browns football, but you figure at this point if you are going to suffer, might as well suffer for the right outcome.

Dont forget to mention the 2 years before Carr where they ate between 20-40mil in dead cash from bad contracts given out by Al Davis.

Also helps that in the same draft that they got Carr in, they also got Khalil Mack with their 1st rd pick.

 

[Doc]

I don't know about the Bills and Jets, but I think his take on the Browns is moronic. Haden and Osweiler aren't any good, and they paid 3 really good OL this offseason and have one of the best OLs in the.

They done a great job of helping out Kizer with the OL improvement, by drafting WRs and TEs, and by signing Kenny Britt.

It's a work in progress, but they're not tanking.