Not directly related to the game but not necessarily "off-topic" either. My brother and I were discussing NFL front offices and who were good and bad. Of course, the Browns came up as we both opined that they were the worst and that we could have done a better job of draft picks over the last few years, lol, along with a majority of their dedicated fans.
So, I was wondering if there was an article or ranking on the subject, and found a recent one that had the Browns ranked 3rd from the bottom, with the 49ers at #1 and the Rams at #2.

One of my fav movies is Moneyball, and I mentioned the movie while we were talking about team management. Then I found out that the Browns had hired Depodesta (the analytics guy from Moneyball) as top asst to the GM! Anyway, thought this all might be of interest to others on MFN being virtual GMs in this game making the draft choices and roster decisions, lol. cheers, gdb

http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/index.ssf/2017/09/cleveland_browns_front_office.html

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/best-nfl-owners-general-managers-front-office-ranked-jerry-jones-belichick-kraft-franchises-011117

I know a lot of people think GB has a good front office but personally I feel they have actually done a pretty poor job for the most part. Take Rodgers off that team and they win maybe 3-4 games. They continually miss on defensive picks and many of their big name players just seem over rated outside of Nelson and Mike Daniels.

It's an odd coincidence, isn't it, how GMs and coaches that luck into amazing QBs get lauded with endless praise. Manning kept the Colts relevant for so many years, and when he went out with his neck injury it exposed the dumpster fire of a roster they'd devolved into. Similarly GB is just doggedly torpid, priding itself on its dead quiet off-seasons as it 'builds through the draft.'

Cleveland (finally) has the right idea. No team or GM statistically 'out drafts' any other in any meaningful way, so it's better to accrue capital to increase your odds. Bad teams are the ones that fall in love and end up overpaying by trading up 'for their guy' (see Pace and Trubisky). Cleveland and the Niners both knew just as much about him as did the Bears, and they chose to pass. If he pans out, maybe they'll look like fools in retrospect, but the reality is that no one in the NFL has historically been able to accurately judge collegiate QBs. So it's just a matter of paying the right price for the gamble. The Bears paid an absolutely stupid price for the risk involved (you can also replace this rant with the Chiefs and Mahomes, or especially the Texans and Watson, if you prefer), but all the same if they hit the lottery Pace (and whichever head coach inevitably replaces Fox next season) will inevitably be praised as a genius for the rest of Trubisky's career.

So true, a QB can be evaluated on physical skills, but the ability to read a defense and make the best decision in a time frame that has been dramatically reduced compared to college is the "grey area". You would think that team management would have that as part of the evaluation process, same as they put the players through the combines and physical tests. Am wondering if any of the teams have a method for evaluating a QBs ability to read the defense. Was watching the Rams game, and was dumb-founded by Goof, er, I mean Goff. He reminds me of another infamous Ram QB, Jim Everett. I dont know if he has been told to do so or run the plays the way he is, but he was super-telegraphing his throws and in most cases, had pre-selected the receiver irregardless of how the play was developing. One thing that Ive noticed is that in most cases, the rabid/dedicated fans who pour over the news & stats are usually right when they boo or cheer a particular draft choice, lol. Before they went to camp, the Browns fans & media were upset that they did not select Wentz, who had a great rookie season, will see how he evolves, but the popular local fan opinion was right on. Same for Goff, Rams fans and media were not supportive of that pick. Maybe they should have fan committees and include local surveys in their selection process, lol. And I agree with you Ares about Cleveland, after reading that article I was surprised that they were moving in a much better direction and not as bad as I thought they were. The Johnny Football ordeal was ridiculous, there wasnt one guy out of our group of football nuts who thought he would succeed, especially on Cleveland.

Yep, Kurt Warner, great example Gus, probably the best of all time when it comes to being passed over. In his picture, looks like his helmet was too small for his head, maybe he liked it that way, lol.
Funny how it is similar in MFN with QBs, they are definitely the "box of chocolates". Im letting a QB go at the end of the season who has very good attributes and a 91 default rating, but his stats and QB rating are less than average, he's not worth trying to resign for the high min bonus. And his stats are consistently under average over 8 seasons, so it's not like he is under-achieving the past season or two.
And as far as evaluating a college QBs ability to read a defense, why dont they use VR? They wont have the same "fear factor" that can be a problem in RL, but they at least can simulate the experience enough to get a better evaluation. Same concept and tech as what they use for pilot training and evaluation. When you are talking about investing millions in a top QB draft pick, you would think it a pretty good idea to set something like that up.

i think that QB in question is this person
John Brinkmann = https://mfn67.myfootballnow.com/player/2785

i think his stats are that way because he is your #2 QB and your #1 kick holder if he was your starter QB he might be able to do better than he has.

Would agree with you punisher but I did start him and finally had to move him back to QB2 to see if that would improve his performance, which it didnt. BTW, his nickname is "Brickman".

Being a dedicated Browns fan, I'd like to throw in my two cents. As it relates to the Browns of course, years of ineptitude in their FO, this approach is much better for several reasons. 1. It's not a money ball approach. It's a combination of analytics and old school football. They get a bad rap from football purists because it's not the norm. 2. They solicit input from multiple resources and decided to start all over. Any draft pick after round 2 had limited chances of being a regular contributor so I wouldn't say their first draft was bad. They got some decent talent. This past draft they managed to parlay 3 first rd picks and acquired another 1st next year. I think it's a very positive first 2 years for them.

A proper fairly tale, stacking shelves to picking up the Vince Lombardi, wow...just wow