*Value Oriented Breakkdown on the CHI/PHL Trade

[br0_0ker]

As I explained in methodology I inserted Farley Hank into y'alls depth chart as a starter in two formations and a backup in the other three. If you tell me how you intend to swap players around I can definitely run the simulation again and get you the numbers - or you can provide me your internal testing numbers although I'd still likely back check them.

Well, I can tell you that unless you moved AE to CB, adjusted his attributes, updated the DC based off that move, and then changed our playbooks to optimize win %, you'll get worse results than what I tested. Unfortunately, I am not going to leak our season strats ahead of the game week occurring, and since I change our DC/playbook/run-blitz %/tempo weekly tailored to our individual opponent, I would say using base strats across multiple seasons of data is going to return you flawed data.

As I also stated in the piece I did experiment with different variations - swapping Leaf to WR and TE in various spots/moving Farley around where it seemed like the advantageous thing to do. I didn't save any of the numbers because they were smaller sample sizes and it was more for margin of error testing, but it didn't have a substantially greater impact. I'd still, on whole, say you gave up immense value.

Again, did you move our #1 WR to TE? Because adding Hank to the offense wont do much, but adding a 1000 TPE corner to the defense has more effect than a marginal change.

Your top four TPE players are already regressing or will be after this season. I understand the idea that the window is now but your expected winning percentage before the trade was 37.08%. Its going to take a lot of big moves to turn that into an Ultimus contender - and the point is I don't think this trade was that type of move even with any potential margins for error in my calculations, especially considering the capital you gave up. Hence the article - based on a wholistic analysis of the situation you probably should have kept the draft picks and pivoted for the future.

Hey, I appreciate the feedback. God knows my numbers and system isn't infallible, so seeing actual fact-based analysis, rather than the usual knee-jerk reaction-based response I normally see, is refreshing. But I still think the bulk of your analysis is built using flawed data.