*Value Oriented Breakkdown on the CHI/PHL Trade

[iStegosauruz]

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.



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.



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.

Yeah totally all fair - there is going to be a gap in results if you move him to CB but if you replace your second lowest CB you're getting a 757TPE increase at first CB. Second corner increases by 343TPE. At that point Leaf can't swap again from what I've been told so you either have to swap Farley to WR or you're running a 287TPE at your second WR and a 650TPE at your first WR. Thats a 337TPE reduction at first receiver and a 363TPE reduction at second receiver.

Thats a 700TPE change at receiver for a 1100TE change at Corner. I can buy that all that realignment gives you a marginally better chance at success than before but I find it hard to believe that it makes up for the 37.08% control study to truly launch you into contention. I'll run the numbers on it with default WK1 playbooks later today or tomorrow though just to back check this.

Its all theory and I understand you believing in the moves you made - I expect nothing less - but any way you slice it if even if it works out its still an extremely risky move, which was the underlying message of my post and my original reply to you. Its an innovating but RISKY approach to teambuilding that requires moving the needle for you substantially from where it was before to make a longterm impact.