The picks I didn't quite understand: one was Kessler, whose upside is probably Colt McCoy's career (and he was drafted in almost the same spot as McCoy). The only thing that makes me think he could be better than that is that USC has been so unstable for so long. Kessler didn't shrink or play the blame game like the massive overdraft, Sackenberg.
As far as the kid from Princeton goes, I can't understand how someone who averaged 10 yards a catch in the Ivy League projects to having NFL talent,
I also wonder if taking Schobert over Josh Perry was the right move, but Schobert might be OK.
I think the central place where their analytics came into play was with their overall strategy, not with any particular player. They seem to feel that the teams known as "good drafting teams" are the ones that have the most picks, not necessarily the highest picks (in part because these teams let free agents walk and collect compensatory picks, like the Ravens like to do). This front office believes that if 5 of their 14 draftees bust completely, that's still better than if, say, 4 out of 10 draftees bust. They will take more failed picks if more picks make it too.
My one question is whether the Browns are getting elite talent. That's the risk you take with the trade downs. You need glue guys, but you need a few stars too. The Patriots have two Hall of Fame level talents in Brady and Gronkowski, but the rest of their roster is amazingly anonymous.