Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

As long as we're stirring things up...

I suppose, I don't agree with Parcells on this one: "you are what you're record says you are." I stole this idea from another thread (Gator posted the quote), since I think it worthy of some discussion.

Do you guys think this is true? A team is only as good as the record it finishes with?

I'm a bit on the busy and somewhat on the lazy side, but I bet we can find some great teams of the past that have put up lousy single season records.

However, isn't the fact that a team with a worse season record can beat a team with a better record (even in the Super Bowl) a good sign that teams can be better (or worse) than their record? I'd think it was. What that shows is that a team's record is in fact NOT a good representation of how good a team is. Especially when, due to injuries and whatnot, a "team" isn't even the same group of players from week to week.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Yes, that is absolutely true. The ONLY thing that matters in the NFL, as well as in most instances in life, are results. It doesn\'t matter how much talent you do have or you don\'t have, what matters is what you do. Think about all of the number one draft picks that are out of football. Are you telling me that all of the scouts are just dumb and that these guys weren\'t really talented? Of course not, but for whatever reason they couldn\'t produce in the NFL and THAT is all that matters. Yes, you are what your record says you are.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Yes its about results... sure a 3-11 team could beat a 11-3 team its about match-ups with personnel and coaching. Sure it seems no matter what our record was we could beat or battle the 49ers... we were built to beat that team but match us up against other teams we didn\'t have the match-ups or coaching. You have to \"create\" the match-ups. Look at the Colts-Bronco\'s game, Colts replaced there center for a better \"match-up\", here they \"created\", hell we haven\'t created anything this year. we need some creativity to come in here!

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

I wonder if we aren\'t talking about two different things here.

1. Ends. Results are all that matter. You are only good if you produce.
Versus
2. Means. Your ability to get the results on any given day. You are good if you can produce.

It seems to me that when I think about how good a team is, I consider Means not Ends. It sounds to me like WhoDat and DFB think it is Ends that determine how good a team is. Hmmm. That clarified some stuff for me.

I\'m not sure what I think about the First Round Draft picks ending up out of football as an analogy. I think that this is not the same. Players who don\'t make the transition to the NFL might not make it for so many reasons. I\'m not sure I\'m easy with just leaving it as \"they were very good, but they didn\'t produce; thus, they are not good at what matters (production).\" First, I\'m a bit unclear on whether or not the premise (they were very good) is true; second, even if this argument did \"work\", I wouldn\'t be convinced that what we care about is Means goodness. Here is an argument, though probably not a good one: teams keep players on the roster so they can develop; this means that in the NFL people also think that production (but rather possible production) matters too.

Of course, I agree with you guys - no one wants a team with a huge Means but no Ends (which MAY BE what our boys were this year). As fans, we SHOULD care about whether or not our team wins... damn it... BUT I was just asking about what makes a team good. It remains my view, so far, that record isn\'t everything in evaluating a team.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Good post JKool. Look at the Bengals. What did the finish, 8-8?
A failure of a season in most peoples books. But they are elated in Cincy. Are they content with mediocrity NO! The realize that they are headed in the right direction. Their MEANS is on track, their ENDS are sure to follow.
So where do you draw the line with Haz?
If you look at the history of the Saints you\'d say YES, we have championship potential.
If you simply look at the last 4 years you\'d say we\'ve regressed.

I personally think another year of Haslett is a minor risk with huge upside.

I also think replacing the whole staff top-to-bottom is a hell of a lot more riskier with about the exact same upside.

Wasn\'t Belichick practically run out of Cleveland for mediocrity? Now he\'s one of the two best coaches alive (in my opinion).

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Sure Bengals fans are happy about an 8-8 season... RIGHT NOW... just like we were in 2000 when we went 10-6. But in three years if the Bengals have gone 6-10 or 7-9 every year will they still be happy. Means only exist to accomplish an end, to use the current terms. Those means don\'t mean crap if they do not justify or reach the end. In other words, it doesn\'t matter how talented we are or how good we look on paper if that doesn\'t translate into wins on the field. There\'s no other way to look at it in the NFL. In fact, if you do look at it differently in the NFL, then to quote Jerry Glanville, those letters mean Not For Long in your book.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

I agree that Ends are what we are after as fans (apologies for the current terminology, but I couldn\'t come up with anything better on short notice). However, don\'t you think that in evaluating a team, especially at the start of the year, we most certainly do care about Means? I\'m sure Parcells is well aware of this and he was quoted out of context.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

I disagree completely. I think he knew exactly what he was saying and meant it explicity. Look, whether you\'re 0-1 or 0-16, or 1-0 or 16-0, it DOES NOT MATTER how much talent you do have or don\'t have. The only thing that matters is what your record is. If you took all of the NFC Pro Bowlers and put them on a team and let them play a regular season, if they ended up 8-8 then they\'re an 8-8 team. They may be a dreadfully underperforming 8-8 team, they may be a team capable of much more, but the bottom line is that they were only as good as 8-8. What the reason for that is secondary to the record. Doesn\'t matter if it is week 1 or week 17.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Let me put it another way:

If you\'re 16-0, you\'re most likely talented, well coached, and lucky.
If you\'re 0-16, you\'re most likely untalented, poorly coached, and unlucky.
If you\'re 8-8, you\'re some mix thereof.

So, when the Saints were 7-2 in 2002 they were generally thought to be well-coached and talented. After finishing the season 2-5 and missing the playoffs with a 9-7 record they were considered to be poorly coached and untalented. So which is true? Did everything change mid-season? Were they poorly coached all along? Were they well coached but intalented? What?

Doesn\'t matter. The only thing that matters is that they were not good enough to make the playoffs. They didn\'t reach the end goal, so while talking about the means SHOULD help you identify a problem and correct it for next season, it doesn\'t change what you are RIGHT NOW. You are what your record says you are.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

but you have to look at the oponets -match-ups, and during the season coaching needs to change to dictate what your oponets are doing and counter it... take MN this year same problem as we had last year.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

WhoDat.

I take you point, and I still agree with you about the importance of Ends. I\'m having some trouble understanding why you keep saying that is all that matters?

We wouldn\'t simply start cheering for a different team just because they had a better record than our favorite black and gold bums (this year anyway). Something other than Ends must matter to a Saint fan anyway. :)

In evaluating a team, it cannot be only record that matters. If that was it, there would be no meaningful way to rank teams at the start of a season, say after the draft. How could we say who had a better offseason? There would be no way to evaluate the new team (after the draft, FA, and so on) because that team has no record. Surely, in these instances, Means matters? What a team is RIGHT NOW before the season starts is something - good, bad, ugly, what have you - but it has no record.

It seems to me that there is room for argument over which matters more, Means or Ends, in evaluating a team; but, I\'m still confused (probably my hangover) as to why both don\'t matter at least some in evaluating how good a team is.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

DFB.

Is it your view then that it is Record + Coaching (including ability to adjust game plans) that determines whether or not a team is good? Also, you seem to think that who you played has some impact on what your Record is - so one 8-8 team is not necessarily as good or bad as another 8-8 team with a different strength of schedule? I think I would agree with the second of those statements, if that is what you were saying - two teams with the same record are not likely to be equally good teams. As for the first, don\'t you think there is yet more to it than just record and coaching?

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

I am saying that coaching and talent, create favorible match-ups, game plans and the football gods smiling on you - CREATES WINS -. Then you can judge on how your team performed for the season.
A 9-7 team is better than a 8-8 team, period. I don\'t care if the 8-8 team has 5 pro-bowlers and the 10-6 play-off team, only has 1 pro bowler... the 10-6 team is better, period. You can ask many on this forum that if the Saints were 10-6 or better should Haz keep his job... you\'ll find a good percentage saying to keep him. If the Saints went 7-9. I assure you will all here will be calling for his head. 8-8 there is a balance of keep him get rid of him... take one more chance with him... its all about wins. RESULTS in the Win Lost column. Now if you want to match up an 8-8 team against an 8-8 team who had the better season... if one made the play-offs that team had the better seson if neither who cares they are both 8-8 and out of the play offs. Many would argue the 8-8 Bengals had the better year than the 8-8 Saints. Improvement... you can\'t disqualify that. But if you have a team tapped for the play-offs and contend for the play-offs that is a negative, not a positive. Strenght of schedule the Bengals edge the Saints out however for draft order.
Dan Reeves was fired why??? His record not the fact that Vick wasn\'t there the team was a complete disappointment even though you can argue it was because of the injury... still the team is judged on the results -WINS/LOSS-. bye Dan Reeves.

[Edited on 6/1/2004 by deadflatbird]

[Edited on 6/1/2004 by deadflatbird]

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

I don\'t think Parcells was making any illusions to matchups or ranking teams or any of that other BS you guys are talking about. Parcells was making a very simple point that is basically impossible to argue. Nothing else matters but results.

Let me ask you something - did any of you give New England a shot at the beginning of the \'01 season? I remember A LOT of people that said they were overrated, not as good as their record, and didn\'t deserve to beat Oakland and end up in the Super Bowl - but they did and they won the Super Bowl and all that other talk doesn\'t mean ish. Get it? It ain\'t that hard to understand. The Saints had a lot of good players in 1999, but Ditka only got them to 3-13. Did we get extra points in any games for having a decent amount of talent? Did we get to kickoff from the 40? Did they spot us 7 points in any games? Did we get an honorary trip to the playoffs? NO. B/c results matter. That\'s it. We COULD have been 10-6 or 11-5 this year, but we weren\'t were we? So what matters? What we COULD have been or what we were?

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

I\'m not sure why we\'re getting our panties in a knot about what matters to whom. My original question is about how to evaluate the goodness/badness of a team - since there are some, noteably Parcells, who seem to think that the only way to evaluate a team is by its record.

I would like to ask Bill himself the following question then:

At the beginning of the pre-season before a single game is even played, are all teams equally good, bad, or equally neither good nor bad? Since their records are all the same (0-0), the answer must be one of these. However, it strikes me that none of these make any sense at all.

Of course the reason none of those answers make sense is because we evaluate teams based on Means to accomplish ends too. That is how people make accurate predictions about a teams record at the end of the season.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Actually, now that I think about it, I have a second question for Bill.

Is it impossible to tell which teams are good or bad until the playoffs start?

It seems that many people evaluate a team\'s quality based solely on whether or not they make the playoffs. This must mean that absolutely no teams are either good or bad until it is decided whether or not they are in the playoffs.

At any rate, it seems to me we do make judgements about how good a team is LONG BEFORE we have any idea whether or not they\'re going to make the playoffs. How is that possible on the view that you are only as good as your playoff standing.

Surely Bill will agree that there is more to the evaluation of a team than whether or not we make the playoffs. Of course, he didn\'t make that claim. :)

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

As long as I\'m still thinking about it, since I can\'t seem to stop, here are two scenarios. Hopefully, they can explain why I still don\'t understand why Ends (or a team\'s record) is all that matters to our evaluation of the goodness/badness of a team in the NFL.

Imagine it is midseason, and two teams that are 4-4 are about to play each other. According to the Parcells\' quote, these two teams are equally \"good-bad\" (half fast, anyway :) ). However, all sorts of people think they can pick who is going to win that game: they make arguments, do some analysis, and make a prediction. This means they think one of these two teams is BETTER than the other. That means that they make use of Means in evaluating the two teams, since their Ends are currently the same! Therefore, Ends (record) is not all there is to how good a team is.

Here is a second scenario.

Imagine the same point at mid-season, a team that is 2-6 (lets call them the \"Cardinals\") are about to play a 4-4 team (lets call them the \"Rams\"). According to some, the \"Rams\" are just plain better than the \"Cardinals\". Now lets say the \"Cardinals\" win. You can do the math, the \"Cardinals\" are still a worse team, by record, than the \"Rams\" even though they just beat the ol\' \"Rams\" butts. That doesn\'t make sense either.

Thus, I think that evaluating a team based on its playoff standing, its season record, and even its current record has its place, but it cannot be the whole story.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Trial by fire

The general worth of anything is tested by the application of fire . Parcells knows this and knows there is no better heat in the N.F.L. then the play offs .

Peyton Manning had for years now been known as the player that folds under the pressure of the play offs .

If the objective is to build the best team and win the ultimate prize and your players fold under the intense heat and pressure of the play offs , then really how good are they .It is kinda like having a military that is all decked out in ribbons and metals and then raises the surrender flag when the first shot is fired .

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Good point 08.

I agree that the playoffs are a good measure of how good a team is; I just think that it is not the only measure.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

DUDE, what are you not getting here... I think I got where you are coming from though. during the season you match up teams one on one, yes you match them up, analysis, and make a prediction. Yes you can pick a 2-6 team to beat a 4-4 team, its match ups and game plans. Any team can beat anyother team in the league on any given Sunday. BUT when the season is perhaps over, like now, you judge a team on its overall record alone, especially if they didn\'t make the play-offs. At the end of the season its all about win-loss, records.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

“The Saints are sorry. They have as much talent at the skill spots as anyone — Kansas City, Denver, Green Bay, Buffalo — you name it. How that team is (8-8) is baffling.�

- unnamed NFL scout

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

So, at the end of the season you are only as good as your record. I suppose there are two reasons that is true:
1. There are no more games to be played by that team; therefore, Means no longer matter,
AND
2. There is no reason to continue evaluating that team, since it will not exist next season.

Those seem like reasonable points. These, though, are merely pragmatic points - that is, there may be no good reason to waste our time with what might have beens. Thus, it seems to me that there may well be to camps in terms of evaluation - those who are interested in what might be there for next year, and what if questions, and those who are simply interested in how things turned out. I see no reason that one camp is more in the right than the other.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to ask who would win in the following game, right now, if it were played - Bengals versus Saints. Surely we could figure that out? Presumably, we would pick the BETTER team to win that game.

I\'m not trying to be a pain in the az, but it seems to me that evaluation of how good a team is is NOT, as Parcells\' quote suggests, merely a function of a team\'s record (even at the end of the season, depending on your reason for asking how good the team is). Pakowitz\'s quote merely agrees with this: people who know football are confused as to how things turned out for our boys (since they should have been better than their record).

I\'m sorry if I peeved anyone; I think I learned a lot from this thread. Thanks to all for your thoughts.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

No dude its fine...

But you can\'t dwell on could have, should have, would have especially if you have been a Saints fan for any amount of time. When the season is over you can evaluate the talent of the team and see what you want to address in the offseason. You can\'t say the Saints are better than the Bengals and give either the win or loss unless they play. ITs about match-ups, game plans... and anyone can beat anyone on any given sunday due to match-ups, preparing ect.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

A team is only as good as it\'s record, as it relates to that particular season. But, that does not mean that a particular team (saints) are not better than the record they posted for that particular year. I think the Saints could go into next season with the same players and coaches and have a good chance at making the playoffs. But, the samething is true for many teams that didn\'t make the playoffs.

Anyway, I don\'t really think this topic has anything to do with well..........ANYTHING. The bottom line is, we have had enough talent to at least make the playoffs for the past couple of year, but the coaches weren\'t able to get the job done. At some point you\'ve got to ask yourself who is to blame. Should we blame the players? Of course not. If we as fans can blame the players, then Haslett and company could just point their finger at the players and blame them.

I don\'t think the fan\'s should really be upset with any of the coaches. The person we should be upset with is Tom Benson.....

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Whether or not coaches are to blame can be decided by comparing Means to Ends. We finished 8-8, and, as DFB and WhoDat pointed out (correctly I now believe), for this season that is all that matters NOW THAT IT IS OVER.

However, if we were able to evaluate teams by Means, which I suggest we can, we do, and we should, then we could figure things out like this - given our shedule and the skill of our players versus the skill of their players, we should have finished say 9-7. If that is possible, then we could say that the coaches cost us one game (or we could at least make a resonable argument to that effect).

In essence, I believe that those of us, practically everyone by now, who think that the coaches are to blame for at least some part of our losses have been making arguments like the hypothetical one I just laid out above. Thus, it is helpful to understand what underpins our evaluation of a team in that respect. Also, I think that this idea of Means versus Ends has helped me to understand what some people have been saying, including Parcells\' I suppose. And, I guess, I disagree. :)

That said, I agree with Billy, and so many others, that there is a need for stronger leadership above the coaching ranks, whether that be a GM (I like the Mueller Conspiracy thread) or the owner.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Amen , Gator

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

I agree Gator. Excuses suck.

Parcells\' comment has some context for me now. It makes a bit more sense - thank you all for helping me to get my head around it.

I think there is a difference in the time frame that tells us when to care about Means (and matchups and so on) versus when to care about Ends. It seems that most here are of the opinion, and I can\'t say I disagree, that at the end of the season Ends are all that matter. Thus, the Saints are 8-8 - as WhoDat pointed out, they are not good nor are they bad, but either way they didn\'t make the playoffs. I still think it is an open question as to whether or not they are better than the Bengals, but, as Billy notes, that isn\'t a very interesting question. However, during the season, before the playoffs start, maybe even before the pre season starts, we do care about Means. That is how we come to make predictions about how a team will do.

What does any of this matter, I don\'t know - I was just wondering why one person says we suck because we finsihed 8-8 and another person thinks we\'re better than some of the teams who made the playoffs. I think I have the answer now - one person is talking about Means, the other Ends.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

One man\'s \"excuses\" are another man\'s \"reasons\". Is saying Stallworth\'s injury hurt the offense an excuse? Or, could it have some truth to it? ANYBODY that says injuries are no excuse is . There are many REASONS that this team underachieved this year. I think it\'s pretty short-sighted to say things such as:

1. We didn\'t make the playoffs.......Nuff said.
2. Parcell\'s did great in Dallas..........Nuff said.

Not only is it short-sighted, it\'s Pure , that\'s what it is.

There is no doubt that this team had the talent to make the playoffs. Even with the injuries, I think we should be in the playoffs. There\'s little doubt in my mind that coaching is the #1 problem with this team. However, I can look beyond the coaching and realize there were several other factors that contributed to us losing games.

I think some need to learn the meanings of the words \"excuses\" and \"reasons\".

Coaching is more to blame than anything else, IMO, but everyone ,from the players, assistant coaches, on down the line had a hand in our season.


JK00l--

I wasn\'t trying to insult the question you presented and it was a very good question. I just knew what kind of response you were going to get.

[Edited on 9/1/2004 by JOESAM2002]

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

No offense taken. :) I was just wondering why you seemed to think the distinctions were irrelevant.

I agree also that there is an important distinction between reasons and excuses. Those two things are oft confused though. When someone notes that we didn\'t win a game because we were missing six defensive starters, is that a reason or an excuse? Isn\'t the problem that it is often BOTH?

Here is a suggestion, but I don\'t know what I think about it yet: reasons have to do with understanding Means, but excuses have to do with dismissing lack of Ends. Maybe that is another way in which this distinction is helpful?

Of course, we\'re all interested in what makes a team good, so we can get that (the goodness of our team). I think I was a bit unfair to supporters of Parcells\' quote until I understood that we were just talking about two different kinds of \"good\".

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Gator,

You make a lot of sense, There are reasons and Excuses. Finding the reasons for failures is a good tool if used to identify and correct problems. The Saints problems didn\'t just start in 2003 as we have seen in the results of the last 3 seasons.
Changes have been made but only to see the sames results (missing the playoffs).
There must be a common denominator for lack of progress in the last 3 years. I don\'t profess to know what that might be but perhaps using the proper \"Reasoning\" someone can identify the problem or problems.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Once again, thank you for telling me that you are ignoring me for the 1000th time. Now, if you will actually do it, this will make me extremly happy. Can he do it folks? We shall see...........

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

How can this thread still be going? A great coach makes a very simple and true statement and it gets debated on this board for days. It is, at least, good to see that the sunshine club members are pretty much the only ones arguing with Bill Parcell\'s opinion. I\'ll happily agree with the man and continue to enjoy watching the sunshine club babble on. ;)

Where\'s that die thread picture BnB?

Just remember guys - only one thing matters in the NFL. Wins. Nothing else.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

The sunshine club? Does that include me, because I\'ve always wanted a cheezy nickname? :)

At any rate, it seems to me the claim that wins are all that matter is just plain false - see my earlier argument. Parcells\' claim is only true in certain contexts - it is NOT just plain true. This wasn\'t intended as anything deep. It was just a question, and I think I got some good answers.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Kool, I don\'t know if Billy and Saintfan have held formal inductions yet, but you\'re definitely a pledge! ;)

I think it is just plain true - but if you want to disagree with Parcells you go right ahead. Do you support Haslett, out of curiosity? Me, I\'ll stick with a proven winner any day.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

If we can recruit someone named \"K.C.\" to the board, we can call ourselves:

K.C. AND THE SUNSHINE BAND.

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Or B.C. and the sunshine band!!!!! Oh man, that one\'s gonna stick. Sometimes Billy, you\'re a really funny guy. ;)

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

WhoDat,

I support Haz as long as he is our coach, but he is not the guy I want here.

I\'m not sure why it matters whether I like, support, or what have you, coach Parcells\'. He is not the end all and be all of all beliefs football. That is, I think he can be wrong the same way any coach can be wrong (maybe less often than some :) )

If you just plain agree about with Parcells\' what do you say to the arguments I raised earlier in this thread - I got NO response to those? It seems that people who thought Parcells\' was just plain right just kept repeating that. I understand that some people take other peoples\' word for everything, but I don\'t think you\'re like that.

I can\'t wait to see what the Sunshiine Band will be up to over the off season. ;)

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

My guess is that they\'ll be singing their greatest hits:

\"Why AB will go to the Pro Bowl THIS year.\"
\"12-4, for real this time.\"
\"Good offseason moves... right?\"
\"How the defense will get better.\"
and of course, they\'re best seller, \"8-8 Whodat? You\'re crazy!\"

:)

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

Nah, WhoDat. Here\'s our new song for next year. ;)

Records and Evaluation of a Team.
 

LMAO. I love it.