JKool

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.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

JKool

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?

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

deadflatbird

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]

WhoDat

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?

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

JKool

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.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

JKool

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.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

JKool

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.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

saintz08

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 .

\"Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn\'t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed.\" - George S. Patton
On another note, I\'ll take a bite of that crow 08. - Saintfan
Brooks is a moron!! - Halo

JKool

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.

deadflatbird

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.