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.