JKool

There are three problems here:

(1) Missing the playoffs by essentially a coin toss is NOT the same as missing it by being 4-12. The difference, as Whodi seems to point out, with these other teams (such as being 12-4) is that a team with a better record has reason to believe that they are in better shape with respect to talent and scheme than a team with a worse record. That is, they don\'t need to make as many moves, adjustments, etc. Thus, not making the playoffs and being 8-8 IS better than being 4-12 WITH RESPECT TO JUDGING THE TALENT LEVEL OF THE TEAM.

(2) Since this is a team game, it is VERY difficult to judge who is responsible for what - in terms of praise or blame. It seems to me NOT at all obvious what role Joe played in our being 8-8 in terms of praise or blame. Thus, I don\'t see that the argument, \"it wouldn\'t matter\" if he left is that obvious. I\'m not saying it isn\'t true, but I don\'t see that our not making the playoffs is evidence for that.

(3) One more time, W-L record is a TEAM stat and not an individual stat. Thus, I don\'t see how making the playoffs, not making the playoffs, being 9-7, 8-8 or any other middling number is evidence that any particular player is good or bad, expendible or inexpendible, etc. In the end, it will have to be a complex balance of factors - on feild performance, stats, general distribution of praise and blame over entire units, teams, and indivdiual players.

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

saintswhodi

In case you didn\'t notice BnB, the whole team isn\'t 33 years old and screaming for a top 5 contract. Maybe you missed that somehow. It\'s all good.

Okay, so explain to me Kool how the opposite is true, that if we keep Joe, it WILL make a difference in us making the playoffs. It\'s not obvious either way that either side is true, but thanks for singling out my point.

Well San Diego was 4-12 and such for YEARS, and they turned that around. So I don\'t see how being 8-8 allows for better talent evaluation than 4-12. I see San Diego having high draft picks for several years finally paying off. But whatever.

JKool

I whole heartedly agree with you on this one Whodi. I don\'t think that it is obvious either way. This argument would be inconclusive for your opponent as well, Whodi.

Here was my point with respect to records and evaluating players. Teams with higher records may say this: given we are a good football team, the likelihood that any player on our team is better than a player on another team is higher. Thus, as you suggest, a player on a team with a good record OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL is more likely to be a better player than a player on another team. For a team with a really bad record, the opposite is true. That is all I had in mind.

I don\'t really see what draft picks or \"turning it around\" have to do with that. Maybe I should have been more clear?

I wasn\'t talking about \"talent evaluation\"; I was talking about evaluating the talent on the team that had the record - not some future team they may or may not become.

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

WhoDat

LOL. Do your homework. I live in Chicago.

And you proved my point.... Dat is the anchor of their defense? Horn has been the anchor of our offense...

BlackandBlue

Yeah, that Sammy Davis is something else.

saintswhodi

As opposed to Drew Brees, Quentin Jammer, Terrence Kiel and LT? Good call. Keep up the effort though BNB.

saintswhodi

Well, I think Deuce is the anchor of our offense, so we disgree there too. Nothing new in this thread.

saintswhodi

Okay Kool, you say you weren\'t talking about talent avaluation, then immediately following that you are talking about evaluating the talent on the team that had the record? Huh? Is evaluating the talent not talent evaluation?

But besides that. I still don\'t see where you are going. San D, was 4-12 ot thereabouts for years, then they go 12-4 all of a sudden with pretty much the same team? How would them being 8-8 have given a better evaluation of the talent on the team, as opposed to talent evaluation, I guess.

Look at Dallas. 5-11 the three years before Parcells, they go 10-6 and make the playoffs with pretty much the exact same team. Where does talent evaluation, or evaluating the talent of the team with a 5-11 record differ from an 8-8 team? I don\'t see it.

So still there is no difference between being 4-12 and not making the playoffs, and 8-8 and not making the playoffs, cause teams with records worse than 8-8 have gone to the playoffs with their teams pretty much the same. While out 8-8 team has stayed, well, 8-8. Can you help me out on that one? And explain the difference between talent evaluation, and evaluating the talent on the team with that record? They both have the words \"talent\" and a variation of \"evaluate.\"

JKool

Whodi, I\'m not sure why we\'re having trouble understanding each other here. I thought we were talking about two different things, but it seems we\'re not.

Here is what I meant, and you can tell me what you meant (and where I\'m wrong).

(1) This argument seems ok, even though it doesn\'t guarantee the conclusion:
1. x plays on team y.
2. a plays on team b.
3. Team y has a better record than team b.
Therefore,
4. x is likely a better player than a.

That\'s all I meant. Teams with better records have some reason, though not much, to believe that they have better players on their team.

I thought you thought I meant this: teams with better records are better at evaluating talent of players NOT on their team and bring them in. While this may be true, that wasn\'t what I was trying to talk about.

I also think this is a decent argument:
1. Team x had an 8-8 record.
2. Team y had a 1-15 record.
Therefore,
3. Team x is closer to making the playoffs than team y.
Therefore,
4. Team x needs to make fewer changes than team y to make the playoffs (whether in scheme, personnel, coaching, draft, etc.)

Your examples of Dallas and the Niners are counter-examples to this argument. However, I took this argument to be good in general, surely there will be some exceptions - I agree.

It follows though that if my argument (above) is good in general, that there are different ways to miss the playoffs that make a difference. In an intuitive case, a team that clearly appears to be lacking start players and goes 0-16 IS DIFFERENT from a team that goes 10-6 and misses the playoffs due to the current wild card system. No?

I don\'t remember what this point has to do with anything though.

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

saintswhodi

Kool, I have no idea where we are getting off track, but there seems to be a serious disconnect in what we are both arguing. I will try to narrow the margin.

You seem to be saying that a team with an 8-8 record has a better idea of the talent on their team due to the fact that they are closer to the playoffs? Is that right? I disagree with that and gave two examples as to why.

Another point you seem to be disputing is that a player on a better team at a certain position could be argued to be better than a player on a bad team at the same position. Well, I have not made that statement at all and find it to be incorrect. Before the Eagles got TO, I would consider Joe better than all their receivers combined.

I don\'t believe I said or implied that, so maybe therein lies the confusion.

Here is what I am saying as simple as I can make it. The Saints for 4 years have not made the playoffs with Joe Horn, no matter their record. I fail to see how not having Joe Horn changes that. I also fail to see how 8-8 and not being in the playoffs is somehow better than being 4-12 and not in the playoffs, except the 4-12 teams get better draft picks. Case in point, were we 4-12 and not in the playoffs this year instead of 8-8 and not in the playoffs, we wouldn\'t have to talk about trading up for DJ, or Mike Williams or anyone cause we would have our pick of them. But I digress. Basically I fail to see how it can be reasonably argued in this age of parity that an 8-8 team has a better chance of making the playoffs than even a 5-11 team, where we have proven that false for a number of years.