|
Quote:
So, for example, Wayne Gandy missing a block on a sweep right is probably very minimal, as the play is going about as far in the other direction as possible. Likewise, you have to differentiate b/w being beaten on a play, and making a mistake. Gandy could get beat 5 times in a game. That's bad and no doubt affects the team. However, those five poor plays might be less relevant than one bad decision by say, Michael Lewis on a kick return to try and lateral the ball, which results in a fumble and a score for the other team. In that case Gandy is clearly more important a player, at a more imporant position, who "negatively impacted" the team on more plays, but if the Saints lose by 7 then Lewis' fumble, IMO, deserves a tremendous amount of responsibility. That number increases significantly, if the fumble occurs, say, with 1:30 to go in the game. If it happens on the opening kickoff, it still carries weight, but less so. Moreover, you have to consider the relative importance of the player himself. Deuce having a bad game, IMO, is far more destructive than Boo having a bad game. IMO, there are mistakes made on every play. Players are beaten on every play. However, there are only a few key plays in a game that really change it, most of the time. Missing the open read for an easy score, blowing the wrong gap and allowing a huge gain when you really need a stop, missing a field goal, etc. Thus, a team can play an imperfect game, but be in a position to win, and one decision can change that. IMO, in that case, that one decision deserves far more blame than the slew of minor errors that may have occurred throughout the game. Thus, a single player could be 95% percent to blame for a loss. It's rare to see such a high number, but my point is that it is possible. Moreover, look at those numbers relatively. If a single player accounts for 12% of the blame, while the team average is .5%, that's a big problem, no? |
Quote:
|
LOL - just yours. Who has he coached?
|
In 1982 he had a 100 percent completion rate with the Bengals.
He worked with Doug Flutie in Baffalo. Todd Collins and Alex Van Pelt. |
Who, while I'm inclined to agree with you that the number could be quite high and that it varies by game - based on play calling, game plan, opponents' play, and so on - I doubt it could ever be anywhere near as high as 95%.
Your post is quite good for helping me think about blame analyses though. It seems to me that to be in a position for that play to matter a lot, much else had to occur. I suppose, you are right that small mistakes (like missing the backside block) aren't as bad as throwing an INT. Of course, taking a 4 step drop instead of a 5 step drop isn't as bad as wiffing on a playside block. Thus, I find it difficult to assess this. I guess, the idea is this - if 30 or so guys (including coaches) play a goodly number of downs a game, then the blame on each should be roughly 3.3% each. Argument should then be provided to increase or decrease this number. I agree that things like relevant importance of the player in the game plan, downs played, timing of the errors/successes, and the timing of big plays can drive this number up greatly. However, I think that it is reasonable to assume that a player's blame could never excede the blame an individual unit might take (except in extreme cases). For example, if the offense usually takes credit/blame for 40% of a Win or Loss, then no one player on the offense could have a higher blame rating for that game that is greater than 40%. Furthermore, my point was intended as general. That is, over time, a QB, say, could never really be much more than 5-7% responsible for W/L. The reason for taking it over time is, of course, to washout the odd occurrences you postulate. However, it is a good point you make regarding individual games. I suppose an additional argument could be made regarding having a floor on the blame per player (including those that don't play). If they'd worked harder in the offseason, in practice, and so on, they would not be sitting on the sideline during the game. Thus, they are still, in some sense, responsible for the performance of the team on any given Sunday. I'm not sure what I think of this argument, but it seems resonable. Finally, I'm not sure where you were going with the 12% vs. 0.5% being a problem. Certainly some players are more responsible for the team winning or losing, but how much more is all I was trying to point out. If a player carrying a high number like 8% in the blame distribution consistently plays poorly, I do take that to be a serious problem - if that is what you were asking. I was merely trying to put it in perspective. |
I thought of a helpful example, actually.
Consider our playoff win. Hakim drops the ball. Is he more than 50% responsible for our win. If he is, how our team played the entire game is less important to the win than his drop? That doesn't sound right to me. Setting the numbers that high lead to unintuitive consequences like this. Thus, there is good reason to believe that the numbers (ratios technically) will be relatively low, since no one player that is on the field (and perhaps even those who don't make the feild) has NO impact on whether the team records a W/L. |
OK J, I see your point, but I still disagree with your baseline. For example - you said by assuming that there are 30 key players and coaches in a game, that each player should start with 3% of the blame/credit and then arguments should be made from there. Likewise, no player should be able be able to get a larger share of the blame/credit then his unit (with which I agree), and each unit has a relative amount of blame/credit (e.g. 40%, 40%, 20% - O, D, ST). With these ideas, I disagree.
First, I'll address the "unit" analysis. To see why it doesn't make sense, just think of the Dome Patrol days. How many games did the defense allow 50 yards rushing, 150 receiving, rack up 6 sacks and 3 take-aways, just to lose 7-6. In that case, IMO, you cannot ask much more of a defense that what they gave. You can, however, ask a lot more of an offense. So while the play(s) that allowed the one score on D might be the "difference" in this game, it's the offense that is ultimately far more responsible for the loss - like 80% responsible, I'd say. Now, to look at the players individually, again I'd argue with your analysis. Imagine a game in which the offense and defense both had fairly average days. The D allows 10 points on 87 yards rushing and 212 passing, has 1 INT and 3 sacks. Not a bad day at all. The offense racks up 125 yards rushing, 285 yards passing, and scores 21 points. Again, a good day's work. Now assume that the team loses 23-21 b/c the QB throws 3 INTs and fumbles twice, once in his redzone and once in his opponents. The turnovers lead to 13 points and the difference in the game. The points come off of 1 INT return for a TD, and two fieldgoals kicked from the spot the turnover occurred (our defense holds after all the TOs). Now, you take that one player's performance out, and both units played well enough to win. Sure there would have been mistakes, but seemingly no major ones, and it seems that the distribution is about 50/50. But that one terrible performance by the QB changed the entire course of the game. It no doubt changed how the coaches had to call the game, how the player's teammates had to play (most likely late in the game), and ultimately, it changed the end result. Why can that one player not be 80% responsible? |
One more thing J:
I guess at the core of my argument is a belief that mistake happen all the time for every team in every game. The issue to me is context, and IMO, there are a few key plays in every game that make the difference. Wayne Gandy might miss 7 blocks in a game that lead to 3 sacks, 1 tackle for a loss, and he may also have 3 false starts. That's a bad game and it's easy to say "what if he hadn't missed those blocks." But ultimately, that happens all the time to every team. Those are not that meaningful to me if the game is tied 20-20 and with 3 seconds left on the clock Devery Henderson is running down the sideline in the clear, but slows down to showboat, has the ball stripped, and it's return for a TD with no time on the clock and the Saints lose. At that point, Gandy's bad day is essentially meaningless. Therefore, the player, his position, importance on the team, etc. all matter. But ultimately, it's what happens or doesn't happen on those few key plays that make the difference in a game, to me anyway. |
Quote:
Trying to break down the fault or blame percentage is like trying to figure out the percentage of times a fish will fall off of a mountain bike. In my mind the entire team is to share the credit or blame for a particular win or loss. My basic premise is that Brooks doesn't see himself as a part of the problem. He is ready to take the Lion's Share of the credit for the win, but distances himself from any participation in a loss. Even when he makes boneheaded plays. This is not to say that Aaron Brooks is the great Satan, but neither is he the Messiah to take us into Superbowl heaven. I belive that WhoDat said it best. He is an above average athlete with below average football skills. When he accepts that and he steps up to the plate with some humility, then he could start being all that he believes himself to be. My two cents. |
I fell that no matter a persons ego his performance speaks about his value....if Joe Horn catches 85-95% of his passes he is doing his job....and grades A+, if he makes those catches and throws a few TD's in.....even better....if Brooks hits his receivers in a decent spot were they have an opportunity to cacth it.....great...if he doesn't fumble in a situation where it kills us, o.k....if the coaches can't make adjustments....for shame..
|
I would love to see AB play the way he is
and have our Defense play like a top 5 Defense and then see what y'all have to say about AB! 8) |
Quote:
|
Why can't the coaches find a way to get the most out of our talent on O and D....The patriots have an average QB(honestly), an above average RB, a mediocre receiving core, and a defense full of guys who couldn't start on other teams...Coaching and Front office counts....We should win the Bowl every 3 years..
|
You know, there`s an old wise saying that reads " If you keep doing what you`ve been doing, then your going to keep getting what you`ve been getting." (think about it)
AB has stats and lots of ability, no arguement there, but what he does NOT have is that "eye-of-the-tiger", "I-refuse-to-lose" and "get-r-done" personality to take this team where we wanta go. We`re NOT going to see anything from AB that we haven`t already seen. If like what you`ve seen from AB thus far......great. If you don`t, then your probably like me an not very optimistic about post season chances in 2005. Have a nice day. |
Quote:
The goal for the defense this year is to get into the top half of the league in scoring defense. The goal for the offense should be simple: average a TD per quarter. That's 448 points for a season. Brooks needs to have personal bests in every category. He also needs to keep his trap shut. It's OK to think that you're God's gift to Qbing. Just don't tell anyone about it. SFIAH |
Quote:
This is one place where I agree with Whodi about Brooks. It doesn't really matter if he has the fire in the belly. It matters that he completes 63% of his passes (which he has never done in his career) and that he doesn't turn the ball over. It's his play that needs to improve. SFIAH |
Quote:
Our Defense has been at the bottom for the last 4 years and we keep getting what you`ve been getting. Aaron Brooks and our Offense has putting up the numbers but our Defense just been killing us!!! 8) |
RDOX, I think that is an interesting point. If W/L belong to a team, and some player doesn't consider himself part of the team (or makes himself not a part of the team), then perhaps there is room for additional or different criticism of that player. I will think on that - a good point, I believe.
Who, again, terrific points. I'll think more on it, but here is my knee-jerk reaction: 1. I don't know how to assess the 'playing good enough to win' example. I think that it is interesting, but there is something funny going on there that I just can't put my finger on. I'll try to get back to you on that in the next day or so. 2. In your 'QB screws the pooch example', I'm inclined to say that in a vaccuum it is easy to assign blame. I guess blame assignments/distributions need to be orgainic - given what the game is like it could be adjusted. Did one of those picks bounce off a WR's hands? Etc. Perhaps, you are right in saying that no bounds can be set on a per game basis (i.e. my caping blame at the blame per unit is overly a priori and should be dropped because it can be violated). I like this point. I'll think about it too. What do you say about my 'over time' point? 3. I guess, the main idea here behind the blame distribution is that it is difficult to assign high blame to an individual player in a team sport - especially one where there are so many other factors - e.g. the other players on the team, the coaching, the other team, etc. Roughly, each player should take a level of blame that corresponds to his performance and the demands on his position RELATIVE to the fact that he depends on hundreds of other things each play. 4. I agree that mistakes occur all the time in a game. I thought I addressed that earlier. It seems to me that mistakes come in degree. A four step drop instead of 5 isn't a big problem, unless an interior lineman misses a block. Missing a backside block isn't so bad, unless the RB needs to cut back. And so on. I guess, I'm just not seeing why it matters - we agree that it is big mistakes (and sometimes the timing of them) that will increase blame. along, welcome to the board! |
[quote="JKool"]
Quote:
Think you JKool!!! :D |
Kool,
I guess I just see it as an easier task then you. It seems to me in breaking down a game tape you can point to tens if not hundreds of really minor mistakes (we agree on this, I know), but there are always a few key plays (again, we seem to agree). The screw ups on those plays tend to be, IMO, where the majority of the blame/credit will lie. As for assessing an individual player - isn't that what coaches and scouts do every day? Watch film and make decisions about a certain players' ability and production - then decide who to start, who to cut, what side of the line to run behind if you need 1 yard on a key 4th down, etc. I mean, can you not say that the interior d-line was a big reason for the Saints poor run defense last year? By default, does that not mean that the DTs deserve much of the blame for the bad run defense? Didn't the secondary improve when McKenzie join the team and get comfortable? Doesn't he then deserve a lot of credit? It seems to me like a fairly simple matter is being tremendously overcomplicated. It seems to me that you know it when you see it the vast majority of the time. :) |
Quote:
is getting all the blame and our Defense is dead last in everything!!! 8) |
Quote:
The moral of this story is , We Saints fans are rooting for a clueless leader named Hasbeen hoping for him to find something he has never seen and does not know how to find. |
Who,
I agree that coaches, scouts, fans, etc. judge players on the basis of the "big plays", but they also judge them on the basics - small errors, medium errors, and so on count too. My point isn't that we can't tell who is a good player or a bad one (and I know you agree), it was that some times people tend to put too much on one player. It seems to me, except in odd cases the amount of praise/blame a player gets for a W or L is much less than people take it to be. Thus, what is complicated is not telling who made good or bad "important plays", but what is complicated is telling how much one player should get praise or blame for a team's record, an individual game score, and so on. THAT inference is VERY complicated in my view - too many fans make it sound like it is easy: one fumble and that cost us the game - I think not. I think you agree. Excellent work though. |
Quote:
|
Kool - I'm going to address these in parts.
Quote:
Quote:
Again, to go back to my Michael Lewis example. If the Saints' offense and defense both play generally "good" games (good enough to win), and with 3 seconds left on the clock and the game tied 21 all, Michael Lewis tries to do this leaping spinning lateral that the other team recovers and returns for a winning score, I have no problem assigning Lewis the majority of the blame for that loss. You seem to have a problem with that based on the rest of the plays in the game. As with a court case, I assume that there will be error (there is in every case). But to me, there's a difference b/w harmless error and error that effects the outcome. You seem as if you aren't significantly differentiating between the two - which is fine, it's your opinion, as this is mine. Quote:
I think you might be under-estimating the common fan. I know that watching a game I can tell that Gandy is over the hill and hanging on by a thread. I can see when Deuce is on or off. I can that T. Jones is a highlight reel in a helmet - big hit or big play (e.g. big miss). It's true that the average fan might not fully comprehend plays within the "scheme." In other words, I know I can't always tell that the reason Bellamy got beat deep wasn't b/c he screwed up but b/c Brown was out of position or Craft did hold a guy up at the line and gave a WR a free release. But that kind of stuff is surprisingly well reported on these days, and for the most part, if I watch a game and walk away thinking that we got run all over b/c our LBs were getting blown up and were out of position, I feel confident that my take is fairly accurate. As a result, if I said that the LBs were largely to blame for that loss, I don't think that is inappropriate. If that happens repeatedly throughout the season, I don't see the problem with saying that our LBs are affecting our ability to win. |
One more quick thing J. There is an assumption, I think, that coaches and scouts know so much more about the game than we as fans do. I often wonder about that. They are certainly closer to the situations and privy to information that the rest of us don't have. They're also clearly better trained and more focused on the topic at hand.
All of that said, it strikes me as odd the number of times that Haslett has stood at a podium after a game and said, "I don't get it, I just don't understand..." about something I was able to identify as a problem in the preseason months earlier. I'm not claiming to be some wise football god. But that's the point. I'm common as a fan, so how is it tha something can be so clear to me at home, and not to these guys? For another example, how often could you accurately guess when the Saints would run v. pass, or to which side, or even which exact play when McCarthy was calling the shots? How about Carl Smith? If I can sit at home and know what's coming, then these guys either aren't coming close to outsmarting other coordinators, or they really aren't all that much more advanced that any person whose played the game and still follows it closely... what say you? |
Quote:
why our team can win. I see you address his learning time in the NFL as inconsistent...but you also say he has fantastic physical skills. Like I sayed before...I would love to see AB play the way he is and have our Defense play like a top 5 Defense and then see what y'all have to say about AB! http://www.saintsreport.com/forums/i...lies/shrug.gif |
Quote:
With a top 5 Defense I could sit back in the pocket and then: Pet my dog. Make Love to my girlfriend. Write a letter to my buddies in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Most importantly; I would explain to my 9 year-old son why the Saints are the only team that matters. I would still have a better QB rating than AB! |
Who,
I think you've identified the key points. 1. I agree with you that some fans are quite good at understanding the game and making good judgements about players, fault, etc. In general, I believe that someone who follows a team closely and understands most of the technical details can evaluate quite accurately. However, while a fan may "know" that such and such a player is over-the-hill (or something), I have little faith in most to tell the details - e.g. it is trouble carrying extra weight on older bones, it is a hitch in his footing-mechanic that youthful speed overcame, etc. That is, people who do this for a living spot the details - while the fans may be on to the general problem, they aren't always able to assess the particulars of the problem. 2. It seems that our core disagreement is, as you note, over the importance of the key plays. I agree that these are vital in determining praise and blame, but I think they merely modify the standard distribution of such things - whereas you seem to think they constitute the judgement. I guess, I still see this as a problem: even if a player fumbles the ball at the end of a game, giving his team no chance for a come-back, he cannot take most of the blame for the loss - since it is the play of so many others that has put the team in position to need to make a come-back in the first place. It seems to me that this speaks to your "good-enough-to-win" example. It is simply too abstract to me to say that there is a case where one player costs a team the game, as all the other units played well enough to win. I suppose, I can readily imagine such a case, but it is rare. While I agree this is a good argument against my placing a cap on the blame/praise to an individual player, it isn't an argument against assigning praise/blame accross all phases and players in a game. I agree that errors occur the whole game and are made by every player. This is one of the main reasons for distributing blame/praise more evenly across the players. I further agree that the timing of errors and their magnitude make some difference in blame assignment they cannot be all there is to the story. Consider the following. Every unit on the team has played well enough to win. However, the game is tied in the dying minute of the game (due in part to the fact that the other team has played well enough to win as well), and the other team has posession. A CB for the defending team, let's call him Massey, forgets to check his cleats before he goes on for the last series. Careless, of course, but let's also say that two of the cleats have come loose. The team with the ball calls a short post corner route, the defending team covers it perfectly, until Massey slips (as a result of his cleats). The result of the play is the winning score. On your analysis, Massey seems to be 100% to blame for the loss, since every other unit on both teams has played "well enough to win". That doesn't seem right to me. What about the sack in 1st that turned the momentum, the 40 yard play that tied the game late in the 3rd, all the little details of an excellent game plan, terrific precision in the blocking schemes, the footwork of the defensive backs throughout the game? You get the idea. |
Kool,
First, let me compliment you on your use of a hypothetical name. Hilarious. Quote:
Saints v. LA Diablos (formerly the AZ Cardinals). 12 seconds remain in the game. Score is Saints: 21, Diablos: 10. Diablos have the ball 2nd and goal on the Saints 1 yardline. They run a power dive and score. Extra point is good. 6 seconds remain in the game. Score is Saints: 21, Diablos: 17 (they don't go for two. Their head coach, Jim Haslett, is playing a game of strategery). Diablos line up for an on-sides kick. Saints put their hands team on the field. Now a WR, we'll just call him "Henderson" is on the field. The on-side kick comes to him. If he falls down, the Saints win. Instead, he runs around with the ball, gets jacked, fumbles, and it's returned for a TD. Now, you want to tell me that Wayne Gandy's missed block in the second quarter that caused a sack and ended a drive is relevant? Gandy starts at 3.3% to blame and so does Henderson? C'mon Kool. That's crazy talk! :) Quote:
That said, I also note a key difference between my example and yours, for whatever it's worth. In my example, there is a mental error. An extreme lack of judgment. In yours, it's physical, but even more so, it is not a result of something that the player did (or didn't do), as much as it is a natural occurence. Personally, I am more likely to allow exceptions for physical mistakes than mental ones. That's not to say that you might not be able to pin a good deal of the blame on Massey, in your example. But given that your example does so much highlight a mistake as it does a physical short-coming (for lack of a better word), I'd be more lenient in that case. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
like Aaron Brooks for other reasons!!! 8) |
Thanks for all your responses. :shock:
Me thinks Brooks has proven himself capable of surviving in a so-so offense. Accent on so-so. Think about it. Given the opportunity, Brooks could shine. Try bashing the O-line before you hate the QB. The Saints, for the most part, score enough points to win any game. The blame is not on Brooks or the offense. It's on the defense. The Saints must stop the run. Defense, folks. Defense. Get it? 8) |
Quote:
DEFENSE!!!!! http://www.saintsreport.com/forums/images/smilies/9.gif |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The offense need to stop that three and out BS in the first quarter. but still I feel our Defense need to to stop giving up so much point in the first quarter as they do. |
Quote:
Hog Poo Poo. Our defense should, and should be expected to be stout, regardless of the situation. We have the talent, we have the depth. If we hear any pouting from the defense about them being wussies, blaming the offense, you and I should be the first ones to run on the field with girlie dresses for all of 'em. Sure, the offense doesn't stay on the field as long as we like. But the defense has gotta butch up. Defense wins games and championships. We suck at stopping the run. We suck equally well at defending the pass. We suck in a big way on the defensive side of the ball. Brooks and the offensive side aren't the greatest. That's a given. But, good God, bashers should be much more concerned about the defensive side. :evil: 8) |
Who,
Fine points. I'll consider, but your examples and thoughts, combined with my view already, leads me to believe it is even more complicated to assess blame/praise (the big plays you note must be considered more heavily on my account than they were) not easier as you suggested earlier. |
Well, that's b/c you're philosophical about it all. What does it really mean to be at fault, cosmicly speaking? For the rest of us, a turds just a turd. LOL :)
|
<wink>
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:23 AM. |
Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com