Brooks

WhoDat · 07-07-2005, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by JKool

I agree that blame should not be distributed evenly accross all players, units, teams, coaches, and plays. This is why I started harping on "blame analysis/distribution". I certainly agree with the other camp on this - the QB is the figure head of the offense (and sometimes the whole team). As a result, he should be held MORE accountable than many other players, units, plays, etc. Of course, given a 45 man roster and a number of coaches on any game day, you'd be hard pressed to argue that his responsibility is anymore than 4-5% (you do need to include the other team, and it seem unreasonable to me that any player who played could be less than say 0.1% responsible for the outcome of the game). It is here that I have to say the other camp doesn't look so promising to me - the QB can't be held so darned accountable that things like Wins and Losses are all his.

I think your math is faulty J. While I agree with your principle, I think you need to re-evaluate how you're applying it. For example, of the 55 or so players an coaches, only 30 players likely actually participate. Take out the guys who block on punt teams and you're really looking at major unit starters and kickers, for the most part, so 25 players maybe. Of those, there's relative importance of the position, the player's value on the team, and the importance of any "mistake."

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?

07-07-2005, 10:05 AM	#11
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Originally Posted by JKool I agree that blame should not be distributed evenly accross all players, units, teams, coaches, and plays. This is why I started harping on "blame analysis/distribution". I certainly agree with the other camp on this - the QB is the figure head of the offense (and sometimes the whole team). As a result, he should be held MORE accountable than many other players, units, plays, etc. Of course, given a 45 man roster and a number of coaches on any game day, you'd be hard pressed to argue that his responsibility is anymore than 4-5% (you do need to include the other team, and it seem unreasonable to me that any player who played could be less than say 0.1% responsible for the outcome of the game). It is here that I have to say the other camp doesn't look so promising to me - the QB can't be held so darned accountable that things like Wins and Losses are all his. I think your math is faulty J. While I agree with your principle, I think you need to re-evaluate how you're applying it. For example, of the 55 or so players an coaches, only 30 players likely actually participate. Take out the guys who block on punt teams and you're really looking at major unit starters and kickers, for the most part, so 25 players maybe. Of those, there's relative importance of the position, the player's value on the team, and the importance of any "mistake." 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?
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ 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.\"