Have we discussed???

Of course there is some luck involved in sports, but good coaching and the right players executing correctly should leave so little to chance that it wouldn't effect the outcome of a game. E.g. The win over Dallas shouldn't have come down to luck, as much as i hate to say it if Dallas had executed better they would have won and the lucky block and return and FG wouldn't have mattered. TO drops a deep ball which no doubt would have been a TD that finished us, luck or lack of execution?

The best teams in this league usually win there games, why? Better coaching and better execution from their players. The Patriots dynasty was not built upon being lucky, they were brilliantly coached and their players executed when it counted. If we are relying on luck to win another championship, i fear we will be waiting for a very, very long time!



This bit particularly annoys me! How can you possibly believe this?! GTripp just about all the posts of yours that i've read are accurate, insightful and well researched. But to say that alot of what goes on in football is just random luck simply isn't true, if a CB bites on a pump fake is it because the QB got lucky or is it the hours of game film that they have studied to find the weakness in that CB?!

If someone on the o-line gets beat is it luck or is it that the d has figured out a weakness in his technique?!

A WR makes a spectacular catch, is it luck or the hours upon hours of work he puts into his ball skills?!

A RB breaks a tackle to go all the way, luck or poor tackling with a bit of power running?!

A LB ripps the ball out during a tackle, luck or great defence!?

I could go on all day. Back to the blocked field goal in last seasons cowboys game, luck, or great commitment and execution by Vincent and poor execution from Dallas. The ball landing near Taylor was lucky, but his skills to pick it up and run it were not luck.

Please explain yourself, i hope that i am missing something here.The thing is that a football game can turn on one play. Even in all the situations you named, none are sure things. Anything that can happen but is not a certainty can be a random occurance. Do you follow?

Ladell Betts gets the ball stripped by nameless St. Louis DB late in the 4th quarter of a close game. Careless on the part of Betts? Sure. Alert play by the DB? Yeah, I'll give him credit. But unless this would be the outcome of every occurence that involved contact between the ballcarrying Betts and nameless DB, there is at least SOME luck involved in it. If there wasn't, Betts would be stripped every time that man reached in on him.

I'm not saying that Betts isn't fumble prone or that the St. Louis player doesn't have a knack for stripping the ball. Certainly, a forced fumble would only be the outcome of this play a small percentage of the time. But, as you see, this semi-lucky occurence completely changed the outcome of the game. One more loss on the board for Washington, one more with for STL.

Now, there are some occurences in a game that are completely random and can change the course of the game. What if instead of St. Louis recovering the Betts' fumble, the ball bounced our way and Todd Wade ended up on top of it? Or what if the ball hops out of bounds instead of into the arms of a STL player? We in all likelyhood win in regulation.

Look, skill does determine who is supposed to win the game. But let me give you an example about how a clearly inferior team can win a game. 2006 NFL playoffs, New England at San Diego. At the end of the game, the final scoreboard read 24-21 in favor of NE. What it didn't read is that there were 5 total forced fumbles in that game. 3 fumbles by the Chargers, 2 by the Patriots. It can be argued that all 5 of these fumbles were at least partially a function of skill. What cannot be argued is that the Patriots were beyond lucky to recover all 5 fumbles. If you assume the chances at recovering any given fumble at roughly one half, there is about a 3% chance that given an identical situation, the Pats would be able to recover 5 fumbles again.

And we all know the value of a turnover in football. It can take points off the board for one team, and/or put points on the board for the other. I feel its reasonable to assume that even had the Chargers just recovered one of the 5 fumbles, they would have won the game. This can be supported if you imagine the Troy Brown strip of Marlon McCree being recovered by Donnie Edwards, and not by the Patriots. If the Chargers take over there, what is the likelyhood the Pats come back to win?

And that STILL gives the Pats a 4 FR to 1 FR luck advantage. This is still a pretty unlikely scenario in favor of the Pats, but they would have lost.

The Chargers were a much better team on that day. And it took every bounce of the ball for the Pats to pull it off.

Let's face it, if luck weren't a deciding factor in football, the best team on the field would win 100% of the time. The fact that 35-40% of NFL games end in upsets just how randomly decided NFL games can be.

I personally think luck does matter in all sports, but it does not explain how many teams are consistently good or consistently bad within each season and also from season to season. IMHO, a combination of talent, preparation, intelligence, and hard work is the difference between a good team and a bad one.SGG pretty much has it right.

If your team loses 10 or more games every year for 6 years (*cough--DETROIT--cough*), I mean...yeah you are getting unlucky, but there is probably a much bigger factor in your failure. Maybe your GM keeps picking overrated WRs every year while ignoring blatent future needs.

But football seasons are 16 games long. That is a VERY small sample size. So you can get weak teams like the Saints who buy consistency at some key positions, get a lot of guys back from injury, and get a lot of balls bouncing their way, and go 10-6 with a playoff win.

Even more specifically, the playoffs are 3-4 games long. I would estimate the the best team in the playoff tournament wins the SB about 1/3 of the time. As mentioned above, SD may have very well been the best team. They did almost everything they could against the Pats to beat them into the ground, but lady luck just wasn't with them on that day. And because it was a playoff game instead of a regular season game, they can no longer win the SB, all because of a series of whacked out occurences.

SGG pretty much has it right.

If your team loses 10 or more games every year for 6 years (*cough--DETROIT--cough*), I mean...yeah you are getting unlucky, but there is probably a much bigger factor in your failure. Maybe your GM keeps picking overrated WRs every year while ignoring blatent future needs.

But football seasons are 16 games long. That is a VERY small sample size. So you can get weak teams like the Saints who buy consistency at some key positions, get a lot of guys back from injury, and get a lot of balls bouncing their way, and go 10-6 with a playoff win.

Even more specifically, the playoffs are 3-4 games long. I would estimate the the best team in the playoff tournament wins the SB about 1/3 of the time. As mentioned above, SD may have very well been the best team. They did almost everything they could against the Pats to beat them into the ground, but lady luck just wasn't with them on that day. And because it was a playoff game instead of a regular season game, they can no longer win the SB, all because of a series of whacked out occurences.

Lady luck and the fact that all that guy had to do was fall on the ball instead of trying to pick it up. I forget who that guy was though.

Lady luck and the fact that all that guy had to do was fall on the ball instead of trying to pick it up. I forget who that guy was though.Marlon McCree.

The point is though, although that select play was pretty stupid by McCree, the Chargers badly, badly, badly, badly outplayed the Patriots on that day. I'm sure the Patriots made at least 5 mistakes of similar magnitude earlier in the game.

Remember, had Edwards or somebody else on SD recovered that McCree fumble (a 50% chance), we aren't talking about that play in April.

But we very well might be talking about how LT really schooled Urlacher with that one juke en route to the SB MVP.

And how Peyton Manning is a choker because Antoine Bethea can't cover Antonio Gates.

;)

Marlon McCree.

The point is though, although that select play was pretty stupid by McCree, the Chargers badly, badly, badly, badly outplayed the Patriots on that day. I'm sure the Patriots made at least 5 mistakes of similar magnitude earlier in the game.

Remember, had Edwards or somebody else on SD recovered that McCree fumble (a 50% chance), we aren't talking about that play in April.

But we very well might be talking about how LT really schooled Urlacher with that one juke en route to the SB MVP.

And how Peyton Manning is a choker because Antoine Bethea can't cover Antonio Gates.

;)
I agree that there is luck. What more do you want from me.

I agree that there is luck. What more do you want from me.Nothing. I'm just elaborating my point until I'm satisfied with my own argument.

No hard feelings.

Nothing. I'm just elaborating my point until I'm satisfied with my own argument.

No hard feelings.

My feelings aren't hurt. 95% of what I say is sarcasm. 4% bullshit, and Flags on helmets genuine.

Something I saw above sparked another curiosity within me. In 05 we were running a lot of screen plays to the WR/RB. I don't remember seeing a lot of that last year. Do you thing we got to predicatable? Someone above said about running up the middle 3 times, and the punting. Do you think that they were using last year as an extend preseason? Getting the basic plays down? I could see that happening, "We are going to take a lot of losses this year, but it will build the knowledge of the plays, and playbook for next year". Nobody said that, but that's something I could see in the FO. I know that Danny wants a ring bad, maybe he finally realized he can't buy it and it takes a few seasons to get a well-oiled machine. Hmmm.......just a thought. We really don't have too much else to talk about right now...

Something I saw above sparked another curiosity within me. In 05 we were running a lot of screen plays to the WR/RB. I don't remember seeing a lot of that last year. Do you thing we got to predicatable? Someone above said about running up the middle 3 times, and the punting. Do you think that they were using last year as an extend preseason? Getting the basic plays down? I could see that happening, "We are going to take a lot of losses this year, but it will build the knowledge of the plays, and playbook for next year". Nobody said that, but that's something I could see in the FO. I know that Danny wants a ring bad, maybe he finally realized he can't buy it and it takes a few seasons to get a well-oiled machine. Hmmm.......just a thought. We really don't have too much else to talk about right now...

I remember those screens, Santana is a perfect fit for that. Anyway, since Brunell was the starter in '06 things changed a bit, he used to drop two more steps and look downfield too much. We became easily predictable. The only thing I saw ok was the Cooley routes and the Sellers short routes. We didn't delivered too many passes deep to Moss, we didn't play strong on the running game. We played better with Betts as starter....

With Betts as a starter or with the threat of Campbell's deep ball over Brunell's?