Re: Have we discussed???
 

[quote=Aussie_Skins_Fan;299925]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.[/quote]The thing is that a football game can turn on one play. Even in all the situations you named, none are sure things. [U][B]Anything that can happen but is not a certainty can be a random occurance.[/B][/U] 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 [B]SOME[/B] 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 [I]supposed[/I] 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 [U][B]recover all 5 fumbles[/B][/U]. 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.

Re: Have we discussed???
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;299930]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.[/quote]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.

Re: Have we discussed???
 

[quote=GTripp0012;299972]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Have we discussed???
 

[quote=angryssg;299975]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.[/quote]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.

;)

Re: Have we discussed???
 

[quote=GTripp0012;299979]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.

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

Re: Have we discussed???
 

[quote=angryssg;299982]I agree that there is luck. What more do you want from me.[/quote]Nothing. I'm just elaborating my point until I'm satisfied with my own argument.

No hard feelings.

Re: Have we discussed???
 

[quote=GTripp0012;299989]Nothing. I'm just elaborating my point until I'm satisfied with my own argument.

No hard feelings.[/quote]

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

Re: Have we discussed???
 

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...

Re: Have we discussed???
 

[quote=hagams;300067]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...[/quote]

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....

Re: Have we discussed???
 

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

Re: Have we discussed???
 

with portis in the whole 06 he woould have had a career year lets not forget he didnt have bad stats when he left seeing that he had missed 2 and a half games up to that point keep the offense the way it is re-sign cooley, and taylor draft whoever and score more points than the other teams in 10 plus games like my sig states

Re: Have we discussed???
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;299968]
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 [B]SOME[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]

As i posted originally the bounce of the ball is a factor of luck (the sean taylor recovery after blocked FG).

But in this instance it isn't luck. One player had the ball stripped by another player. It is simple execution. The nameless DB may not execute that tackle that well all the time and Betts may not be so careless all the time, that isn't luck, its execution. E.g. Tiki Barber was fumble prone, had his technique fixed then hardly ever fumbled, it wasn't because his luck turned around, it was becuase he changed his carrying technique.


[QUOTE=GTripp0012;299968]
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.[/QUOTE]

I like the Charges V Pats stuff, to recover all 5 fumbles is somewhat lucky, i'll give you that. But i don't think we can specualte what the outcome of the game would have been had some of the fumbles gone the other way. As you said a turnover is huge and changes games, so that is something we will never know.

The best team on the field is surely the team that wins the game?! The idea of an upset is based upon form from previous games, and preconceptions of what level of execution each team is capable of producing on the day. It has nothing to do with luck. A team with a bad record beats a team with a good record, you cant just dismiss that as luck. There must have been better execution by one team!

There is luck in football. But I beleive that anyone who looks at a team over an entire season and says, 'well we were unlucky' and uses that as an excuse is wrong. Luck plays such an insignificant factor in the outcome of games that is shoudln't even be discussed as a posibility to explain a loss or loosing season. If the front office gets the right coaches and players; those coaches train the players the right way and come up with the right gameplans; then the players execute on the field: you will win football games. Regardless of luck.

Re: Have we discussed???
 

[quote=Aussie_Skins_Fan;300679]As i posted originally the bounce of the ball is a factor of luck (the sean taylor recovery after blocked FG).

But in this instance it isn't luck. One player had the ball stripped by another player. It is simple execution. The nameless DB may not execute that tackle that well all the time and Betts may not be so careless all the time, that isn't luck, its execution. E.g. Tiki Barber was fumble prone, had his technique fixed then hardly ever fumbled, it wasn't because his luck turned around, it was becuase he changed his carrying technique.

I like the Charges V Pats stuff, to recover all 5 fumbles is somewhat lucky, i'll give you that. But i don't think we can specualte what the outcome of the game would have been had some of the fumbles gone the other way. As you said a turnover is huge and changes games, so that is something we will never know.[/quote]The bounce of the ball following a fumble is probably the single most obvious and decisive way luck strikes. It can kill a successful drive, or essentially hand the other team points. But that doesn't mean that it's the only way that it strikes.

I guess whether or not the Betts fumble should be considered part luck is all about the level at which you perceive the fumble. I would agree with you that on an on field level (single play) that you could entirely attribute the forced fumble to a lapse in concentration by Betts and an alert play by a defensive back. But because you are looking at it from a single play level, there are no consequences from the fumble, and essentially, knowing who recovered is irrelivant.

But what if you look at the play from an entire game or season level. Certainly, that changes the perception of the play. Now, there are massive conseqences attached to the fumble and subsequent recovery. In all likelyhood, the Redskins were cost a game. Now, if you believe that Betts' fumble was a product of a lapse of concentration, you also have to believe that there was something that Betts or the coaches could have done during the season to prevent this play. You'd have to argue that the possiblity of getting stripped in the exact manner he did was a possibility he'd have to account for (and it certainly is).

So that brings up an interesting question: Is the reasonable expectation for an NFL runningback to never fumble over the course of the year? I think you'd get a lot of different answers depending on who you asked, but I personally think if a guy is going to tote the ball 250-300 times a year, putting the ball on the turf is simply going to happen a percentage of the time (unpreventable). Now, some backs are more prone to fumbling than others, and I'd lump Betts into this category, but if you find me a back that would have made the same carry Betts did given identical situations and could run that play a million times without coughing up the football once, then it would be completely a function of skill. Since such a player doesn't exist, and all RBs as tenured as Betts can put the ball on the ground, I'll maintain that the fact the he fumbled on that individual play was at least somewhat a function of luck, since if Betts had been in that exact same scenario again (same fatigue level and player baring down on him), its highly unlikely he would have fumbled again.

[quote] The best team on the field is surely the team that wins the game?! The idea of an upset is based upon form from previous games, and preconceptions of what level of execution each team is capable of producing on the day. It has nothing to do with luck. A team with a bad record beats a team with a good record, you cant just dismiss that as luck. There must have been better execution by one team!

There is luck in football. But I beleive that anyone who looks at a team over an entire season and says, 'well we were unlucky' and uses that as an excuse is wrong. Luck plays such an insignificant factor in the outcome of games that is shoudln't even be discussed as a posibility to explain a loss or loosing season. If the front office gets the right coaches and players; those coaches train the players the right way and come up with the right gameplans; then the players execute on the field: you will win football games. Regardless of luck.[/quote]A lot of what you are saying is dead on, but you've come to an ultimate conclusion that I completely disagree with.

I think by virtue of definition, anything that isn't lucky would have to be a repeatable, predictable and at least remotely probably occurance. Anything that wouldn't be predictable, or remotely probable would have to be considered luck.

When I say best team on the field, I mean best team on the field that DAY. 98% of the time, that also would be the most talented team that year. But that remaining 2% includes occurences in which a coach's gameplan (usually not a huge factor) gives a hard and decisive advantage to one team or the other. The result is that said team, who on most weeks of the season would be the underdog, comes out and outplays the favorite. Since they are playing better football than the favorite, I would consider them the best team on the field that day.

But make no mistake about it, you don't have to be the best team on the field, or even close to it, to have the ability to win that game, as the Pats proved this year.

Now, over 16 games (which isn't a big sample), most teams luck will even out somewhat. But there are 32 NFL teams. The chances that one team doesn't get really lucky EVERY season and another team doesn't get really unlucky every season are pretty low. I mean, the chances that 32 different teams see their luck even out over a 16 game season is pretty crappy. Don't get me wrong, a majority of these teams will for sure. But every year it seems you get a 2001 Patriots, 2004 Falcons, or 2006 Jets, or on the other side of the spectrum, a 2004 Bills, 2005 Chiefs, or Tampa Bay seemingly every other year. These teams simply don't have their luck catch up with them, and their records end up so much different than the talent and coaching level of their team.

The simplest way to sum this all up is just to admit that "shit happens", and that sometimes you just don't have the time to overcome it. On a single game level, luck is a decisive and undeniable factor that makes picking games nothing more than playing the percentages. On a seasonal level, it won't affect most teams more than a win or two in either direction--but every year you get those outliers who just simply had an entire season made or broken by stupid bounces of the ball (4-5 wins in either direction). Happens every year to someone.

Re: Have we discussed???
 

You are funny Earthquake!!!!!!!! There are too many facets of our game that were lacking last year for us to have had any real shot at realistically thinking playoffs. I thought JC would improve things tremendously, but being his first crack at starting he came up short. My major concern is what if the worst case scenario happens and JC just isn't all that. Gibbs has put a lot on JC being the QB of the future and well......... if he isn't we are screwed for a few more seasons down the line. This might sound totally whack, but in the back of my mind I am starting to think maybe we ought to take a serious look at getting Brady Quinn if he is available.

Re: Have we discussed???
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;300696]Betts given identical situations and could run that play a million times without coughing up the football once, then it would be completely a function of skill. [/QUOTE]

How then can you explain the HUGE difference between the number of fumbles Tiki had before and after he changed his technique. That HAS to be a skill based function not a luck based one?!

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;300696]I think by virtue of definition, anything that isn't lucky would have to be a repeatable, predictable and at least remotely probably occurance. Anything that wouldn't be predictable, or remotely probable would have to be considered luck.[/QUOTE]

No! No matter how immprobable something may be that doesn't mean that its occurance is based on luck! Especially when there are two opposing forces involved. Betts carries the ball loose or doesn't focus on his handling, another player thrusts his helmet into Betts hands, knocks it free, there is no luck there. It a great play or a bad play, depending upon which team you follow.

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;300696]When I say best team on the field, I mean best team on the field that DAY. 98% of the time, that also would be the most talented team that year. But that remaining 2% includes occurences in which a coach's gameplan (usually not a huge factor) gives a hard and decisive advantage to one team or the other. The result is that said team, who on most weeks of the season would be the underdog, comes out and outplays the favorite. Since they are playing better football than the favorite, I would consider them the best team on the field that day.

But make no mistake about it, you don't have to be the best team on the field, or even close to it, to have the ability to win that game, as the Pats proved this year.[/QUOTE]

But surely the ultimate measure of who the best team on the day was, is who wins the game! As much as it may be hard to believe before the game, if the worst team (by record) beats the best team (by record), then on that day they were the better team. 99.9% of the time the team with the better record might win and therefore be the better team but should they lose they weren't the better team that day.

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;300696]The simplest way to sum this all up is just to admit that "shit happens", and that sometimes you just don't have the time to overcome it. On a single game level, luck is a decisive and undeniable factor that makes picking games nothing more than playing the percentages. On a seasonal level, it won't affect most teams more than a win or two in either direction--but every year you get those outliers who just simply had an entire season made or broken by stupid bounces of the ball (4-5 wins in either direction). Happens every year to someone.[/QUOTE]

I agree that the unpredicatability of football is what makes it so exciting. However unpredicatbility does not equal luck! There are so many legitimate factors which do affect the outcome of matches, that luck shouldn't and doesn't effect. E.g. Coaching and player execution. What does effect these things are motivation, fatigue, concentration, etc. But not luck.

It seems we will have to agree to disagree on this one, it doesn't seem either of us will be convinced otherwise. Lets just hope that the luck, no matter how significant is with the Burgundy and Gold in 07!

Re: Have we discussed???
 

[quote=Aussie_Skins_Fan;301085]It seems we will have to agree to disagree on this one, it doesn't seem either of us will be convinced otherwise. Lets just hope that the luck, no matter how significant is with the Burgundy and Gold in 07![/quote]Indeed. Well said.

Re: Have we discussed???
 

[quote=Daseal;298175]I have always felt that one of Gibbs biggest problems on his return is being too passive when it comes down to it. He feels like two scores is enough to start running the ball three times and punting. In this league even two touchdowns in the 3rd quarter isn't near impossible to come back on. We seem to always try to make our defense hold the other team rather than scoring and making it that much more difficult.[/quote]

A freakin men.

Re: Have we discussed???
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;300732]You are funny Earthquake!!!!!!!! There are too many facets of our game that were lacking last year for us to have had any real shot at realistically thinking playoffs. I thought JC would improve things tremendously, but being his first crack at starting he came up short. My major concern is what if the worst case scenario happens and JC just isn't all that. Gibbs has put a lot on JC being the QB of the future and well......... if he isn't we are screwed for a few more seasons down the line. This might sound totally whack, but in the back of my mind I am starting to think maybe we ought to take a serious look at getting Brady Quinn if he is available.[/quote]

Whatever you are smoking please send it my way. Cause that must be some real good stuff.