[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Skins_Fan

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.

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.

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.

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.