Have we discussed???

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by angryssg

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.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

[hagams]

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...

[davelavarra]

Originally Posted by hagams

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....

[TheMalcolmConnection]

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

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

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

[Aussie_Skins_Fan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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 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.

[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.

[GusFrerotte]

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.

[Aussie_Skins_Fan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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?!

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Skins_Fan

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!

Indeed. Well said.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

A freakin men.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

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.

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