Discussion Topic

[Ring 6]

I could see this going either way, either as a good topic or a total failure, so we shall see. I know my opinion and am interested in everyone elses.

The heart of the question is whether good players overcome weaknesses and liabilities elsewhere or whether the lack of weanesses equal the overall strength of a good team.

A couple things to consider:
-If I have the best DRE and the worst DLE in the league, my run D figures to be below average because there are going to be a whole lot more runs going to my R than my L.
-On the other hand, if I am average at both what the other team will do may be less predictable.
-The players surrounding a player will affect their play.
-On average, half of the players on the field are below average. That means if your team is 11 average players you better at 5 spots, worse at 5, and the same at 1 as your opponent, and by definiition you have no liabilities.

So, the questions are:

-If you fielded a full team of exactly average players, would you be a good, bad or average team.
The obvious answer is average since your players are average but what I'm looking for it the cumulaive effect of having no bad players at all on the field, so the second, more telling question is how would that team compare to:

A team with half the players being the best at their position and half being the worst in the league.

Discuss....

 

[IllegalContact]

I don't believe it works that way.

on defense, poor individual play can easily be exploited until that player is replaced.

look what NT did for the pats between 2002 and 2003.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't believe it works that way.

on defense, poor individual play can easily be exploited until that player is replaced.

look what NT did for the pats between 2002 and 2003.

Doesnt work what way? I was asking which is better.

Are you saying a team of average guys beats a team that has half great players and half awful ones?
Or are you saying good NT play made everyone else better?

 

[Calciumee]

This is an interesting point.

I would say that it could be better in some games, and worse in others. It would all depend on the players they were against.

If you had an average front seven, against an under average O-line, the average DBs will seem alot better than they are. Whereas, if the front seven were against an elite O-Line, and couldn't get near the QB, the average DBs could be made to look very poor.

If you cannot protect your QB, your elite WRs won't be able to show as often, and if you have all the time in the world, and the ability to be an ok QB, your below WRs can look better than they are.

 

[IllegalContact]

Doesnt work what way? I was asking which is better.

Are you saying a team of average guys beats a team that has half great players and half awful ones?
Or are you saying good NT play made everyone else better?

I'd take the team of average players ...... half great ones and half lousy ones leaves half of a field that can easily be exploited.

I just used an example of what having a hole in one spot can do. having holes in 5 spots makes the greatness of the other 6 irrelevant. at least on defense. on offense, it is a little different.

 

[JR4]

It seems there a critical point. If you have too many serious weaknesses
the best coach in the world won't be able to make a winning team.
A weakness in a player has to be covered some way. I think this is
where BB shines. He seems to know his players and has adjustments if
he see a team is doing things to exploit it.
(exception Pats-Giants superbowl)
But even BB can't win if he has a team with too many weaknesses.

 

[signbabybrady]

I am going to be a jerk and not really answer your exact question.


I will take a team with no weaknesses over a team that is more top heavy but has weaknesses. I will not however agree that a team of all average players would beat a team with half studs and half duds as I think Brady to Moss would happen all day vs 11 average oponents even if the other 9 were duds and you are giving the benifit of some stud OLinemen.


So I guess my answer is that the less weaknesses you have the better the team will be however you will never compete if you can match up vs the stars in this league.

 

[Ring 6]

I am going to be a jerk and not really answer your exact question.


I will take a team with no weaknesses over a team that is more top heavy but has weaknesses. I will not however agree that a team of all average players would beat a team with half studs and half duds as I think Brady to Moss would happen all day vs 11 average oponents even if the other 9 were duds and you are giving the benifit of some stud OLinemen.


So I guess my answer is that the less weaknesses you have the better the team will be however you will never compete if you can match up vs the stars in this league.

But remember we are saying every player is average. Average isnt bad.
SO in your example, theoretically, Brady and Moss would produce their 'average' not totally dominate like their best game of the season.

Taking it a step further:


The all average team Can hold their own against your strength and exploit your weakness while the good or bad team will dominate you in some areas and get dominated in others.

 

[javajunky]

A pressure defense is better with 6 great players. A gap control defense is better with 11 average ones.

A rookie coach with simple schemes wants the 6 great players on offense. An experienced coach with a complicated offense would do well the 11 average players on offense.

Coaching and schemes...it's what makes the NFL special.

 

[Ring 6]

A pressure defense is better with 6 great players. A gap control defense is better with 11 average ones.

A rookie coach with simple schemes wants the 6 great players on offense. An experienced coach with a complicated offense would do well the 11 average players on offense.

Coaching and schemes...it's what makes the NFL special.

Interesting.
I tend to think a lack of liabilities is more likely to succeed that a wealth of strengths coupled with equal liabilities for the same reason.
You cannot control where the other team will attack you.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

it depends on the coach - see 2001 patriots.

 

[Ring 6]

it depends on the coach - see 2001 patriots.

2001 Patriots are at the heart of this.
I think they were as close to the team with no liabilities and no overwhelming strengths as I have ever seen.
As it occured, I felt that each part of the team could be used to exploit a weakness on the other team, to have an advantage against a medicore opponent in that area, but not be weak enough to get dominate by the best of the best.
If you remember back, one of the cliams to fame was that we could play whatever style the opponent led us to want to.

 

[signbabybrady]

But remember we are saying every player is average. Average isnt bad.
SO in your example, theoretically, Brady and Moss would produce their 'average' not totally dominate like their best game of the season.

Taking it a step further:


The all average team Can hold their own against your strength and exploit your weakness while the good or bad team will dominate you in some areas and get dominated in others.

i dont think you followed my logic

brady and moss are on the team of 5 great and six bad so why do they play average.

my point is that if you give me 5 great and six crappy i dont care who the other 3 greats are brady and moss duo would torch a team of all averages

 

[Ring 6]

i dont think you followed my logic

brady and moss are on the team of 5 great and six bad so why do they play average.

my point is that if you give me 5 great and six crappy i dont care who the other 3 greats are brady and moss duo would torch a team of all averages

I'm saying that Brady and Moss would produce about what they do on average against a group of aerage players. The fact that you have 5 or 6 liabilities oin the field probably means they play worse. Where do you hide them? Give me 1 or 2 awful OL and I will make sure Brady never gets the ball to Moss. Put them at receiver and I take away Moss, then what do you do? and so on

 

[Gwedd]

i dont think you followed my logic

brady and moss are on the team of 5 great and six bad so why do they play average.

my point is that if you give me 5 great and six crappy i dont care who the other 3 greats are brady and moss duo would torch a team of all averages

I respectfully disagree. The team with all average players will, in almost every case, trump a team that is unbalanced.

The problem with the Brady/Moss example is that it makes you a one-dimensional team. No matter how good the receiver is, or how magnificent the QB, the average guys know that that is where the ball is going. You become predictable, and the average team can find a way to counter that.

With a team of average players, they can each find a way to support the others on the field. they become interchangeable and can spell eachother.

The team with some great and others below average will end up draining it's talent through over-work because they will be getting NO support from the below-average guys. The Great players have to make a play EVERY time in order to carry the lesser players.

Respects,

 

[AzPatsFan]

I could see this going either way, either as a good topic or a total failure, so we shall see. I know my opinion and am interested in everyone elses.

The heart of the question is whether good players overcome weaknesses and liabilities elsewhere or whether the lack of weanesses equal the overall strength of a good team.

A couple things to consider:
-If I have the best DRE and the worst DLE in the league, my run D figures to be below average because there are going to be a whole lot more runs going to my R than my L.
-On the other hand, if I am average at both what the other team will do may be less predictable.
-The players surrounding a player will affect their play.
-On average, half of the players on the field are below average. That means if your team is 11 average players you better at 5 spots, worse at 5, and the same at 1 as your opponent, and by definiition you have no liabilities.

So, the questions are:

-If you fielded a full team of exactly average players, would you be a good, bad or average team.
The obvious answer is average since your players are average but what I'm looking for it the cumulaive effect of having no bad players at all on the field, so the second, more telling question is how would that team compare to:

A team with half the players being the best at their position and half being the worst in the league.

Discuss....

That is easy. Three Superbowl victories and 4 appearances in 9 years...

BB plans his teams and CAP expenditures to have no liabilities and still no liabilities even after losing starters, to injuries...

 

[Ring 6]

That is easy. Three Superbowl victories and 4 appearances in 9 years...

BB plans his teams and CAP expenditures to have no liabilities and still no liabilities even after losing starters, to injuries...

Thats the way I see, and to take it a step further, from about the end of 2004, the cap constraints took over the team building philosophy.
Essentially to keep the team together after the 3 Vinces in 4 years would have required exceeding the cap by millions and millions. Naturally, that also means that to replace the players we could not afford to keep with equal players would also exceed the cap by millions and millions. We were drafting at the end of each round.
It was virtually impossible, without just a bunch of dumb luck, to prevent the liabilities from happening. IMO, BB saw this coming, saw that under those cap constraints he needed to approach it differently and set out to build a team around its greatest strengths. We became a passing team, with huge resources spent on receivers. We tried to keep the front 7 together and overcome the weaknesses that were created in the secondary.
Aside from the 2007 season when we essentially became so good at one thing that no one could stop and we almost went undefeated, the gradual trend of deteriorating by having more and deeper liabilities is clear. Its also clear to me that the trend has been reversed and we are heading in the other direction because we have turned the table on being able to afford our talent. Ironically, much like 2002, 2010 was a down year that was necessary for this transition.
Frankly the biggest difference between the 2010 Pats and better versions was the remarkable disappearance of clutch play. That is a sympton of turnover.
I think that 2007 disguises the trend but the Pats declined slowly and steadily from 03-04 to 10, and I see 10 as the start of the move in the opposite direction, altough, as is often the case, the results belie the changes that will lead to the turnaround.

 

[signbabybrady]

I'm saying that Brady and Moss would produce about what they do on average against a group of aerage players. The fact that you have 5 or 6 liabilities oin the field probably means they play worse. Where do you hide them? Give me 1 or 2 awful OL and I will make sure Brady never gets the ball to Moss. Put them at receiver and I take away Moss, then what do you do? and so on

so what kind of performance do the average guys give you?

 

[signbabybrady]

I respectfully disagree. The team with all average players will, in almost every case, trump a team that is unbalanced.

The problem with the Brady/Moss example is that it makes you a one-dimensional team. No matter how good the receiver is, or how magnificent the QB, the average guys know that that is where the ball is going. You become predictable, and the average team can find a way to counter that.

With a team of average players, they can each find a way to support the others on the field. they become interchangeable and can spell eachother.

The team with some great and others below average will end up draining it's talent through over-work because they will be getting NO support from the below-average guys. The Great players have to make a play EVERY time in order to carry the lesser players.

Respects,

In normall circamstances I agree but in the guidelines set forth by Andy

I am fielding a team under his assumption if I have the best at one spot I have the worst at another.

so 5 best 5 worst and one wild card VS a team of all average.

Now 5 best are Moss, Brady, 2 of the best OL and either the best RB or best TE (for this I will take the TE).....how do you stop this with an average pass rush, an average secondary, and average LB play? scheme all you want you need talent to stop talent.....


good thing is that in the NFL you can play the best of both and try and get the best talent while simaltaneuosly trying to eliminate your biggest weakness and in esence trying to create little or no weakness. Our team is evidence of this

 

[signbabybrady]

I think that 2007 disguises the trend but the Pats declined slowly and steadily from 03-04 to 10, and I see 10 as the start of the move in the opposite direction, altough, as is often the case, the results belie the changes that will lead to the turnaround.

Huh what wait so except for arguably one of the greatest teams ever the team was trending down.