Discussion Topic

[Ring 6]

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

You would have the 3 worst OL in the league, the worst RB and the worst WR opposite Moss.
I jam and double Moss, hell, I can double the TE too, and then I blitz the hell out of you right over the 3 worst OL in the NFL.

Thats the point, the best lineman in the NFL doesn't do you any good if the worst OLs guy is sacking your QB.

I think you are drastically underrating the average player.
As I tried to explain before. Brady and Moss on average face an average defense. So against an average defense they are not going to light it up, not any more than they light up all of the teams they play.
The fact that you are putting 5 terrible players out there with them most likely means they would do a lot worse than they currently do, because those 5 players are going to get dominated.

 

[Ring 6]

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

Well that is kind of my point. I am going to use my capable average team of players to exploit the opponments weaknesses, no matter what they are. And when they look for my weaknesses, I don't have any, so my capable, average players will hold their own against what the opponent is best at, and dominate them where they are weak.

 

[signbabybrady]

You would have the 3 worst OL in the league, the worst RB and the worst WR opposite Moss.
I jam and double Moss, hell, I can double the TE too, and then I blitz the hell out of you right over the 3 worst OL in the NFL.

Thats the point, the best lineman in the NFL doesn't do you any good if the worst OLs guy is sacking your QB.

I think you are drastically underrating the average player.
As I tried to explain before. Brady and Moss on average face an average defense. So against an average defense they are not going to light it up, not any more than they light up all of the teams they play.
The fact that you are putting 5 terrible players out there with them most likely means they would do a lot worse than they currently do, because those 5 players are going to get dominated.

we have not played an average schedule for like 10 seasons as we have been playing first place schedules every year.

Also how does your logic apply to the bench? because in theory your 53 would be as good as your best and I wouldnt ever have to put my worst on the field or I would have to do it very rarely.

 

[Ring 6]

we have not played an average schedule for like 10 seasons as we have been playing first place schedules every year.

Also how does your logic apply to the bench? because in theory your 53 would be as good as your best and I wouldnt ever have to put my worst on the field or I would have to do it very rarely.

Dude, its a concept to discuss not an alternate universe, you should be able to answer the questions as well as I could. I would assume that your backups are a step down from starters.
And the difference between an average schedule and a first place schedule is 2 games, and historically last years records have no correlation to this years, meaning in reality first place teams don't play harded schedules any more often than they play easier ones.

The basic concept here is do you want a team with a couple of studs carrying it, with sucky guys around them or a balanced team that isnt outstanding at anything but isnt bad at anything either.

 

[IllegalContact]

you can have crappy players in places on offense and still be effective.

you can have a crappy OL and still score your share of points.

if you have a crappy DL, you won't stop anyone from scoring points.

holes on defense are exploited and much harder to scheme around. offenses can scheme around weaknesses much easier.

 

[Frezo]

If BB is coaching both teams, the average team wins because it will be likely that BB would have 11 coach-able players. If, let's say, Wade Phillips is coaching both teams then the outcome would be a toss up because the average team would more likely be out of position to deal with the BIG plays from the 5 great players who can rely more on their pure talent. If Rex Ryan is coaching both teams utility poles within a one mile radius of the stadium will tilt inward.

 

[signbabybrady]

Dude, its a concept to discuss not an alternate universe, you should be able to answer the questions as well as I could.

I think I am answering your question....you aren't comparing my team to yours fairly. You wouldn't have a team with no weakness you would have a team with virtually all weakness...your team would consist of back ups and boderline starters mine would have some of the best in the league some average and some of the worst on the bench.

 

[Ring 6]

I think I am answering your question....you aren't comparing my team to yours fairly. You wouldn't have a team with no weakness you would have a team with virtually all weakness...your team would consist of back ups and boderline starters mine would have some of the best in the league some average and some of the worst on the bench.

No. My team, by the definition of the question, would be averae at everything and have the league average starter at every position. That is the 16th or 17th best QB, RB, etc. I would have no weakneses, that was the point. You would be trading weaknesses for strengths.
Lets use the secondary as an example.

Rank all of the starters in the league.
I would have say, the 16th and 48th best and you would have the best and the worst. In other words both of mine are capable and you have one that is great and one that is poor.
Same with safeties, I get 2 quality guys you get one of the best and one of the worst.

I agree that if you thought the parameters where that my starters were the average player ON A ROSTER my team would be awful and lose every game, but I am saying the starters are average STARTERS.
That means that, on average half of my guys are somewhat better than the guy across from them and half are somewhat worse, but I sacrifice being dominant at anything for the sake of not being dominanted by anyone.

 

[Ring 6]

you can have crappy players in places on offense and still be effective.

you can have a crappy OL and still score your share of points.

if you have a crappy DL, you won't stop anyone from scoring points.

holes on defense are exploited and much harder to scheme around. offenses can scheme around weaknesses much easier.

On the other hand, if you have crappy players on offense it can take away from your strength. For example you need every block to run the ball. You can have 4 OL pancake their guys and it means nothing if the 5th allows a tackle for loss.
On defense you can mitigate the weakness maybe a little better.
If you play 2 gap you have 2 players responsible for each gap so a bad player in between 2 good ones could be hidden. In a one gap, like the Indy D, you accept bad plays in order to get one good one to kill a drive.
If your weakness is coverage you can play a lot of zone to mitigate it.

Not saying I disagree, just looking at the opposite viewpoint.

 

[patriot lifer]

the bottom line is always going to be whether or not the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I remember Fred Taylor commenting on the Jaguars in his final year with them. He said that the team was the most talented one that he had been on that didn't perform well. A team could have all average players, but if they aren't the "right 53" as BB would say, then they will be mediocre. Conversely, if they're the "right 53" then they will outperform the "sum of the parts." Same goes with having some really good players, and some lousy ones. If there's synergy, the team will flourish, which is the goal of every head coach and gm. So to answer the original question, I don't think it matters.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

...

-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....

I disagree with your answer to your first question. I think that good coaching can make "the whole better than the sum of its parts." So, a team full of average players, coached by a Belichick, could end up being a better than average or even a good team. Conversely, a team full of average players in the hands of **** MacPherson....

How would a team full of average players compare to a team of half best and half worst?

Too many variables to answer cleanly. Let's say you had a team with Brady or Peyton at QB but the entire O line was the dregs of the league? That would neutralize a lot of their abilities, especially because neither of them is very mobile. On the other hand, if you had a team where the best and the worst were in positions where they could help each other out or make up for the deficiencies of the weak players (corners and safeties, guards and tackles, WR's and TE's, QB and RB), then it might not be so bad.

But, to take a stand on your question, since Dan Snyder has proven that amassing "talent" doesn't produce winners, I'll say that the team of average players, with a good coach, will be better than the team of half stars and half busts.

 

[everlong]

QB David Garrard
RB Lawrence Maroney
WR Malcomb Floyd
WR Nate Burleson
WR Davone Best
TE Donald Lee
RT Willie Colon
LT Anthony Collins
C Dan Koppen
LG Robert Gallery
RG Roberto Garza

DE Alex Brown
DE Jarvis Green
DT Jimmy Kennedy
DT Tank Johnson
LB Takeo Spikes
LB Gary Guyton
LB Derrick Johnson
CB Antoine Cason
CB Marcus Trufant
S Madieu Williams
S Kerry Rhodes

This is what a purely average team would look like. Some of these players I would even say are better than average. What level of comfort would you have with this team?

 

[signbabybrady]

No. My team, by the definition of the question, would be averae at everything and have the league average starter at every position. That is the 16th or 17th best QB, RB, etc. I would have no weakneses, that was the point. You would be trading weaknesses for strengths.
Lets use the secondary as an example.

Rank all of the starters in the league.
I would have say, the 16th and 48th best and you would have the best and the worst. In other words both of mine are capable and you have one that is great and one that is poor.
Same with safeties, I get 2 quality guys you get one of the best and one of the worst.

I agree that if you thought the parameters where that my starters were the average player ON A ROSTER my team would be awful and lose every game, but I am saying the starters are average STARTERS.
That means that, on average half of my guys are somewhat better than the guy across from them and half are somewhat worse, but I sacrifice being dominant at anything for the sake of not being dominanted by anyone.

OK so now you get 11 of the 5th and 6th best players on teams and I get 5 of the best players to go with 5 of the 11th best and one wild card. I would contend that 5th and 6th best players on a team are a heck of alot closer to talent wise to the 11th than the best. I am still sticking with my team of greats with a few minor weakness that you dont have the talent to exploit.



I guess what you are really saying is that we rank the best 32 at each position....you get the 15th or 16th best at any given position and for every one of the best players at his position I get one of the 32nd to go with him. This gets trickey as it pertains to say QB but my above still applys I think 32 at any given position is alot closer to 15th or 16th than that would be to the best.

 

[Ring 6]

QB David Garrard
RB Lawrence Maroney
WR Malcomb Floyd
WR Nate Burleson
WR Davone Best
TE Donald Lee
RT Willie Colon
LT Anthony Collins
C Dan Koppen
LG Robert Gallery
RG Roberto Garza

DE Alex Brown
DE Jarvis Green
DT Jimmy Kennedy
DT Tank Johnson
LB Takeo Spikes
LB Gary Guyton
LB Derrick Johnson
CB Antoine Cason
CB Marcus Trufant
S Madieu Williams
S Kerry Rhodes

This is what a purely average team would look like. Some of these players I would even say are better than average. What level of comfort would you have with this team?

That is far from a team of the average starters in the NFL.

 

[everlong]

That is far from a team of the average starters in the NFL.

Who would you consider average then?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

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.

That's why winning vs losing in the NFL is all about the specific team matchups. An exploitable disparity by good coaches will enable a team to win, even when it's discernably below the opponent in avg talent. We've seen decent but not superior Pats teams win, e.g. vs the Rams in the SB that way and we've seen highly talented Pats teams lose to specific opponents because of exploitable weaknesses.

As to the specific example, not definitively answerable although I lean towards the avg winning via well coached exploitation of major disparities.

 

[Ring 6]

That's why winning vs losing in the NFL is all about the specific team matchups. An exploitable disparity by good coaches will enable a team to win, even when it's discernably below the opponent in avg talent. We've seen decent but not superior Pats teams win, e.g. vs the Rams in the SB that way and we've seen highly talented Pats teams lose to specific opponents because of exploitable weaknesses.

As to the specific example, not definitively answerable although I lean towards the avg winning via well coached exploitation of major disparities.

Whats at the heart of my question is a team that is adequate at every spot vs a team that is excellent at some and poor at others. The specific definition was to make it easier to discuss.
Put it another way, if you are an 8-8 team should you focus on eliminating your liabilities or getting great at a spot or 2.

 

[Ring 6]

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

Yes. The 2007 Patriots were not better than the 04,05,06 Patriots across the board. They had declind in many areas, but overcame it by being the best ever in one phase of the game and no one could contend with it.
Aside from passing offense, what part of the team improved from 04 up to 07?
I'm not denegrating the 2007 team, I'm saying the overall quality of the roster consistently declined, but the improvement in one area that season overcame it, although it hasnt overcome it long term.

 

[Ring 6]

OK so now you get 11 of the 5th and 6th best players on teams and I get 5 of the best players to go with 5 of the 11th best and one wild card. I would contend that 5th and 6th best players on a team are a heck of alot closer to talent wise to the 11th than the best. I am still sticking with my team of greats with a few minor weakness that you dont have the talent to exploit.



I guess what you are really saying is that we rank the best 32 at each position....you get the 15th or 16th best at any given position and for every one of the best players at his position I get one of the 32nd to go with him. This gets trickey as it pertains to say QB but my above still applys I think 32 at any given position is alot closer to 15th or 16th than that would be to the best.

I have no idea what your first paragraph means.
The second explains it better. I disagree with your conclusion. But thats fine the point was for people to give their own opinions.

 

[Ring 6]

Who would you consider average then?

I dont have the time to go through that, but for example, Jarvis Green is not better than half of the starting DEs in the NFL, Gary Guyton isn't better than half of the starting ILBs.....
Thats my criteria, the starters that are exactly average compared to starters, it looks like you listed guys who are average football players. Of course if you fill a team with guys who barely can hold a stating job they wont be good.