Discussion Topic

[everlong]

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.

There's articles by guys like football outsiders that actually say those guys were average. Guyton for instance ranks out ahead of Mayo in several I've read. Even if you swap out Guyton for a guy very above average like London Fletcher and Green for Ray Edwards who again is above average it's not a great team.

I think you need some play makers and leadership on both sides of the ball and then you can be adequate every place else.

If you take this team, and I'll grant the Flecher and Edwards upgrades, and you swap in Brady at QB and add Kevin Faulk as the 3rd down back and a leader on offense. Then on defense add Dumervil and Polamalu this team now has a shot.

The 01 Patriots probably graded out as average just about everywhere but Troy Brown was a great leader and a huge play maker not only on offense but special teams. The defense had play makers in Bruschi, Johnson, Milloy, Law, Phiffer, Vrabel, McGinist and Seymour. None of them would be put in the class of a Polamalu or LT but together you had a unit of play makers that at any time could come up huge.

I'm agreeing with your basic premise that you're better off having starters that all grade out at least average but really that makes you the 05-07 Jags. A good team that is one and done. They had no real stars, no real holes. Beats the crap out of being the 08 Saints who had a ton of talent but were Swiss cheese on one side of the ball.

 

[signbabybrady]

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.

Yeah when I re-read the first paragraph I realized I wasnt getting my point out and stated it differently.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

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.

Assuming you have excellent coaching, a key factor for 'avg' talent, eliminate your weaknesses and utilize coaching to deal with the specific week's matchups, THE key factor.

 

[signbabybrady]

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.

I dont think it is fair to use the Patriots teams in this discussion because while those teams were cahrectorized by a strong middle class there was by no means a lack of stars especially as it pertains to 03 and 04 but lets just assume you dont have ty law on the 01 team what then?

 

[signbabybrady]

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.

04 was certainly more balanced but IMO that goes more to Corey Dillon than to the team as whole.

I would argue that both the O-line and D-line were better in 07 than 04 and I would contend the Secondaries were real close. LBs would be a decline and RB would be a decline.

 

[signbabybrady]

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.

I think what you are trying to conclude is true. Which is that eliminating your weakness is more important that adding a star or two to your team but I think this is only works when you have a couple of established stars to lead the club particularly at the QB position.


and by the way you seemed to be taking my comments as argumentative and I thought this was a fun discussion just didn't agree with you.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I dont think it is fair to use the Patriots teams in this discussion because while those teams were cahrectorized by a strong middle class there was by no means a lack of stars especially as it pertains to 03 and 04 but lets just assume you dont have ty law on the 01 team what then?

Impossible to say but also remember that there were several below avg starters on the '01 team

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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

First of all, this is an excellent topic and I hope you get a chance to respond to my response above.

But, you raise another interesting point here. I assumed you were talking about starters, but in your OP, you don't ask about a team of "average starters," but rather of "average players." If we're picking our "average team" from among the 22 or so players who start, we're probably picking from a pretty good universe. If we're going two or three down on the depth chart...especially of weaker teams...that's another matter.

 

[everlong]

I assumed you were talking about starters, but in your OP, you don't ask about a team of "average starters," but rather of "average players." If we're picking our "average team" from among the 22 or so players who start, we're probably picking from a pretty good universe. If we're going two or three down on the depth chart...especially of weaker teams...that's another matter.

Everybody I named is a starter and even the ones from bad teams are decent players. I know you weren't debating that with me but it furthers my point. Every one of those players exemplifies the definition of average IMO.

 

[IllegalContact]

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.

on offense, you simply run away from the weak OL and towards the other 4....on defense, they simply run at the weakness....

offense can also opt to pass the ball whenever the defense tries to counter its weakness.....

again, holes are much more easily exploited against defenses. offenses can call plays to minimize the effect of its weakness. defenses can only respond, and over play which allows the the offense to select other options.

 

[jmt57]

What about the concept that the very best players can elevate the performance of their teammates?

For example a star player may be double or triple teamed - and against average players still make the play. As a result of the opponent focusing on him, that makes it easier for his below average teammates to do their job, as they are unblocked, for example.

 

[PatsCanDoIt]

I've heard basic football strategy described as:

On offense align stength verses weakness.
On defense align strength verses strength.

If teams used a from of this type of strategy, then an average team would only have an advantage while on offense. That advantage would be against the non-star players. The Colts are the best example of All-Pros mixed bottom-of-the-barrel starters. Most teams can drop up a gameplan for the Colts defense but cannot match up with the offense. Usually top heavy teams are good until unjury strikes or the ball bounces the other way.

 

[PatsCanDoIt]

on offense, you simply run away from the weak OL and towards the other 4....on defense, they simply run at the weakness....

offense can also opt to pass the ball whenever the defense tries to counter its weakness.....

again, holes are much more easily exploited against defenses. offenses can call plays to minimize the effect of its weakness. defenses can only respond, and over play which allows the the offense to select other options.

That's kinda what I wrote above.

 

[mgteich]

MY ALTERNATE UNIVERSE

1) I DO NOT believe that the average talent of the team has declined steadily from 2004 through 2009. I strongly disagree with the idea that the 2007 patriots were anything but one of the best teams ever. We all have our methods of analysis. I think it delusional to think that the 2005-2006 team was better than the 2007-2008 team.

2) I don't want either team that the OP suggested. HOWEVER, I do believe that the goal of a Kraft/Belichick team is to have as few liabilities as possible. Against that backdrop, a few top players are enough to make us contenders every year, as has been the case since 2001.

3) A team of all average players and coaches cannot be expected to be a contender for the Super Bowl. This team would be in the middle of nfl teams. By definition, they would be in the middle, not expected to be one of the 12 playoff teams, not expected to be among the bottom 12, but on average being in the middle 8, just out of the playoffs. Of course, some years the stars would align right and that team will be in the playoffs, or perhaps even be the weakest talent to ever win a Super Bowl.

4) We are discussing talent and expuectations. If the 2001 season and the 2007 were both played over and over again by the sper computer with the perfect computer program, I would expect simulations to show that the 2007 had a much better chance at the Super Bowl than the 2001 team, and that it isn't very close. Sometimes the better team does not win on a given day or in a given season. Sometimes the 3-1 underdog beats the 1-3 favorite. That's why they play the game and season.

 

[Ring 6]

There's articles by guys like football outsiders that actually say those guys were average. Guyton for instance ranks out ahead of Mayo in several I've read. Even if you swap out Guyton for a guy very above average like London Fletcher and Green for Ray Edwards who again is above average it's not a great team.

I think you need some play makers and leadership on both sides of the ball and then you can be adequate every place else.

If you take this team, and I'll grant the Flecher and Edwards upgrades, and you swap in Brady at QB and add Kevin Faulk as the 3rd down back and a leader on offense. Then on defense add Dumervil and Polamalu this team now has a shot.

The 01 Patriots probably graded out as average just about everywhere but Troy Brown was a great leader and a huge play maker not only on offense but special teams. The defense had play makers in Bruschi, Johnson, Milloy, Law, Phiffer, Vrabel, McGinist and Seymour. None of them would be put in the class of a Polamalu or LT but together you had a unit of play makers that at any time could come up huge.

I'm agreeing with your basic premise that you're better off having starters that all grade out at least average but really that makes you the 05-07 Jags. A good team that is one and done. They had no real stars, no real holes. Beats the crap out of being the 08 Saints who had a ton of talent but were Swiss cheese on one side of the ball.

But no team is either average or half stars half sucks. It is a comparison between those 2 alternatives, so how you think it would do against a regular team is moot. I could take the same approach and give you half the worst players in the league, and how confident are you in that team.

While an all average team may be the 05-07 Jags a team with the 11 worst starting football players in the NFL may be worse than any one we have ever seen.

 

[Ring 6]

04 was certainly more balanced but IMO that goes more to Corey Dillon than to the team as whole.

I would argue that both the O-line and D-line were better in 07 than 04 and I would contend the Secondaries were real close. LBs would be a decline and RB would be a decline.

OL certainly wasn't better in run blocking (again the passing offense was but thats it) I dont know how the DL got better, it was the same group but in 03 we had Ted Washington.
Secondaries are night and day. We lost the AFCC in 06 and the SB in 07 because we couldnt cover when the other team was doing nothing but pass. Losing Ty Law, having Rodney Harrison at half of what he was, and not replacing them with like players is a big decline.
LB was actually a slow decline that got worse after 07,

 

[Ring 6]

I think what you are trying to conclude is true. Which is that eliminating your weakness is more important that adding a star or two to your team but I think this is only works when you have a couple of established stars to lead the club particularly at the QB position.


and by the way you seemed to be taking my comments as argumentative and I thought this was a fun discussion just didn't agree with you.

Not taking them that way at all.

 

[Ring 6]

What about the concept that the very best players can elevate the performance of their teammates?

For example a star player may be double or triple teamed - and against average players still make the play. As a result of the opponent focusing on him, that makes it easier for his below average teammates to do their job, as they are unblocked, for example.

Countered by the argumet that one player screwing up kills you.
Think of having Duane Starks at corner. Think of having a terrible OL or 2 and your QB gets sacked 8 times a game. Think about Steve Martin, Monte Beisel, Marion Butts, etc.

 

[mgteich]

Remind how we did with Monty Beisel.

Countered by the argumet that one player screwing up kills you.
Think of having Duane Starks at corner. Think of having a terrible OL or 2 and your QB gets sacked 8 times a game. Think about Steve Martin, Monte Beisel, Marion Butts, etc.

 

[Ring 6]

Remind how we did with Monty Beisel.

are you implying he helped our D?