Maddening Football Arguments

I thought I'd throw my short list out there and invite others to chime in. I think it'll help provoke even more enlightened debates on this board, which are already very good.

1. The belief that running the ball will dictate more wins. Every clown analyst loves to throw this one in during the first part of a telecast. “As you’ll see from our stats, when X team runs the ball more than Y times, they win every game.” There is a cause and effect logic error to this argument that apparently is hard for them to comprehend. It’s because the team is winning that they CAN run the ball more to kill the clock. It’s not necessarily a CAUSAL relationship between running the ball and winning.

2. The belief that because there’s an exception to a rule, the rule is invalid. Just because Jerry Rice ran a slow 40 doesn’t mean 40 times aren’t important to evaluating a receiver. Just because Tony Mandarich was a bust that doesn’t mean combine results should be completely discounted, just put in context. Just because Wes Unseld was only 6’7” that doesn’t mean height isn’t important to being a center. Just because Larry Bird…uh, I’ll stop here

3. The argument that a player should be cut or traded without consideration of the salary cap. This isn’t 1980. Any argument (typically reactionary) that doesn’t consider cap acceleration is completely valueless.

I just looked this up. The latin term for the logic fallacy in example 1 is "Non Causa Pro Causa."

There, we are all smarter now.

Originally posted by whitejimmy

I thought I'd throw my short list out there and invite others to chime in. I think it'll help provoke even more enlightened debates on this board, which are already very good.

1. The belief that running the ball will dictate more wins. Every clown analyst loves to throw this one in during the first part of a telecast. “As you’ll see from our stats, when X team runs the ball more than Y times, they win every game.” There is a cause and effect logic error to this argument that apparently is hard for them to comprehend. It’s because the team is winning that they CAN run the ball more to kill the clock. It’s not necessarily a CAUSAL relationship between running the ball and winning.

2. The belief that because there’s an exception to a rule, the rule is invalid. Just because Jerry Rice ran a slow 40 doesn’t mean 40 times aren’t important to evaluating a receiver. Just because Tony Mandarich was a bust that doesn’t mean combine results should be completely discounted, just put in context. Just because Wes Unseld was only 6’7” that doesn’t mean height isn’t important to being a center. Just because Larry Bird…uh, I’ll stop here

3. The argument that a player should be cut or traded without consideration of the salary cap. This isn’t 1980. Any argument (typically reactionary) that doesn’t consider cap acceleration is completely valueless.

1. I'm more for running the ball....I just like the tempo, pace and smashmouth style that comes with it. But with running the ball you take more time off the clock in a series (even if 3 and out) and you wear down your opponets D. TOP is huge in the NFL. Granted looking at the Eagles, 49ers (of the montana/young days) and other teams that use a more pass-oriented O are successful (they do it well), but the reason for the downfall of the Spurrier-Skins was that we passed too much. Never developed a consistent tempo (along with no hot reads and poor blocking schemes) so we either scored or were 3 and out. Thus, at least a mix of pass and run is important.

2. There is always an exception to the rule.....but not every poor performance means anomaly.

3. I think every big-move, people look to the cap nowadays......even the Coles trade (despite what some may think). Even with the 9 million cap hit in 2005, this clears room in 2006 and the future.

The repeated mentioning of the word "upside" produces in me a similar reaction to rubbing a cheesegrater across my knee.

Second to that, anytime one of the commentators starting yelling in hopes that it will increase the veracity and validity of his position. (See, e.g., Steven A. Smith--who btw, I'm glad has his initial in there. Otherwise I would have confused him with the thousand other Steven Smiths in sports reporting.)

EDIT: I just reread your questions whitejimmy. I thought you were asking what arguments announcers use that are tired and annoying and thus I responded as I did above.

i thought that this would have something to do with madden...

I like running the ball if it works. Do whatever we need to do to get the ball into the end zone. Smashmouth, air it out, makes no difference to me.

Originally posted by [[ghost]]

i thought that this would have something to do with madden...

Darn, you beat me to it...

was thinking the same about madden as well.

However, does sorta make sense, the commentators say we win games where portis gets over 100 yards rushing. Well, there is definitely more to it than that.

Nominations for other maddening cliches/contentions:

Defense wins championships. (Why should defense be any more important to championships than offense?)

Team X shouldn't cut player Y because he was a high draft pick. (Putting aside salary cap acceleration aspects, which are a legitimate consideration, the fact that someone was a high draft pick is a sunk cost that should be ignored b/c it's gone no matter what the decision is going forward.)

Total number of rushing yards is the best measure of whether a RB is good at running the football (ignoring the more relevant yards per carry, and also such considerations as quality of the offensive line, quality of the team's passing game, whether the runs come relatively often on expected running vs. passing downs, etc.).

Total number of catches is a particularly telling measure of whether a WR is good (i.e., ignoring yards per catch, or even better yards per attempted completion, etc.).

Team X has won 7 out of its last 11 games the week following a Monday Night Football game against a divisional opponent. (Or some such cobbled-together statistic that actually has no predictive value at all.)

Good thread.

My irk is the theory/belief that you don't need a QB to win in the NFL. :doh:

YOU CANNOT CONSISTENTLY WIN WITHOUT A QB. LOOK NO FURTHER THAN OUR @#$@#% RECORD. And if anyone dares say "but what about the 2000 ravens", I will refer you to whitejimmy's rule # 2

Originally posted by whitejimmy

2. The belief that because there’s an exception to a rule, the rule is invalid. Just because Jerry Rice ran a slow 40 doesn’t mean 40 times aren’t important to evaluating a receiver. Just because Tony Mandarich was a bust that doesn’t mean combine results should be completely discounted, just put in context. Just because Wes Unseld was only 6’7” that doesn’t mean height isn’t important to being a center. Just because Larry Bird…uh, I’ll stop here

It also really pisses me off when I hear the entire league constantly worship and kiss butt all things patriots/eagles. :jerk:

See my above post. Both franchises lucked up on QBs. Both franchises were crap without Brady/McNabb... and both will be crap once again when they retire. Unless of course they're lucky enough (i.e. San Fran with Montana & Young) to happen upon another franchise qb.

Originally posted by zoony

It also really pisses me off when I hear the entire league constantly worship and kiss butt all things patriots/eagles. :jerk:

See my above post. Both franchises lucked up on QBs. Both franchises were crap without Brady/McNabb... and both will be crap once again when they retire. Unless of course they're lucky enough (i.e. San Fran with Montana & Young) to happen upon another franchise qb.

The Patriots owe their victory to more than just Brady. The franchise is well run, and the defensive schemes are top notch. It will be interesting to see what happens with Weis and Crennel gone though.

Great contributions, zoony and romberjo. Well played.

:notworthy

I don't know 3. But here is :2cents: on the other two.

1. I believe you have to dictate the pace of the game in order to win. Running is often used for this. Spitball wins a lot of games based on this.

2. For 40 times, it depends on how much the player plays up to his speed. Rice played up to his full speed. There are a ton of prospects who had 4.3 40's and couldn't do a thing in the NFL.

Originally posted by Romberjo

Defense wins championships. (Why should defense be any more important to championships than offense?)

I agree with most of your points. Teams that win tend to have a good balance of offense and defense. But defense is more important because a good defense tends to be much more consistent than a good offense, especially a passing offense. The Colts are a case in point. So are the Rams. They had by far the best offense in football for several years and managed only one championship out of it. Not coincidentally in the year their defense played well. (Either led the league or was damn close in takeaways).

That is also the reason for the 'you need run' idea. A good running game tends to be more consistent than a passing game. And usually less dependent on a single player. Tailbacks are easier to replace than QBs. Look at the Broncos, Chiefs, Vikings, etc... Priest Holmes has been by far the top producing RB over the last few years (when he's healthy), but when he goes down the Chiefs have inserted a backup and still run the ball extremely well. Does anyone believe that if Peyton were to go down the Colts wouldn't see a significant dropoff?

Bird still couldn't jump.

How about in the last game of the year when Bill Maas was sniffing Betts jock.

(paraphrased)

Now this Betts he's a Joe Gibbs Running Back. He's exploasive and patient and with Joe Gibbs running attack you have to be patient.

Yeah Maas, Portis was handpicked by Gibbs to build his offense around and racked up over 1300 yards in an abismal season....

Everyone was on the "patient runner" kick for the entire season. I wonder who said it first?

Originally posted by dfitzo53

The Patriots owe their victory to more than just Brady. The franchise is well run, and the defensive schemes are top notch. It will be interesting to see what happens with Weis and Crennel gone though.

Don't believe the hype.

Ask yourself, would the Patriots have won 3 superbowls MUCH LESS been in the big game with Drew Bledsoe?

no, no, no, no, a thousand times NO. If you would answer yes, you did not watch any of their playoff games or the SB's themselves

Then ask yourself if the Patriots knew what they were doing when they drafted Brady in the late round.

once again, a thousand times NO. 100 % pure luck.

Refer to Bellicheck's record in Cleveland and record in NE pre-Brady.

Sorry Df... ya got nothin'.

Originally posted by zoony

Don't believe the hype.

Ask yourself, would the Patriots have won 3 superbowls MUCH LESS been in the big game with Drew Bledsoe?

no, no, no, no, a thousand times NO. If you would answer yes, you did not watch any of their playoff games or the SB's themselves

Then ask yourself if the Patriots knew what they were doing when they drafted Brady in the late round.

once again, a thousand times NO. 100 % pure luck.

Refer to Bellicheck's record in Cleveland and record in NE pre-Brady.

Sorry Df... ya got nothin'.

How about the Patriots defense twice making Peyton Manning look silly? How about being second in the league in points allowed and tied for third in takeaways?

Ask yourself, would the Patriots have been in 3 Superbowls, much less the championship games without that kind of play from the defense?

I'm not saying the team could necessarily do well without Brady, I'm saying there are other crucial elements as well.

Originally posted by Kevin B.

How about in the last game of the year when Bill Maas was sniffing Betts jock.

(paraphrased)

Now this Betts he's a Joe Gibbs Running Back. He's exploasive and patient and with Joe Gibbs running attack you have to be patient.

Yeah Maas, Portis was handpicked by Gibbs to build his offense around and racked up over 1300 yards in an abismal season....

Everyone was on the "patient runner" kick for the entire season. I wonder who said it first?

To be fair, Portis's yards per carry dropped from 5.5 in Denver to 3.8 in DC. Betts averaged 4.1 yards per carry last season. Total yardage is not the only stat for evaluating a runningback's performance.

What irritates me is sports reporters who repeat things like "Defense wins Championships" over and over. Then they ignore the fact that the Redskins had the 3rd best defense in the NFL last year while predicting that they will finish with the 28th best record this year. Defense is either key or it isn't, but don't speak out of both sides of your mouth.

The reality is that winning in the NFL can't be reduced to a single concept, coach, or entity (like defense, offense or special teams). It's multi-faceted. Every commentator has hopes that his/her single observation will be some kind of seminal reference point for all further analysis. The reality is that it's just not that simple. Broad generalizations may be tend to be true on the grand scale but usually are wrong when looked at more closely.

yes defense wins the championship game. If you've gotten to the championship game, that means you probably have a pretty capable offense, so defense is what will win the game for you. A decent offense is more of an assumption on the part of the speaker. Most teams don't have too much trouble putting together a serviceable offense, the redskins last year were an exception to that standard.

Another generalization that works a little differently is that the two best defenses make it the Superbowl and then the best QB wins the game.

Originally posted by dfitzo53

To be fair, Portis's yards per carry dropped from 5.5 in Denver to 3.8 in DC. Betts averaged 4.1 yards per carry last season. Total yardage is not the only stat for evaluating a runningback's performance.

Good point but ...

Neither is looking at a YPC for a guy who basically played 1 game?