Spotting a Couple of Forum Football Fallacies

[Qdeathstar]

Your comments make sense only if the goal of improving the team should be focused on improving the weaker defense. As I explained in the OP, that's the wrong goal. The goal should be to improve the team. It doesn't matter whether the units are balanced in strength. It's the combined strength of the two units that matter.

I don't understand the relevance of this comment:

If your offense already has depth and more grade a and b players, adding more a and b players wont add depth and wont improve the team as much.

If your defense is weaker, and at depth has more c and c players, adding a grade a player adds depth to the defense which improves the defense more.

Your missing the fact that depth is important and while I agree trading one grade a player for another grade a player wont have a a greater affect on either side of the ball, adding depth on the weaker side of the ball will.

Ball control is the most important thing, but if the offense is already good focus more of the defense. Not only on the defense, but moreso. 60 - 40

[Gart Monk]

Definition of entropy (n)

en·tro·py[ éntrəpee ]

measure of disordera measure of the disorder that exists in a system

measure of unavailable energya measure of the energy in a system or process that is unavailable to do work.

This discussion is based on a subjective value scale. The OP succeeds in both opening and closing the topic within the 1st post. Since nothing is absolute, there is no way to determine a point of origin in order to reach any conclusion. Since nothing dicussed in this entire thread can be measured relative to anything that is real, it leads me to the conclusion that there is only one valid question...

Is the Redskins Offense actually better than the Redskins Defense?

[Qdeathstar]

Gonna buy me a spaceship, brb.

[Est.1974]

Greater scope? Greater headroom provides greater headroom, as I see it. But since we are going to come close to perfection anyway, it make no difference.

It may make no difference over a prolonged period of time, but in the immediate term it does make a difference.

Example ;

Offense is at 35/50 & Defense is at 25/50 = overall 60%

Only rebuild offense (to near perfection) : offense 45/50 & Defense still 25/50 = overall 70%

Only rebuild defense (to near perfection) : offense still 35/50 & Defense now 45/50 = overall 80%

It does make a difference, imo.

The goal should be to improve the team. It doesn't matter whether the units are balanced in strength. It's the combined strength of the two units that matter.

My example above supports this comment. The combined strength is greater by rebuilding our defense.

[Qdeathstar]

Oldfan, do you think the best available player on offense would have the same impact on the team overall as the best available player on defense

[Oldfan]

...Your missing the fact that depth is important and while I agree trading one grade a player for another grade a player wont have a a greater affect on either side of the ball, adding depth on the weaker side of the ball will...

Building depth is a factor, but it isn't important enough to go into a draft intending to draft for the defense because the draft isn't like Home Depot. You can't go into it with a shopping list of your needs and expect to fill your order. When your turn comes to pick, and you are offered a player who can significantly help your team, it doesn't matter if he plays offense or defense.

As I said earlier, the fact that our defense is the weaker unit makes it more likely that players who can help you will play defense. But, you should not plan for that because balancing the strengths of your offense and defense isn't important.

[Mania]

But, the fact that we are more likely to be helped by the draft isn't a reason to go in planning for it because, when our turn comes to draft, we might be presented with some great opportunities to upgrade the offense. If so, we should grab them.

I agree with drafting the best player available. I don't think we should go into the draft trying to find the best safety or cornerback and don't think Shanallen will do that. However if the best player left on the board is a WR or S/CB and the WR is the better player, but not that much better than I feel we should draft the CB/S.

This is the same strategy that Shanallen used when drafting Cousins in the 4th round and Perry Riley in 2010. Many people on this board wanted to draft an offensive lineman in the 4th round, but a 4th round OL player at the time was rated as a 4th rounder, whereas Cousins had a 2nd round grade.

Also when Calvin Johnson was drafted, the lions had a porous offense. And had just drafted 2 or 3 WR in the first round. By many peoples logic, they should have bypassed Calvin Johnson for a defensive back. Now he is one of the best WR in the league on pace to break Jerry rices all time season yardage record.

I love old fans thread, whether I agree with them or not, because they are well thought out and incite full threads. There is no reason to call someone out for a difference of opinion.

[Oldfan]

It may make no difference over a prolonged period of time' date=' but in the immediate term it does make a difference.[/quote']I think you have this reversed. The weaker unit has the greater long range potential for improvement, but that has no effect on next year's draft. In that draft, we will be presented with opportunities to improve with good players; and we should take them regardless of whether they play offense or defense.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2012 at 12:16 PM ----------

Oldfan, do you think the best available player on offense would have the same impact on the team overall as the best available player on defense

It would depend on the position.

I used an example earlier of a #1 WR and a #1 CB. Equal position value and equal prospect grade. In that case, yes. You could take either and have about the same impact.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2012 at 12:22 PM ----------

I agree with drafting the best player available. I don't think we should go into the draft trying to find the best safety or cornerback and don't think Shanallen will do that. However if the best player left on the board is a WR or S/CB and the WR is the better player, but not that much better than I feel we should draft the CB/S...

I agree with the thoughts expressed in your post -- especially this one:

I love old fans thread...

[KDawg]

I agree with drafting the best player available. I don't think we should go into the draft trying to find the best safety or cornerback and don't think Shanallen will do that. However if the best player left on the board is a WR or S/CB and the WR is the better player, but not that much better than I feel we should draft the CB/S.

This is where a good system comes into play to determine BPA:

First, you grade every prospect.

Second, you rank them all.

Third, you assign a POSITION OF NEED GRADE to prospects who meet a position of need. The number you assign is arbitrary, but it adds extra value to players who sit in a position of need. Perhaps (or not, I haven't delved deeply into this system) you give higher points to a guy who is a top flight grade player in a position of need and lower points (but still additional points) to the guys lower on the board.

Fourth, as the draft progresses and you address positions, specifically for a "need" position, you begin to take away bonus points for positions that have been addressed. Either all, or some.

This allows the prospects who are in a position of need and are rated even with players in positions that AREN'T in a position of need to be rated slightly higher, due to need. But it also doesn't increase their value to astronomical portions.

I condone a method such as this for determining BPA.

[zoony]

I don't understand how the law of diminishing returns relates to this:

Nor do I understand how either is relevant to improving an offense or defense. t.

Well, I'm shocked.

[Hitman21ST]

I think you have this reversed. The weaker unit has the greater long range potential for improvement, but that has no effect on next year's draft. In that draft, we will be presented with opportunities to improve with good players; and we should take them regardless of whether they play offense or defense.

Not quite sure I'm following. Taking our situation, if when we get to the draft, there is an A+ tight end option or an A cornerback option (meaning a slightly better player for the stronger unit), taking the player to improve the weaker unit will provide a more immediate improvement than taking the better player to play on the stronger unit, right?

[Oldfan]

...I condone a method such as this for determining BPA.

I recall that you and I collaborated in somebody's thread once and worked out five factors involved with the draft decision. I don't think we ever got around to assigning weights.

[KDawg]

I recall that you and I collaborated in somebody's thread once and worked out five factors involved with the draft decision. I don't think we ever got around to assigning weights.

Yeah we did. And you're right. We didn't. Would be a good project to work on in the near future. Perhaps the offseason would be a good time...

[Hitman21ST]

A grade A pass rusher shortens the time that the CB must cover. A grade A CB allow the pass rusher more time to get to the QB. It's a wash.

That's not necessarily true either. That's the thinking that Gibbs II had when he drafted Landry, and during the few games when we had Area 51 back there, our pass rush didn't really significantly improve.

[KDawg]

That's not necessarily true either. That's the thinking that Gibbs II had when he drafted Landry, and during the few games when we had Area 51 back there, our pass rush didn't really significantly improve.

I think OF's point is VERY true.

I think the part you're missing (or, more accurately, trying to forget ) is that you need adequate pass rushers. Not great. Maybe not even good. But adequate.

Our pass rush was abysmal because, quite frankly, we had no pass rushing threats.

[Oldfan]

Not quite sure I'm following. Taking our situation, if when we get to the draft, there is an A+ tight end option or an A cornerback option (meaning a slightly better player for the stronger unit), taking the player to improve the weaker unit will provide a more immediate improvement than taking the better player to play on the stronger unit, right?

Right. We take the player who offers the most improvement whether he plays offense or defense.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2012 at 01:07 PM ----------

Yeah we did. And you're right. We didn't. Would be a good project to work on in the near future. Perhaps the offseason would be a good time...

I'm game when you want to do it.

[Hitman21ST]

I think OF's point is VERY true.

I think the part you're missing (or, more accurately, trying to forget ) is that you need adequate pass rushers. Not great. Maybe not even good. But adequate.

Our pass rush was abysmal because, quite frankly, we had no pass rushing threats.

That could very well be true also I remember very little of our pass rush that season (probably for that very reason).

I think the pass rush is slightly more important than coverage though, but it's not really worth debating.

Right. We take the player who offers the most improvement whether he plays offense or defense.

Gotcha. I probably was just misreading what you wrote.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

It may make no difference over a prolonged period of time' date=' but in the immediate term it does make a difference.

Example ;

Offense is at 35/50 & Defense is at 25/50 = overall 60%

Only rebuild offense (to near perfection) : offense 45/50 & Defense still 25/50 = overall 70%

Only rebuild defense (to near perfection) : offense still 35/50 & Defense now 45/50 = overall 80%

It does make a difference, imo.

My example above supports this comment. The combined strength is greater by rebuilding our defense.[/quote']

Why are you able to spend 20 "points" upgrading your D while you could only spend 10 "points" upgrading your O? I believe the point of thread assumes that you have a given number go those points to upgrade your team and it really doesn't matter how you spend them. The reason being that you're going to be +20 somehow which improves you as an overall team.

[Mr. Nostril]

I think the problem with this argument, is that if a team has an elite offense and a lackluster defense, then adding a piece that makes the offense even better would in fact make the team as much better as adding a piece that increases the defense's quality in equal proportion. However, I think that adding another elite piece to an already elite unit, tends to only change the way the pieces of that pie are distributed rather than increasing the overall output of the unit. Therefore, it seems more likely that adding pieces to a lackluster defense is more likely to make a team better.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think the problem with this argument, is that if a team has an elite offense and a lackluster defense, then adding a piece that makes the offense even better would in fact make the team as much better as adding a piece that increases the defense's quality in equal proportion. However, I think that adding another elite piece to an already elite unit, tends to only change the way the pieces of that pie are distributed rather than increasing the overall output of the unit. Therefore, it seems more likely that adding pieces to a lackluster defense is more likely to make a team better.

Correct, I agree. But that's a matter of likelihood. For example, it's safer to attempt to upgrade a D than a B.

[Oldfan]

I think the problem with this argument, is that if a team has an elite offense and a lackluster defense, then adding a piece that makes the offense even better would in fact make the team as much better as adding a piece that increases the defense's quality in equal proportion. However, I think that adding another elite piece to an already elite unit, tends to only change the way the pieces of that pie are distributed rather than increasing the overall output of the unit. Therefore, it seems more likely that adding pieces to a lackluster defense is more likely to make a team better.

Let me make sure I understand. Let's say that the efficiency of our elite offense is rated at 35 while our lackluster offense is rated at 20 for a total team rating of 55.

You are saying that there is a limiting factor on growth at the 35 level. If that's right, is it possible for you to give an example of how that might happen? I can't come up with one on my own.

[Hubbs]

I think the problem with this argument, is that if a team has an elite offense and a lackluster defense, then adding a piece that makes the offense even better would in fact make the team as much better as adding a piece that increases the defense's quality in equal proportion. However, I think that adding another elite piece to an already elite unit, tends to only change the way the pieces of that pie are distributed rather than increasing the overall output of the unit. Therefore, it seems more likely that adding pieces to a lackluster defense is more likely to make a team better.

Yup. That's where I side as well.

[Est.1974]

Why are you able to spend 20 "points" upgrading your D while you could only spend 10 "points" upgrading your O? I believe the point of thread assumes that you have a given number go those points to upgrade your team and it really doesn't matter how you spend them. The reason being that you're going to be +20 somehow which improves you as an overall team.

Based off my previous posts with OF, my point was that there is greater headroom / scope to improve our defense, rather than our offense. Each unit has a maximum value of 50 in this instance, so if your defense is weaker to set off with (ie, only 25/50 against 35/50 for the offense) , you are more likely to improve overall as a combined by focusing on defense.

If the offense is at 35/50 to set off with, and can't reach perfection of 50/50, the best you can realistically improve upon to is 45/50. An outturn increase of +10.

However, on defense you are starting off at only 25/50 & can therefore strive to increase by a much greater amount to achieve the same 45/50 standard. An outturn increase of +20.

I think I may be alone on this standpoint so I'm not sure its making that much of a noise in this thread anyway.....even though I know what I'm banging on about..

[IHOPSkins]

.........."In our teams situation, our offense is better than the defense, therefore, getting a grade A receiver would only improve the team by say 2 points, whilst the grade A corner would upgrade it by 3."

Your deduction is reasonable only if our offense had maxed out on its potential.

No...its a valid point

I also contend that when you are near the top of performance...its harder to improve....IE adding an average player to an above average offense will not increase performance

BUT

Adding that same level of "Average Player" to a below average defense Will improve the situation

Its not just what you ADD to the mix....its a combination of what you add PLUS what you are replacing

Concentrate on the D

(I would also add that Special Teams are 1/3 of the game....but that's another topic)

Edit...should have read the whole thread....Point already made....oops

[Oldfan]

No...its a valid point

You didn't explain why you thought it was a valid point.

I also contend that when you are near the top of performance...its harder to improve....IE adding an average player to an above average offense will not increase performance.

That's correct, but that fact only makes it more likely that the draft will offer more chances to improve on the defense. It doesn't justify planning on drafting for defense -- which was the point made by my OP. Regardless of the odds against it, the draft still might offer better chances to improve your offense. Those opportunities should not be passed up.