|
|
Post by fshamrock on Jul 23, 2016 14:07:56 GMT -6
Ran across some research of a couple of economists who talked about institutions and businesses that can be either "strong link" or "weak link" dominated. They researchers used sports as example, basketball (they claim) is a strong link sport, meaning that the team with the best player will typically win. I think we all saw an example of this earlier in the summer when lebron james pretty much won a title single handed.
The example of a "weak-link" sport was soccer, they researched the most successful soccer programs in the world and determined that the team who had the best player did not have a distinct statistical advantage over the other team, what WAS statistically significant was that your teams 9th, 10th and 11th best players are better than the other teams 9th 10th and 11th best.
I think it's easy to find reasons to agree, basketball seems to me an easier sport for one guy to dominate (only 5 players, small court, limitations of defenses) while in soccer 1 player is a much smaller piece of the pie. The guys try to persuade soccer owners (with no success) that they would win more games if they traded their superstar (let's say messi) for 3 to 4 solid players.
So do you think our thing is a weak link or a strong link sport?
I think you can make some pretty compelling arguments for the weak link theory, like soccer we have a large playing area and 11 people on the field at one time. And I think we can see examples of the theory playing out in the successful teams around us. In Texas, if you had to name the best team of the last generation, you would be hard pressed not to say Katy high school, they have either won or competed for the title in the largest classification in the state pretty much every year for the past twenty. While they have and continue to have division 1 athletes, by the time you get to the 2nd round of the playoffs in 6A, everybody has a few d1 guys. I don't think they have much more, and many times a few less, than the other good teams in at that level. I would however make a paycheck bet that in the vast majority of those games, the 11th best guy on the field for Katy was a lot better than the 11th best guy on the field for the other school.
A more universal example might be the Patriots in the NFL, they pretty much have one superstar and a bunch of solid guys and have dominated this era.
So if we assume that football is a sport where the weak link matters more than maybe we thought, how do take advantage? It's not as if any of us are not deliberately trying not to develop players, but maybe we should think twice before we neglect a solid nucleus of guys in order to pander to a star. Or maybe we think differently about how we personnel. Who should be out there? The solid kid that always knows where he's supposed to be but doesn't do anything remarkable, or the young kid with all that speed but his mind wanders at times.
I could (and have) go on and on, but would be interested in you guys thoughts
|
|
|
|
Post by **** on Jul 23, 2016 15:43:52 GMT -6
NFL = Weak link. Everyone is a freak athlete at that level.
College = Middle.
HS = Strong link. If you have a D1 kid and I don't, I'm pretty much phuked.
I wouldn't say that football is on a far end of either spectrum like basketball/soccer. They would kind of hover around the middle, but HS would lean to the strong side and NFL would lean weak side.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jul 23, 2016 16:14:16 GMT -6
It also depends on the position.
Joe Thomas being the best OT in football doesn't make the Browns a title contender......same thing with JJ Watt.
But having Aaron Rodgers does
|
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 23, 2016 16:46:12 GMT -6
It also depends on the position. Joe Thomas being the best OT in football doesn't make the Browns a title contender......same thing with JJ Watt. But having Aaron Rodgers does Yeah. I think that makes the NFL a strong link sport. If you don't have a good QB, you aren't going to be very good. |
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Jul 23, 2016 17:16:45 GMT -6
I think football gets broke down further to at least defense, offense & QB...
Defense is a WEAK LINK thing...you are only as good as your 11th defender because of the offense figures out who that is they can spend the rest of the night going at him.
Offense is more of a STRONG LINK thing. 1 or 2 Studs, especially at the QB, TB or WR position in the HS & college game & even to an extent in the NFL can pretty much move the ball all on their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jul 23, 2016 18:20:11 GMT -6
NFL = Weak link. Everyone is a freak athlete at that level. College = Middle. HS = Strong link. If you have a D1 kid and I don't, I'm pretty much phuked. I wouldn't say that football is on a far end of either spectrum like basketball/soccer. They would kind of hover around the middle, but HS would lean to the strong side and NFL would lean weak side. I've always felt this with most sports, the lower the level you go the more impactful a single player can be. There is a far greater discrepancy in talent between your best player and replacement level players the lower down you go. In regards to football compared to other team sports (at the highest levels) I feel like football relies less on one individual player (weak link) than most. Consider the impact a quarterback, generally accepted the most important player, has. He plays no defense, and no STs (which accounts for 55-60% of the team's output) He does not run block, pass pro, catch passes, and for the most part does relatively little running. I would estimate the QB's total impact relative to the team's output is about 10%. So if you had a perfect QB compared to a mediocre one, your chances of winning only improve about 5% (funny, since so many on TV want to give all credit to QBs). Conversely, a dominant player in the NBA can be used on over 35% of possessions and conversely matchup against the opponent's top scorer. A goalie in the NHL can literally stop all of the opponent's scoring attempts, and even at replacement level will be successful nearly 90% of the time. Though they have little impact on their team's scoring. Baseball may be as "weak Linked" as football. Certainly a starting pitcher has more impact than any single football player, but he only pitches once every 5 games or so. An individual position player makes up approximately 1/9th of the PAs, and even the best fielders only have a DWar of about 5. Also, in football I think we can more easily avoid utilizing our weak links (at least offensively). I can chose not to throw the ball to a weak link, or run behind a poor lineman; whereas the number 9 spot in the order comes up regardless of how bad you may want to hide it. |
|
|
|
Post by hunhdisciple on Jul 23, 2016 18:24:10 GMT -6
HS defense is a weak link game. Because any average coach knows how to pick on the bad player.
HS offense is a strong link game. If you've got THE guy, you're gonna be able to do good things.
College on both sides of the ball, are probably pretty balanced. You've got to have somebody to make plays, but you can't have somebody who is a major liability.
The pros is about having a strong link at QB, and a strong link on defense, especially on the front 7.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Jul 23, 2016 19:09:07 GMT -6
A very interesting point to consider. The premise does away with the traditional idea that if: I have studs= I win.
Football is a unique sport; the dude you have trying to score, isn't the dude you necessarily have trying to keep them from scoring. Also, the greater ratio you have of players to ball increases the concept of the 'weak link'.
I have no evidence on hand; but off hand the times I've had dudes that only cared about being dudes and NOT the team we were good but didn't get it done. There were several times that we didn't have those types of dudes, but they played like Beethoven's 5th and got it done.
It's never about talent, it's about effort. Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.
|
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jul 23, 2016 20:55:47 GMT -6
I agree with what the guys above have said... from when you start playing in little league the team with the best player will win. He will outrun everyone and tackle anyone on the other team. As you move up, it becomes more and more of a team with the weakest link is in trouble. You end up getting OCs and DCs that scout for the weakest guy on the other team and attack the crap out of him.
|
|
|
|
Post by tothehouse on Jul 23, 2016 22:25:28 GMT -6
What all the teams that have paid for "the best" people. Supposed to be strong links everywhere, but egos get in the way. (I'm looking at you Yankees  ). It also comes down to coaching. I know of a program that sends dudes to D1s left and right...and they aren't that good as a program. I, sometimes, have felt like..."if I had those dudes I'd never lose". Your strongest links could be your weakest. That's getting deep on a Saturday night. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 24, 2016 7:42:56 GMT -6
I'd say that the NFL is a strong link if that link is a great QB. No other single position matters.
College? Not so much. Cal had the #1 draft pick at QB and went 8-5. That's a pretty good year but not a great one. They were in the Armed Forces Bowl, for cryin' out loud.
I don't necessarily think that one great player makes a great HS team. The worst teams in our district have sent players to BCS colleges.
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jul 24, 2016 13:36:24 GMT -6
I'd say that the NFL is a strong link if that link is a great QB. No other single position matters. College? Not so much. Cal had the #1 draft pick at QB and went 8-5. That's a pretty good year but not a great one. They were in the Armed Forces Bowl, for cryin' out loud. I don't necessarily think that one great player makes a great HS team. The worst teams in our district have sent players to BCS colleges. I have to respectfully disagree with your first point- having a great QB is all that matters in the NFL. Fans see a QB put up great passing totals and assume that it is a result of having a great QB; but there is a lot of pass protection, and a few receivers have to get open and make a play for that great QB to accumulate that success. Not to mention that great QB plays no defense or STs. I think a lot of people see a team be successful and immediately apply credit to the QB (cart in front of the horse logic). Eli Manning is a case in point for this. |
|
|
|
Post by dytmook on Jul 24, 2016 14:26:02 GMT -6
I'd say football is a bit more weak link especially considering the different types of links you need. A great offensive play maker can make you a lot better, but if you don't have anything else in the gameplan it could be trouble. Our Qb is pretty good but last year had struggles because we couldn't block most 5 step stuff and the running game was inconsistent.
Also our most talented team in the past 5 years or so went 3-7. Injuries played a big part, but that's a weak link issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Jul 24, 2016 20:30:20 GMT -6
i would usually say a weak link sport... unless that kid plays RB or QB (easiest to effect the game every single snap from these spots... maybe WR if you were really good at forcing him touches)
most coaches game plan to attack the weakest link(s) but at RB/QB one stud can really carry a team
trust me, i know
our RB has completely turned our program around. Don't get me wrong, we have improved in a lot of areas in the 6 years I have been at this program, but we went from 1 win his freshman year, to 1 loss his junior year... pretty quick, pretty drastic turnaround.
He is able to impact every single offensive snap for our team because he is either getting it (and he is amazing) or we are using him as a distraction (influencing the 13 defenders keying on him that play)
1 OL or DL isnt winning a football game by himself
a RB/QB possibly could ... if the supporting staff (OL ... WRs) was just good enough to give them a tiny bit of help out
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 25, 2016 7:04:31 GMT -6
I'm going to be the black sheep of the crew and say that, generally, football is a weak link sport for a few reasons:
1. Yes a stud on the offensive ball can carry you but the everyone else still needs to do their job in order to make them effective. A TB may be a stud but he won't be picking up as much yardage as you think if you've got a few OL that can't get the job done. The same goes for the QB or WRs: they need to be able to throw and catch well enough to keep folks from loading up the box and coming after you. I will say that we've faced some stud QBs that make things happen when a play breaks down but he can only carry you so far. We faced a QB that will be starting for an NFL team this next year in the play-offs and the kid was an absolute animal and well coached. BUT, their center was crap so we found ways to attack him and him alone that would not only put pressure on the QB passing situations but make it difficult for him to run most of their option schemes. And, trust me, this QB was better than any one on our defense.
2. Defensively, you're screwed if you've got one-two weak players on the field, as has been pointed out. It's just too easy to isolate and attack them with proper game planning. One year, we had a terrible Will LB that was honestly the best we had for the position. We couldn't find anyone else who could do half of the job he did. We would swap and try to hide him as well as we could but teams went after him all day long. One team just lined up in the I-formation and ran the ball at him: 30+ run plays (Iso, Power, Counter) went his way and they marched it up and down the field. Even with a ridiculous amount of coaching, the kid couldn't cover for chit so some teams would make sure that he was displaced from the box and put WRs in his zones all game long. We did our best to rectify this by playing more C3 and a safety down but this made us vanilla and predictable. We also couldn't bring him on blitzes effectively as he couldn't get off of a block to save his life..
|
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Jul 25, 2016 9:04:36 GMT -6
I'm gonna say more often than not its a weak link sport. If your top 5 players and my top 5 players are reasonably close, then athletes 6-22 are really going to make a big difference. There's exceptions to this like coachbdud and his RB (who is f***ing ridiculous to watch, btw) but a typical high school game isn't going to be decided by one dude. |
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Jul 25, 2016 9:08:59 GMT -6
I would say strong link...2 reasons.Peyton Manning when he got hurt with the Colts. What was the before and after record..#2 Follow the money. NFL front offices think the qb is most important which is why they get paid the most and teams will mess up their draft for years in or to get a "brady"
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 25, 2016 10:16:40 GMT -6
It is an interesting adult beverage discussion, but I don't know how well one can apply it to a small sample set because ultimately when you are talking small samples doesn't the answer boil down to "degree" ? How much stronger is the strong link? How much weaker are the weak links?
Would you rather have the best player on the field on most occasions, or would you rather your bottom three not be the 3 worst on the field in most occasions.
Beyond that..we basically start hitting the arena of the "metrics" threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 25, 2016 10:29:10 GMT -6
It is an interesting adult beverage discussion, but I don't know how well one can apply it to a small sample set because ultimately when you are talking small samples doesn't the answer boil down to "degree" ? How much stronger is the strong link? How much weaker are the weak links? Beyond that..we basically start hitting the arena of the "metrics" threads. Yeah, especially in HS where the level of competition makes such a huge difference. At some small schools the whole league may have one D.1 player every ten years. There are also leagues that regularly produce D.1 talent. At the former, one stud can carry a team. At the latter, one really good player is just one of several. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 25, 2016 10:59:35 GMT -6
Cool discussion. coachklee has it right. Defense is weak link. Offense is strong link at qb/rb. Special teams is definitely strong linkat kicker, punter, returner, kick block specialist. That being said, overall football is weak link. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 25, 2016 13:32:24 GMT -6
Had an epiphany on this. Strong link is all based on the who can get ball.
In basketball you can always get your best player the ball.
In football the qb has the ball on every play. You can hand it to a rb on any play. WR is not as strong link because it is a little more difficult to get him the ball. Lineman don't get the ball. Defense does not have the ball. Special teams is strong link because the kickers, punters, returners all have the ball.
Baseball is weak link except for game day pitchers.
Soccer is different than basketball because there are 11 instead of 5 like basketball, but the real reason it is weak link is because there is MINIMAL scoring.
|
|
|
|
Post by runitupthemiddle on Jul 25, 2016 14:24:08 GMT -6
I'd say football is a bit more weak link especially considering the different types of links you need. A great offensive play maker can make you a lot better, but if you don't have anything else in the gameplan it could be trouble. Our Qb is pretty good but last year had struggles because we couldn't block most 5 step stuff and the running game was inconsistent. Also our most talented team in the past 5 years or so went 3-7. Injuries played a big part, but that's a weak link issue. I would agree with this, the school that I'm leaving is about to be in this situation , great great Qb and very average guys everywhere else. And a whole new defense , every started graduated. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 25, 2016 15:46:41 GMT -6
Two things I'll post FWIW:
Bear Bryant once said "Football, more than any other, is a coaches' game."
Secondly, Football more than any other is a TEAM sport.
One year we won the league championship - ran the table - but three teams had more 1st team All-Conference players than we did and one as many, and another season we tied for championship when two of our best players missed half the season each with injuries.
|
|
orion320
Sophomore Member
"Don't tell me about the labor just show me the baby!"
Posts: 211 
|
Post by orion320 on Jul 25, 2016 22:20:30 GMT -6
This is definitely a great discussion.
In my opinion, football would be a weak link sport. Arguments can be made for game situations. With a superior QB/LB you can sometimes score at will. With a few weak links on defense other teams will exploit them. I understand those situations. The reason I think football is a weak link sport all comes down to Scout Team (or as I call in Win Team).
Your #1's can be the most talented players but if they don't have anyone pushing them in practice, they don't get any better. I've coached teams with lots of skill, good lineman, and quality QB but they weren't worth a darn because our #2's and scout team were terrible. When game time came they were shocked at the skill of the opposing team.
The best teams that I have coached and quality scout teams and I always tell the scout team...your job is to make the #1's look bad, we will only be as good as you guys make use. It's the mentality of the old adage, when being chased by a lion, I don't need to outrun the lion, I just need to outrun you.
|
|
|
|
Post by jg78 on Jul 31, 2016 10:37:48 GMT -6
I think football gets broke down further to at least defense, offense & QB... Defense is a WEAK LINK thing...you are only as good as your 11th defender because of the offense figures out who that is they can spend the rest of the night going at him. Offense is more of a STRONG LINK thing. 1 or 2 Studs, especially at the QB, TB or WR position in the HS & college game & even to an extent in the NFL can pretty much move the ball all on their own. I believe this is true and will make this generalization: Coaching, emphasis, etc., being equal a team with a lot of good players but not really any great players usually will be better on defense, and a team with a few great players (particularly at the skill positions) and a bunch of average players usually will be better on offense. |
|
|
|
Post by joris85 on Aug 1, 2016 1:22:59 GMT -6
I think football gets broke down further to at least defense, offense & QB... Defense is a WEAK LINK thing...you are only as good as your 11th defender because of the offense figures out who that is they can spend the rest of the night going at him. Offense is more of a STRONG LINK thing. 1 or 2 Studs, especially at the QB, TB or WR position in the HS & college game & even to an extent in the NFL can pretty much move the ball all on their own. I agree with this as well. Another thought: In threads about two platooning, I see many coaches saying they use a draft system of sorts to determine player position: Offensive coach gets to select (one or) two players first, typically QB and RB. Defensive coach gets to select the next eleven. Offensive coach fills up offense with who's left. I think that reflects exactly what coachklee is saying. |
|
|
|
Post by sweep26 on Aug 1, 2016 8:44:45 GMT -6
This is a very interesting thread!!
I believe that, in totality, our sport would be categorized as 'Weak Link'.
It makes no difference how good our QB is, if the weak link in our protection scheme doesn't match up...our excellent QB becomes inefficient in a hurry. One example...the Chargers in the NFL.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitt1980 on Aug 1, 2016 9:16:38 GMT -6
NFL = Weak link. Everyone is a freak athlete at that level. College = Middle. HS = Strong link. If you have a D1 kid and I don't, I'm pretty much phuked. I wouldn't say that football is on a far end of either spectrum like basketball/soccer. They would kind of hover around the middle, but HS would lean to the strong side and NFL would lean weak side.
I'd say the opposite
in the NFL, even the weak links are relatively passable players, as you said, everyone is a freak
at the HS level, the weak links can be really weak
a great RB with some really weak links on his offensive line is going to have some hard time looking very good
a QB w/o somewhere to go with the ball, and some time to find those guys isn't going to look very good either, the floor for how bad it can get is a lot lower at the HS level than it is on the NFL level
college is obviously somewhere in the middle
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 1, 2016 9:44:01 GMT -6
NFL = Weak link. Everyone is a freak athlete at that level. College = Middle. HS = Strong link. If you have a D1 kid and I don't, I'm pretty much phuked. I wouldn't say that football is on a far end of either spectrum like basketball/soccer. They would kind of hover around the middle, but HS would lean to the strong side and NFL would lean weak side.
I'd say the opposite
in the NFL, even the weak links are relatively passable players, as you said, everyone is a freak
at the HS level, the weak links can be really weak
a great RB with some really weak links on his offensive line is going to have some hard time looking very good
a QB w/o somewhere to go with the ball, and some time to find those guys isn't going to look very good either, the floor for how bad it can get is a lot lower at the HS level than it is on the NFL level
college is obviously somewhere in the middle
I think one issue in this thread is that people are using words in a different manner. As I interpreted the original post, "weak link" doesn't necessarily mean a horrible player. It simply means the least talented of the group. Someone was the worst player on the 1992 Dream Team. Regardless, I think the thing that when you apply this to sports that interact while competing (football, basketball, baseball soccer, hockey etc) it gets a bit muddied because we view those as separate contests rather than a continuous process like business and therefore the most important issue is the degree of the talent differential. For example, some have said basketball is a "strong link" sport. Well, if Lebron James and my local HS team took on me and the rest of the Cleveland starting 4, Lebron is definitely the strong link, I am definitely the weak link, and I really like my chances. |
|
|
|
Post by pitt1980 on Aug 1, 2016 12:04:05 GMT -6
I'd say the opposite
in the NFL, even the weak links are relatively passable players, as you said, everyone is a freak
at the HS level, the weak links can be really weak
a great RB with some really weak links on his offensive line is going to have some hard time looking very good
a QB w/o somewhere to go with the ball, and some time to find those guys isn't going to look very good either, the floor for how bad it can get is a lot lower at the HS level than it is on the NFL level
college is obviously somewhere in the middle
I think one issue in this thread is that people are using words in a different manner. As I interpreted the original post, "weak link" doesn't necessarily mean a horrible player. It simply means the least talented of the group. Someone was the worst player on the 1992 Dream Team. Regardless, I think the thing that when you apply this to sports that interact while competing (football, basketball, baseball soccer, hockey etc) it gets a bit muddied because we view those as separate contests rather than a continuous process like business and therefore the most important issue is the degree of the talent differential. For example, some have said basketball is a "strong link" sport. Well, if Lebron James and my local HS team took on me and the rest of the Cleveland starting 4, Lebron is definitely the strong link, I am definitely the weak link, and I really like my chances.
Yeah, you're right, it changes if you're talking about you're outliers being really good or really bad
|
|
).
