Quote
9er8er
Quote
Suh-weet!
Can your argument make sense of this:
If the OL performs much better this year - and the OL w/it it -- w/pretty much the same cast of characters, you'll chalk it up to a talent infusion?
You may be having difficulty with my argument because it's actually an argument. What you're attempting to respond to it with isn't.
A hypothetical doesn't change a current reality. It's not an argument by definition. We can just as well go with the William Hayes style "argument" as yours. If a mermaid walks out of the Pacific and uses her magical powers to improve the Rams overall performance, is it attributable to an increase in talent?
Finally, if an OL that has been bad suddenly becomes good, it will still require that there is no corresponding regression somewhere else, such as secondary, to net a positive overall gain. In other words, if the team suddenly shows a significant improvement in overall results that have been stagnant for 4 years, then at least you will have an argument in support of the hypothesis that this regime is improving the talent. Short of that, you're going to have to find another way to do it that rises above the William Hayes standard of mermaid belief and dinosaur denial.
You seem to be saying that performance = talent.
I disagree. Talent is obviously just one ingredient in the mix that accounts for performance - whether the performance of an OL or the actual won-lost record of a team.
So I'm asking you how you would explain a sudden leap in performance, whether that of a team, a position group, etc.
I certainly don't need to rely on hypotheticals to refute the claim that talent = performance.
Dolphins in 2008, Chiefs in 2013, Colts in 2012 - good luck explaining those w/reference to "talent" alone.