Quote
Suh-weet!
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.
No, I'll remind you with a direct quote what I seem to be saying again:
Quote
"As I've clarified throughout this thread, I'm saying that 4 straight seasons of losing and no appreciable progress made from the first to fourth means the talent level is what the results say it is."
Performance = talent could mean any sample size. If a superior team plays a poor game, does performance = talent? No. If a team loses and shows no progress in net output for 4 consecutive years does performance = talent? There is no other reasonable conclusion.
If results experience a short term positive change, does it = talent? Maybe, or it could just be random variance at play. If results experience a long term positive change while other variables like regime remain stable does it = talent? There is no other reasonable conclusion.
2008 Dolphins = short term positive change. Had 3 different regimes during the previous 3 seaons.
2013 Chiefs = Regime change and significant personnel turnover from prior season.
2012 Colts = See 2013 Chiefs
None of those situations remotely resembles a Rams team where regime stability and quality is significantly controlled for 4 years and the only underlying variance in performance can be most reasonably attributed to the aggregate quality of the performers. And just so there's no misunderstanding here, I'm not saying it's impossible that the aggregate quality of talent has been improving yet invisible by any objectively measurable standard for a span of 4 years under the Fisher regime. It is possible that's happening and some day soon it's all going to manifest itself in one big wet dream of a season and future seasons. Just as I'm not saying it's impossible that a mermaid exists in the universe somewhere. What I'm saying is, if that condition has existed and exists today, there is virtually no rational way to know or believe it. It would require faith, which may be faith you have in this regime and I don't, but faith also isn't an argument.