dusting off the cobwebs of this thing…..

now with more aggro!!!

This post has been on the shelf for a while, so forgive the incomplete thoughts…..

I apologize for the extended break here, y’all. I’ve been unplugging on a sabbatical and really just taking a step back from everything.

I don’t watch television anymore, but every year at this time is always filled with stimulus for the football junkie to crescendo into the climax of the NFL Draft. It is the Senior Bowl, the Scouting Combine, then the Pro Days, then the Draft. An exercise in marketing, hype, and metrics with the benefit of stoking the next great insight into the ‘missing piece’ or next Hall of Famer in the NFL. This lust for the prized champion is probably best epitomized with the drafting of Ricky Williams (tunnel vision to a must-have player).

What I’ve always been amused by was the impact of group-think / mass-appeal when it comes to stories catching fire and raising the stock of a player’s worth. Whether it is Warren Sapp’s marijuana test or Cam Newton’s comments on being an “entertainer”, the slightest crosswind in the pony show can result in a six-figure imbalance all because of a change in personal opinion.

Continuing the diatribe of irritation previously, where flash carries more impact than substance, the amusing meme of Vontaze Burfict. Burfict’s “flash” on the field was exemplified in aggressive junior high antics (making a scene for the cameras), but making few plays as a linebacker. What has been interesting over the course of two seasons is how this ‘performance’ has been interpreted by hacks “analysts”. This type of hype snowballs to create an exaggerated monster of perception. Burfict is used here simply as a case study, this happens all over the place whether it is the Draft or HS Recruiting Prospects. Burfict’s aggression was interpreted as him being a “mean” player, and well, naturally, if he is ‘mean’, he’s gotta be a great player, amirite (because to become a better defender one simply has to “tackle harder”)?
 
I bring this up because football in its purest form ultimately comes down to fundamentals and the execution, both physically and mentally.  As dispassionate and mechanical as that sounds, there really are key metrics to examine a player’s worth on the field. Yes, the Combine and Pro Days can provide an assessment for athletic capacity, but more than anything it is gameplay that determines if a player can actually fulfill his role on the field. I am not going to make an argument for or against the vetting of NFL commodities (players).

The intent of this post is just to document how players can be lauded as a myth, despite performing at the same level each week.  Beware of Bullshit. While Burfict started for ASU at middle linebacker from 2009 to 2011, his legend grew. By the end of the 2010 season, NFL Draft expert, Todd McShay felt his talent was 1^st round worthy. This isn’t to bash McShay (nor was I bashing Mayock last year) but to pump the breaks on the information train. The film is there, his performance is documented, yet McShay delivered a different account of what was actually taking place. It would make you question what this person was analyzing, what they were looking at to base their claims.

How do we judge whether is a player is ‘good’ or ‘bad’?   Stats are causational, physical attributes represent output potential, but to actually grade efficiency you would have to recognize how that player is supposed to perform on the field. You really don’t even have to have an intimate knowledge of a playbook to quantify a performance. Its all going to come down to the fundamentals of the position. Athletic capacity is relative to the opponents played against (the NFL carries a litmus by position….minimum standards to see if your talent could actually compete with others of elite caliber athletes). A linebacker can easily assessed on the fundamentals of the position; stance, start, key recognition, pursuit, tackling, and hustle. A liability on the field is an ass sitting the bench (asset on the bench).

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2010/8/14/1616859/cgb-pre-season-arizona-state
http://www.carolinahuddle.com/forum/77367-vontaze-burfict-the-meanest-man-6.html
http://arizona.sbnation.com/arizona-st-sun-devils/2012/2/4/2769930/nfl-mock-draft-2012-todd-mcshay-vontaze-burfict
http://www.fftoolbox.com/nfl_draft/user_mock_drafts.cfm
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/21/sports/la-sp-0922-vontaze-burfict-20110922
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/asu/articles/2010/01/07/20100107spt-asu-vontaze-burfict.html
http://www.foxsportsarizona.com/09/18/10/ASU-cant-defeat-own-personal-demons/landing.html?blockID=313880&feedID=3702
http://draftdatabase.wordpress.com/tag/vontaze-burfict/
http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20110827/NEWS0107/108270329/
http://www.csnbayarea.com/09/06/11/BTompkinsb-Dont-doubt-Sun-Devils-in-Pac-/landing_tompkins.html
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/asu/articles/2011/08/27/20110827asu-football-reasons-optimism-concerns.html

Best defensive player: Arizona State linebacker Vontaze Burfict. He was heralded as a tremendous prospect when he first arrived at ASU, and he hasn't disappointed. In fact, the only knock is that he draws too many penalties. Can a linebacker be too mean? Burfict has vowed to play more under control, which will make him even better. A punishing hitter with great power and range, Burfict posted 90 tackles last season and was named all-conference.

We really could pick any game here, but to be fair, lets present Exhibit A against a competent opponent in Wisconsin, who runs an offense not unlike what we see every Sunday from every team in the NFL.
The definition of production at the position is directly relational to the player’s competency in fundamentals (position, leverage, tackling, hustle, etc).  The player here (#7) routinely stays blocked, misses tackles, fails to anticipate routes as they develop around him, and worst of all, just flat out gives up if he’s not immediately around the ball. 

If we’re not judging players (in The Draft or on the field) for what they can produce, then we’re just bullshitting ourselves…..

Successful Football: Contrary to (blind) 'Faith'

With a generous hat tip to Carl Sagan and Dr. Michael Shermer here......

When we first start out, we can be rather credulous, and willing to believe or accept just about any idea we encounter, especially people in authority, former coaches, professional players, sportscasters, or the Internet. With a sea of information coming at us from all directions, how do we sift out the misinformation, bogus claims, right and wrong, and get down to the truth?

Often times we believe things because our brains are wired to find meaningful patterns (see last month) to help us with recognition (TT + lots of points + exciting + DI football = "I need to run air raid to score points" or "43 teams can stop the run, therefore only the 43 can stop the run"). Many patterns are real, and its good to know what those patterns are - that's called learning. We connect A to B (often times A really is connected to B). The problem becomes that a lot of patterns we see everyday are false (superstitious,emotional, not real).

Naturally, we look to find safety/comfort/confidence in the routine condition that we've always known or admired. The more reputable or esteemed the speaker or presenter, the more awestruck we may likely be to adhere to those ideas without question.

But how do you know if State U's schemes or philosophies or techniques are right or wrong?

You don't.

You shouldn't believe anyone based on authority, records, charisma, or whatever position they hold.


Here are ten challenges we should present ourselves with when encountering a new or old idea towards the game.

How reliable is the source of the claim?
Holes or liabilities are expected, nothing is bulletproof in the game. However, if the errors are all in one direction or lay heavily on one area, then we should think there is more than meets the eye here.
You'll find claims being made to always support a particular belief, an inherent bias.

Does the source make similar claims?
You likely find 'conservative' play-callers carry this thinking over into ALL phases of the game (or vis versa). Adhering to a mindset simply because it is a mindset, rather than following supporting data to determine their thinking. Be open enough to accept new ideas, but not so open that your brains fall out.

Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
Has it been vetted elsewhere? Can the results be replicated with other variables?

Does this fit with the way the real world works?
Think Nigerian Prince emails (use Jump Bands and your kids will turn into DI athletes). Does it pass the smell test? How fanciful is the belief and how much does it prey upon our desires?


Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
What is the counter argument? What other (ancillary) factors could be involved to explain the asserted results? What does a critical eye think of the claim?

Where does the preponderance of evidence point to?
Does it point directly to the claim, or somewhere else? What about the other evidence out there (does it explain it directly)? Much like solving a crime, does the evidence build a strong enough case for conviction?

Is the claimant playing by the fundamentals of the game?
Is logic and reason and real-world applications being utilized or are they just trying to 'make a case' for their particular claim?

Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
Are they providing reasoning for their conclusion or are they just denying evidence of the "other" way of thinking? ("Wing-T is sooo old school, no one wins with that anymore...")

Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
Anyone can find a few anomolies in the current way of thinking, but is there anything more than just basing an ideology off of the deficiencies of the former ("the 53 sucks against trips,...therefore you should never have a 5 man front"). Can this 'new' way provide an answer for the former holes and more?

Are personal beliefs (or insecurities) driving the claim?
Is bias the driving force behind the idea? Are pieces of data being ignored/amplified to satisfy ego?


Question EVERYTHING!
Shoot holes in your program so your opponents can't

Being skeptical isn't lacking faith, and faith (in that which is unchallenged) is not confidence