Ditka, Meatballs, and Revisionist History

Irish Boy · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:37 am

I’m positive that it does matter, in at least some small way. But any factor that emotions may play is completely unknowable, drowned out by talent considerations, and subject to hindsight bias.

Completely unknowable: Psychology is tricky, and individual players are motivated by a lot of different things. Some are just type-A personalities that want to win whatever the endeavor. Some are looking to pad their stats. Some are playing for a roster spot. Some are looking to get traded or get signed in the off-season and want to look good. Some don’t want to let their teammates down. Etc, etc. Plus, different players respond to different motivations. Some players get inspired by shouting and throwing things. Most laugh about it. Some players like coaches that leave them to play the game. Some become lazy by it. And whatever we may know or think we know about individual players (remember, what we “know” comes mostly in the form of sound bites or what we see during games), we have no idea how that interplay between 53 players will affect the outcome of a game.

Drowned out by talent considerations: better teams tend to win games. Not more motivated teams. Not angrier teams. Not calmer teams. There is no stronger correlation than that between talent and winning. So if we can further ourselves primarily by determining what talent matters most to winning football games, why waste time on a bunch of pap about “wanting it more” or “being hungry” or whatever the cliché may be?

Hindsight bias: A revved up team is good… unless they’re too revved up and they make mistakes. A team thrives under pressure, unless they lose; then they "choked". A quiet team that just wins is “professional” or “surgical”; a quiet team that loses is “unmotivated.” A team with “momentum” is “confident”, unless they have too much momentum, at which point they’re “overconfident”. No one knows any of these things until after the game, and even then it’s just conjecture. They’re stories we tell ourselves because math is hard and talking about “who wanted it more” is easier.

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:44 am

Irish Boy wrote:

why waste time on a bunch of pap about “wanting it more” or “being hungry” or whatever the cliché may be?

Because that seems to be the case in certain games. Ask Joe Namath and his teammates about that.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:46 am

Psychology is tricky. Agreed.

Individual players are motivated by a lot of different things. Agreed.

The key to me is being able to push the correct buttons for each individual player while also setting an overall tone for the team. Successful coaches can do it (as well as managers in offices, parents, etc.). Sometimes coaches are exceptional at it, reading people, motivating them. Any competitive sport that I've been involved in has had an emotional component. The good coaches that I have had have been able to get our teams to tap into that, practice harder, study longer, prepare better - which all plays out into the "physical" aspect on the field.

Football is a team game based on preparation. You do have to "want it more". Wanting it more translates into all those things I just mentioned. It doesn't just mean "I'm want to rip your head off" when the ball is kicked. I think you could even argue that 90% of pro football teams have equal "talent" and physical ability and it's all about "who wants it more". I won't go that far.

I find that people that dismiss Ditka tend to fall into your frame of thinking - that, while a factor, it ultimately has relatively less impact on the game than just the pure talent on the field. People that think Ditka had more impact put more emphasis on that component of preparation and desire.

Ugueth Will Shiv You · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:01 pm

"Wanting it more" really just refers to improving your chances of successfully meeting a goal. That sounds pretty obvious, but if you apply that same emotion to everyday life, all you are really asking for is increased productivity.

For example, I work in sales. It gets really fucking boring most of the time, but if I "want it more" during a work week, I will make more sales calls. More sales calls mean more sales leads, which means more revenue, which leads to more success.

In theory, if players "want it more", this usually means they will put more hours in the gym, in the film room, on the practice field, shit like that. This doesn't necessarily mean that the player is "better" than another player; instead, he is just increasing his probability of success.

Irish Boy · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:14 pm

I think it's a fallacy to compare professional football, especially in today's game, to everyday life. Professional football players, even bad ones, are the very tip of a large iceberg. They wouldn't be there if they didn't want "it" pretty badly. I think motivation is more similar across the board than talent. It's a danger to compare these things to everyday life because it's doubtful that any of us are anywhere as good at anything as professional football players are at football. The competition is just too severe.

There comes a point where you can't work more than the other guy. Jon Gruden is famous for working 20 hours a day, seven days a week during the season, and not much less in the offseason. There also comes a point where you can't be more competitive. You just need to be better. If you're good enough to make the NFL, you're probably not skating by on just talent alone... and those examples of guys that were got spit up and chewed out of the league pretty quickly.

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Irish Boy wrote:

why waste time on a bunch of pap about “wanting it more” or “being hungry” or whatever the cliché may be?

Because that seems to be the case in certain games. Ask Joe Namath and his teammates about that.

See hindsight bias.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:55 pm

Irish Boy wrote:

If you're good enough to make the NFL, you're probably not skating by on just talent alone... and those examples of guys that were got spit up and chewed out of the league pretty quickly.

The NFL is full of guys that are just skating by on their natural talent. Look at Kyle Orton. By all accounts, he was in the league 2-3 years, including one year where he started 10+ games, before he realized he needed to take this more seriously.

I do not think every NFL player has reached their peak capabilities against some glass ceiling. Continuous improvement is what makes people excel, especially now. With the money involved, there is more danger to having these guys just be happy to be here and cash their checks. Am I right, Cedric Benson?

Some guys get spit out, the marginal ones. Some guys have tremendous talent and can get by for years without ever reaching their potential.

And I am better at everything I do than any NFL player is at football.

Ugueth Will Shiv You · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:58 pm

Irish Boy wrote:

I think it's a fallacy to compare professional football, especially in today's game, to everyday life. Professional football players, even bad ones, are the very tip of a large iceberg. They wouldn't be there if they didn't want "it" pretty badly. I think motivation is more similar across the board than talent. It's a danger to compare these things to everyday life because it's doubtful that any of us are anywhere as good at anything as professional football players are at football. The competition is just too severe.

There comes a point where you can't work more than the other guy. Jon Gruden is famous for working 20 hours a day, seven days a week during the season, and not much less in the offseason. There also comes a point where you can't be more competitive. You just need to be better. If you're good enough to make the NFL, you're probably not skating by on just talent alone... and those examples of guys that were got spit up and chewed out of the league pretty quickly.

I don't think it's a fallacy when the player is on the same playing field as other NFL players. As the good Doc just stated, the possibility of continued skill improvement doesn't end on draft day.

City of Fools · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:00 pm

Walt Williams Neck wrote:

Irish Boy wrote:

Stagg ran a lot of wingback early but was critical to the success of the I-formation as well. He was an early purveyor of the shotgun (few people realize how old the shotgun is) and I believe was the first person to put a man in motion before the snap. Even in his I-formation, he was more a predecessor of the 50s wishbone and flexbone systems then he was of the power "T-formation" tupe running game. A modern day decendant of Stagg would be someone like Paul Johnson at Nebraska, although the system has been revolutionized quite a few times since then.

Halas was more in the style, especially early, of the classic power running game and the use of three lined-up backs to create blocking mismatches. Eventually this morphed into the classic I-formation, where the fullback leads for the halfback in blocking, instead of the misdirection-based Stagg I-formation where the A and B back would often hit different holes and the QB would either option or know before the snap which player was getting the ball.

Lombardi was probably the least innovative of the three, although he may have been the most successful overall. His style was closer to that of Stagg, in that the goal of the offense was to attack at the flanks, although by pulling guards and even tackles Lombardi sought to establish a power presence more than Stagg's offense.

There. No Wikipedia. No sources. Anything else on the quiz? Or is it my turn to play "stump the moron"?

APTOS, Calif. -- Howard ''Red" Hickey, the National Football League coach who invented the shotgun offensive formation with the San Francisco 49ers, died Thursday, his son said. He was 89.

Jeffrey Hickey didn't disclose the cause of his father's death.

Mr. Hickey coached the 49ers from 1959 to 1963, going 27-27-1 before resigning three games into the 1963 season. He also played on the Cleveland Rams' 1945 championship team, was an assistant coach for the Los Angeles Rams' title club in 1951, and spent two decades as an assistant and scout for the Dallas Cowboys.

He made history in 1960 when he combined elements of a punt formation, a spread passing attack, and a double-wing formation invented by Stanford's Pop Warner into the shotgun -- so named by Mr. Hickey because it sprayed receivers around the field.

Hickey did create it in '61 but it was only moderately successful. When they played the Bears Bill George blew it up because he continually beat the 49'ers center and Wade had a good day passing to Ditka. But I do think Hickey began the shotgun itself with the spread ends.

City of Fools · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:04 pm

by the way, echoing my previous post, Clark was again the best Bears coach ever, he came up with a defense to blow up the shotgun after only seeing it used for 3 regular season games. Best Bears coach of all time.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:09 pm

Start your own Clark, Candy Bars, and Forgotten History thread, CoF.

City of Fools · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:13 pm

but nobody posts in my threads, they only post in yours...

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

City of Fools wrote:

Best Bears coach of all time.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:33 pm

City of Fools wrote:

but nobody posts in my threads, they only post in yours...

It only seems appropriate in this thread.

WHO YOU CRAPPIN'?

NAH, NAH, NAH NOW, DON'T CRAP ME...

http://score670.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26818

City of Fools · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:38 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:

City of Fools wrote:

but nobody posts in my threads, they only post in yours...

It only seems appropriate in this thread.

WHO YOU CRAPPIN'?

NAH, NAH, NAH NOW, DON'T CRAP ME...

http://score670.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26818

A young Terry Boers wrote:

Whoop-sa-daisy...

enigma · **Joined:** Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:26 pm **Posts:** 1568

Where does Abe Gibron figure in all this?

How about a Jim Dooley?

City of Fools · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:59 pm

Abe Gibron: Neither good nor bad, just fat and scary. OK, he was a decent strategist.

Jim Dooley: helped ruin Sayers career by keeping him at running back starting in ’68 instead of moving him to flanker to avoid all the punishment his body took. Plus he helped get rid of the best Bears QB of the decade, Virgil Carter.

Irish Boy · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:29 pm

City of Fools wrote:

Walt Williams Neck wrote:

Irish Boy wrote:

Stagg ran a lot of wingback early but was critical to the success of the I-formation as well. He was an early purveyor of the shotgun (few people realize how old the shotgun is) and I believe was the first person to put a man in motion before the snap. Even in his I-formation, he was more a predecessor of the 50s wishbone and flexbone systems then he was of the power "T-formation" tupe running game. A modern day decendant of Stagg would be someone like Paul Johnson at Nebraska, although the system has been revolutionized quite a few times since then.

Halas was more in the style, especially early, of the classic power running game and the use of three lined-up backs to create blocking mismatches. Eventually this morphed into the classic I-formation, where the fullback leads for the halfback in blocking, instead of the misdirection-based Stagg I-formation where the A and B back would often hit different holes and the QB would either option or know before the snap which player was getting the ball.

Lombardi was probably the least innovative of the three, although he may have been the most successful overall. His style was closer to that of Stagg, in that the goal of the offense was to attack at the flanks, although by pulling guards and even tackles Lombardi sought to establish a power presence more than Stagg's offense.

There. No Wikipedia. No sources. Anything else on the quiz? Or is it my turn to play "stump the moron"?

APTOS, Calif. -- Howard ''Red" Hickey, the National Football League coach who invented the shotgun offensive formation with the San Francisco 49ers, died Thursday, his son said. He was 89.

Jeffrey Hickey didn't disclose the cause of his father's death.

Mr. Hickey coached the 49ers from 1959 to 1963, going 27-27-1 before resigning three games into the 1963 season. He also played on the Cleveland Rams' 1945 championship team, was an assistant coach for the Los Angeles Rams' title club in 1951, and spent two decades as an assistant and scout for the Dallas Cowboys.

He made history in 1960 when he combined elements of a punt formation, a spread passing attack, and a double-wing formation invented by Stanford's Pop Warner into the shotgun -- so named by Mr. Hickey because it sprayed receivers around the field.

Hickey did create it in '61 but it was only moderately successful. When they played the Bears Bill George blew it up because he continually beat the 49'ers center and Wade had a good day passing to Ditka. But I do think Hickey began the shotgun itself with the spread ends.

Watch the video I posted. Hickey ran a shotgun closer in style to the "spread" we see today. He was also the first to call it the "shotgun". But he wasn't the first to run the shotgun.

Irish Boy · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:33 pm

I don't really care whether I convince anyone or not, and I'm resigned to the fact that my thoughts are often in the minority. However, understand the consequences of your opinions. If true, 1.) talent matters a great deal less than we assume, 2.) football and any sport is essentially unknowable, since ultimate success turns on such nebulous questions as "who wanted it more."

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:48 pm

1. I think in team sports, individual talent frequently does matter much less than many assume unless the talent disparity is large which usually is not the case in professional sports.

2. When "who wanted it more" is translated to its actual meaning of who prepared best, put in the time, did the work, it is much less nebulous than you characterize it as. Also, that inability to assess "who wanted it more" led to "on any given Sunday" and the small industry of sports gambling.

I'm glad you agree with me now, IB.

Beardown · **Joined:** Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm **Posts:** 33998

Point spreads make everything even on any given Sunday.

Irish Boy · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:57 pm

Actually, I should add a third caveat, which I missed (and which wasn't clear to me until you posted that): you assume that schemes are much less important than traditionally held. I think I could maybe subscribe, with some hesitations, to the first caveat. But not the last two.

At some point the conversation becomes circular though and there are just irresolvable differences of opinion. When you and I become GMs, you look for the next Ditka and I'll look for the next Walsh. I'll bet you a dollar I win more super bowls.

Irish Boy · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:59 pm

Beardown wrote:

Point spreads make everything even on any given Sunday.

Remember, the results can be highly randomized and thus indeterminable and still not hinge upon emotional or psychological factors. My argument would be that it's luck, not emotions, that determine most football games.

Beardown · **Joined:** Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm **Posts:** 33998

I'm gonna look for a Walshka or a Ditsh when I become a GM. That guy would be the best ever.

Beardown · **Joined:** Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm **Posts:** 33998

Irish Boy wrote:

Beardown wrote:

Point spreads make everything even on any given Sunday.

Remember, the results can be highly randomized and thus indeterminable and still not hinge upon emotional or psychological factors. My argument would be that it's luck, not emotions, that determine most football games.

No. Luck is a factor but it's smaller than you seem to think.

spmack · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:06 pm

Luck is usually a factor when it comes to me meeting chicks....

Irish Boy · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:08 pm

If Ron Zook opened a steakhouse, steers would line themselves up outside to be served.

If a steak came back well done, Ron Zook would clap his hands and it'd be medium-rare.

After the meal, it'd be customary to leave 15% to the waiter and 20% to Ron Zook.

The reason Ron Zook will never open a steakhouse is because it would be so disastrous to the local economy. Every restaurant within a 50 mile radius would be forced out of business.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:09 pm

Irish Boy wrote:

When you and I become GMs, you look for the next Ditka and I'll look for the next Walsh. I'll bet you a dollar I win more super bowls.

Forget that.

I'm just trying to defend the meatballs. Two words, Chief -

Ron Zook

newper · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:22 pm

Irish Boy wrote:

My argument would be that it's luck, not emotions, that determine most football games.

I would argue it is the Ghost of Walter Payton blocking field goals and extra points. And occasionally the Ghost of Reggie White will cause QBs to fumble, but he is often busy on Sundays.

newper · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:23 pm

Irish Boy wrote:

The reason Ron Zook will never open a steakhouse is because it would be so disastrous to the local economy. Every restaurant within a 50 mile radius would be forced out of business.

I think the real reason is that he's afraid Field Turf will open his own joint next door.

Regular Reader · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:51 pm

City of Fools wrote:

Plus he helped get rid of the best Bears QB of the decade, Virgil Carter.

Gold Jerry, comedy gold....oh wait....damn, he may be right/does it matter?

Ditka, Meatballs, and Revisionist History

Who is online