tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post371181625341123701..comments2023-04-29T06:23:15.959-04:00Comments on Defensive Indifference: On consistencyJasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834181305584355651noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post-38246152648069495682009-07-08T12:07:15.051-04:002009-07-08T12:07:15.051-04:00My problem is with the use of the word and how peo...My problem is with the use of the word and how people equate "consistent" with "good." The Vikings didn't struggle in 2007 and 2008 because their passing game was inconsistent, they struggled because it was bad.<br /><br />A QB who completes 40% of his passes and throws two interceptions every game is consistent. So is one who completes 60% of his passes and throws two touchdowns every game. They are both as consistent as possible. One, however, is <i>better</i>. And if that second QB occasionally completes only 50% with one TD, I'll still take him over the other guy, despite his "inconsistency."<br /><br />On a per-play basis, you might be right, consistency, especially in the running game, is important. But you usually don't hear that. <br /><br />I could also question whether being consistent, on a game-by-game basis, is better than having wild fluctuations, assuming the average is still the same. Would the Vikings be better off if AP ran for exactly 100 yards every game or if he alternated between 50 and 150 every other game? I still think the desire for consistency is a factor of people being afraid of the unknown, to some degree. They know AP can run for 100 (or more) yards, so why is he only running for 50 this game? It doesn't make sense!Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09834181305584355651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post-47707028071359817112009-07-07T23:01:15.137-04:002009-07-07T23:01:15.137-04:00On a per-game basis, AP was fairly consistent last...On a per-game basis, AP was fairly consistent last season: he had 75+ yards rushing in 15 of 16 games.<br /><br />Certainly football is a weird sport, and even the greatest players are going to have numbers fluctuate greatly from week to week. However, I do think that greatness really is based on consistency. All professional athletes should be capable of great games. Great players consistently produce great games. And to be successful, they need to; if you're satisfied with up-and-down performances, that probably means you're satisfied with 8-8 seasons.<br /><br />I'm not as concerned about AP's per-game consistency as his per-play consistency. Frequently during AP's career, the Viking passing game has been dreadful, and AP's long runs were better for the team than a bunch of consistent 4-5 yard runs. What good does it do to churn out yards when the offense is going to eventually stall due to no passing game anyway? I would cite as an example the 2008 Colts game, when AP had something like 160 yards rushing, but the offense scored no TDs, because there was no passing threat. That's also how I felt about the 2007 season: the best offense was a couple of long runs a game.<br /><br />However, I don't think that's a way to build a successful offense. Inconsistent running on a per-play basis leads to a lot of 2nd and 10s, 3rd and 8s. A boom-and-bust offense means more three-and-outs. I think a more consistent running game helps the offense succeed, which helps the team win (which is what we really care about, not what AP's numbers add up to).<br /><br />There's a danger in fetishizing consistency, and I don't mean to overrate it. But I do think it is important. Perhaps I'm thinking here from a team perspective rather than an individual player perspective, because as I said, to be a winning team, you obviously have to be more than good one week, mediocre or bad the next.pacifist vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639283781758286098noreply@blogger.com