The Elite Discussion

[SF Dolphin Fan]

Interesting topic on radio here regarding baseball, but I think it applies to football as well. The discussion was whether it makes more sense to improve your weakest link (bottom of the roster) or afford a handful of superstars with lesser talent at the bottom of the roster. The conversation centered around soccer as well.

One caller said that in his opinion it took 4-5 elite players for a team to win a world series. Of course, it depends on how you define elite and elite can be having a career year at an elite level. Maybe a player who typically hits 15 homeruns has a year where he hits 30.

Anyway, in terms of football how many elite players are needed to win a super bowl? Maybe the question should be restated. Do you think it makes more sense to have 3-4 elite players, or a roster that doesn't have a weak link, but maybe with 1-2 superstars? What's the more effective formula?

 

[NY8123]

Don't need to have 4 or 5 elite players in baseball to win a series. If we apply that logic to football you would need 11 elite players and we know from reality that isn't ever going to happen.

Balance wins. You have to have one elite aspect of your game. The offense or defense needs to be elite and then the rest of the team needs to be good. Four areas of grading:

Offense
Defense
Special teams (or depth)
Coaching

On area needs to be elite and one needs to be good and the other two can be average. I can make the case the defense is more important but that's not this discussion so I'll abstain from that avenue.

Look at New England.

Offense: Elite
Defense: Good to average
Special Teams: Good to Elite
Coaching: Elite

Equals dynasty and balance as a team.

 

[nick1]

Study the Patriots. Brady is really the only elite guy. But there is no weak link. Of course that is because of superior coaching too.

In summary. You need an elite QB and head coach. Then you can win

 

[finmann]

Marino was elite and so was Shula(no SB rings)......you might want to add a elite defense as well.

 

[nick1]

Marino was elite and so was Shula(no SB rings)......you might want to add a elite defense as well.

Fair point but I think that team had weak links. No running game for example

 

[finmann]

Fair point but I think that team had weak links. No running game for example

Right on

 

[Travis34]

I'm pretty much in line with NY8123's line of thought

 

[fansinceGWilson]

Don't need to have 4 or 5 elite players in baseball to win a series. If we apply that logic to football you would need 11 elite players and we know from reality that isn't ever going to happen.

Balance wins. You have to have one elite aspect of your game. The offense or defense needs to be elite and then the rest of the team needs to be good. Four areas of grading:

Offense
Defense
Special teams (or depth)
Coaching

On area needs to be elite and one needs to be good and the other two can be average. I can make the case the defense is more important but that's not this discussion so I'll abstain from that avenue.

Look at New England.

Offense: Elite
Defense: Good to average
Special Teams: Good to Elite
Coaching: Elite

Equals dynasty and balance as a team.

Had an old college prof who's contribution to my life was a "rule" . . . no debate can be resolved if definitions aren't set before the debate. Thus, my definition of "elite" (and it will be generous). For this discussion, "elite" means 1st or 2nd team All-Pro for the previous year. Yes, quite generous. But, it will make my point. Look at the last 10 teams to be IN the SB, count the number of "elite" players from each of the teams, and determine what the "minimum" number of elite players is. Doesn't take many - often less than a handful. In the last SB, NE had 5 (4 on 2nd team) and Atlanta had 4. FWIW, if "elite" is defined at 1st team All-Pro, the "elite" players are, obviously, much less. I'll stick with where I've been for decades . . . top teams have NO (or almost no) "bad" players. Yes, elite players are needed, but not in big numbers. Top quartile players are needed. But "bad" players are poison.

 

[gregorygrant83]

Study the Patriots. Brady is really the only elite guy. But there is no weak link. Of course that is because of superior coaching too.

In summary. You need an elite QB and head coach. Then you can win

Gronk is an elite tightend. COuld be called the top elite tight end.

 

[NY8123]

Had an old college prof who's contribution to my life was a "rule" . . . no debate can be resolved if definitions aren't set before the debate. Thus, my definition of "elite" (and it will be generous). For this discussion, "elite" means 1st or 2nd team All-Pro for the previous year. Yes, quite generous. But, it will make my point. Look at the last 10 teams to be IN the SB, count the number of "elite" players from each of the teams, and determine what the "minimum" number of elite players is. Doesn't take many - often less than a handful. In the last SB, NE had 5 (4 on 2nd team) and Atlanta had 4. FWIW, if "elite" is defined at 1st team All-Pro, the "elite" players are, obviously, much less. I'll stick with where I've been for decades . . . top teams have NO (or almost no) "bad" players. Yes, elite players are needed, but not in big numbers. Top quartile players are needed. But "bad" players are poison.

I agree. New England is an example of what it takes to be a dynasty in today's NFL.

Take a team like that Saints the year they won. Offense was elite, defense was good, depth was average and coaching was good.

Elite doesn't mean you need several players who are elite. Elite means the talent that you have together is above and beyond the normal NFL team and plays at a level that is elite.

 

[gregorygrant83]

I would take my chances with 22 compitent played on offense and defense over a handful of "elite" players. You don't need elite players if you have 22 players who have decent skill level a grasp on their roles and assignments. A coach once told me more games are lost due to mistakes and errors than are won by individual outstanding play. A lot of fourth quarter game winning plays or drives are the result of a player being out of position, missing an assignment or taking a bad angle as opposed to a grea play by a defenderor offensive play maker. Not saying all big plays are the result of mistakes, just more than those that were just due to elite talent.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

Give me an elite coach and the rest will fall into place.

 

[SF Dolphin Fan]

Give me an elite coach and the rest will fall into place.

I think you hit the mark. Using New England as a model, they have an elite coach and an elite quarterback. That's been a fantastic formula for them. Obviously, through the years they've always had a very good defense and other star players here and there. Gronk certainly is elite at tight end.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

I think you hit the mark. Using New England as a model, they have an elite coach and an elite quarterback. That's been a fantastic formula for them. Obviously, through the years they've always had a very good defense and other star players here and there. Gronk certainly is elite at tight end.

NE does win with elite talent, but they constantly and consistently win regardless of the constants or consistency of that elite talent.

IOW, they have no problem moving on from Richard Seymor, Mike Vrabel, Curtis Martin, Randy Moss, Vince Wilfork, Darrelle Revis, Adam Vinatieri, etc. etc. and more recently Chandler Jones & Jamie Collins. They also win games without injured players like Tom Brady, and Rob Gronkowski.

The one never changing variable in the Patriots success has always been Bill Belichick.

 

[Fin Thirteen]

Give me an elite coach and the rest will fall into place.

I think it's certainly the foundation stone on top of which everything is built. And I think coach is even a misnomer, because as well as training up players, an elite figurehead has to play a big hand in selection of players that he/she can work with and an even bigger one in strategy/playcalling.

The famous quote about Shula and winning with "his'n or your'n" has a lot of truth to it, if the coach is as talented as Shula was at motivation and playcalling.

Great coaches don't need for everyone to be "elite" players or sometimes even very good players. They play to their strengths and your weaknesses. Belichick is a master at attacking your weak point with his strong point. He also puts extra resources into taking away your strong point. And it works, over and over.

The fact he does that hints at the answer to the OP's question. A team shouldn't have any glaring weak links and it should have a few really elite players, rather than really solid players all round.

I remember reading an interview with a sports psychologist who was working with an obscenely gifted team sports guy. The sportsman was putting insane hours into improving his perceived areas of weakness. The psychologist told him he was crazy. "Don't over focus on what you're bad at, use most of that time to make what you're good at even better"

It's debatable whether what's good for the individual is also good for the team, but my guess is it is. Better to have one or two areas of insane strength in the team than be solid all round.