Stats mean “NOTHING”? So the fact that you can look up every all-time leader and top 10 player in yards, tackles, sacks etc and find, with a very high correlation the players who are considered by fans subjectively as the all-time greats how can you say that they are worthless?

As has been said already, stats can be a useful tool to aid the human eye on evaluating a player in any sport. Generally speaking those that are successful at the lower levels of sport have a better chance to do well in the higher ones than those that do not (independent of all other qualities). The exception does not make the rule.

The first QB taken was Dan McGwire at 16th overall by Seattle. His last year at San Diego State in 1990 he played 11 games, threw for 3833 yards, 27 TDs and only 7 INTs, with a 148.57 QB rating. He sat his first pro year behind Dave Krieg. His second year, when he was supposed to take over as starter, he couldn’t beat out Stan Gelbaugh and Kelly Stouffer, and was 3rd string QB. He was in the NFL for 5 years, never produced.

The 3rd QB taken was a guy by the name of Brett Favre in the 2nd round by the Falcons. He played for Southern Miss and his senior season started 11 games with stats like 1572 yards, 7 TDs and 6 INTs. I think we know where his story goes.

It’s not always about stats, sometimes stats “lie” because there are other intangibles that can’t be taken into consideration. Who were the opponents, what were the specific strengths of the opponents, who was the supporting cast of the player in question, things like that. You can’t compare apples to apples, because there are too many variables to factor in. Seriously, if I had left out the names and just asked if you want the guy that threw for almost 4000 yards and a 27/7 TD/INT ratio or the guy that had about 1600 yards and a 7/6 TD/INT ratio, there’d be no doubt in your mind who you’d want.

For example, numerous stats of late have reinforced the claim that not only is having a great passing offense is better than having a great rushing offense, but also that having a great offense, in general, is better than having a great defense.

The point is, no, they are not a cure all. And no, they aren’t nearly as important in football as in baseball. But yes, they do have a purpose and yes, you CAN learn a lot and predict future performance based on stats.

Stats tell a part of the tale and must be considered. BUT, they don’t tell the most important part of the tale, and must never be the main point considered.

As Mark Twain said, “There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Which is obviously important, but the ability to consistently make throws is even more important. We could all see that when the Cardinals trotted out Max Hall at quarterback against the Bucs and he simply couldn’t make the throws.

/long live Major Applewhite

No one argued that Colt McCoy was supposed to be the number one pick in the draft

Trent Dilfer argued he should have been the first quarterback picked in the draft… before doctors cleared him of the nerve damage he sustained in the BCS title game where his arm went dead.

Oh, Dilfer and McCoy share the same agent. But Dilfer swears that did not influence his premise. Right.

Every ‘stathead’ worth his salt will tell you that you need to look at stats in context, and combine them with scouting and other analysis to get a complete picture. Yet whenever someone wants to rail against stats they pretend that there are analysts out there who look at stats and nothing else. In baseball, maybe. In football? I haven’t met a single one.