Availability alone puts Prescott over Goff.
I'm not necessarily diagre
More in depth stats. Not just basic box score stats. A lot of sites use this now. Like Football outsiders. Our defense was 9th in scoring which is good. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Their efficiency was actually 19th. Efficiency is a factor of points per drive, yards per drive, plays per drive, turnovers, negative plays, etc. Watching the games you knew our defense was not a top 10 defense as our 9th in scoring would suggest.
I don't think that was my original point. But thanks for explaining "analytics" is just more stats.
I disagree that just trotting out stats alone is a good thing. VISUALLY breaking down plays, maybe some graphics like route running and ball trajectory?
I was making an assumption you were mocking people that claim to "eye test". Using observation of plays rather than stats?
But we HAVE to do that. A stat might show that a pass was incomplete....but if you don't use your eyes....you may never know exactly WHY.
So I say "eye test" is an important function in not only enjoying football (sports, anything), but also in breaking down hard stats. A guy did it in another thread, I will see if I can find it. Of course he was responding to an obviously silly premise about Pollard being better than Gallup. The gentleman broke down why the passing stats might APPEAR to be better, by using visual observation...the dreaded "eye test" that the stat is misleading and being used for the wrong conclusion.
I think your last sentence might be what I am talking about. "Watching".
Now if I got you wrong about your " but...eYe TeSt" comment....well...sorry!