Football isn't and and never has been a sport that lends itself well to statistical analysis. It's too much a team sport for stats to be easily isolated and distilled. That said, I find it rich that a couple of the folks posting in this thread are being schoolmarmish about this particular analysis. I've easily seen similar holes in analysis done by them pertaining to other players. I also find it a bit rich that some guys who have written, "Show me proof," now basically yawn in the face of the attempt.
I think there are enough statistics available to support the claim that Owens is a declining player. I don't think last year's stats alone offer strong support, though.
But I can see. My eyes tell me Owens is still a good player, but he is no longer a great player. My brain knows Owens has always had holes in his game, but his great physical talent more than compensated for those holes. As his physical talent has declined, that isn't so much the case anymore. Owens is a declining player, and the decline is likely to accelerate. That's the reality of athletics, and the man is a human being.
Still, the man has ability. He's a good player. Based on his physical skills alone, unless the team could derive a significant financial benefit, you wouldn't cut him. Given his eroding talent, though, you might be more inclined to decide the negatives now outweight the positives, especially considering the mounting evidence of the problems he caused -- and while many might want to ignore the evidence, or explain it away, the evidence is readily available.
The Owens apologists have been very quick to make ad hominem attacks against any line of criticism and against any evidence. They have attacked an entire profession, and they have argued that the inclusion of anything that happened in San Francisco and in Philadelphia is somehow out of bounds. They have resorted to childish name calling, in some cases, and in others, they have employed the thinly veiled code word "hater." When people have posted audio clips, video clips and stats, they've ridiculed the evidence. I can't even name, at this point, the long list of commentators, ex-players, ex-coaches, sportswriters, etcetera, who have been called hacks, sleaze, rumormongers or whatever.
And it's all in the service of Owens.
None of that is surprising. The ironic aspect of the Owens problem is it wouldn't exist if he were not a charismatic, compelling figure. It's his charisma and ability to gain support that creates the opportunity for damage. Combine those traits with many years of breathtaking performances on the football field, and it is not at all surprising Owens would have his supporters.
In the meantime, Valley Ranch burns.
