If the Cowboy defense holds opponents to tthe same average 13 points they did in games 3-5 ,then the Cowboys are 4-1 going into the break.
The problem with evaluating a player based strictly on observation is that we are very selective with our memory.
Weeden is a statue? No. Weeden just dinks and dunks? No. The stats do not support this claim.
A loss is a loss? This is true if you are discussing the team as a whole. But to auggest that Weeden was the difference?To suggested that another quarterback that has produced less despite better circumatances is preferable? It just defies logic.
Does anyone remember the last Cowboy possession. Against the Saints? The Cowboys are down by a TD and they start on their own 9 yard line. At one point Weeden completes three consecutive paases to three different receivers for 24, 28, and 19 yards .
He drives the Cowboys 91 yards and throws the TD with a few seconds left. He didn't lose that game, he never got the chance to get on the field to win it. Seriously, how can anyone say he lost that game?
Statistics alone won't tell the whole story I agree, but you can't even begin a story without the stats. When you combine this with splits numbers that break down very specific situations then its really easy to call someone out who believes his power of observation trumps a numerical record of the players and team's actual results.
The Cowboy defense holds two teams offensea to 13 points and they run the ball 55% of the time. Cassel threw more INT's in one quarter than Weeden threw in three games.Somehow we are convinced this was a fluke. We are equally convinced that Weedens numbers are a fluke.
This begs the question:
How many flukes do we need for an upgrade to being real?
