Better yet, who's had better coaching? No question Wentz, but his stats are still trailing Daks'
Can statistics be used as a comparative gauge for determining if a player is better or worse? I wonder because a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, individuals used statistics to supplement discussion of the current quarterback predecessor's 'worth'.
Efforts for using statistics in conversation were
always often diminished or dismissed by those who held a lower opinion of the current quarterback's predecessor. Statistical use was
always routinely categorized as 'inconclusive', 'substandard to the eye test', etc.,--namely, unworthy of discussion.
Fast forward a few years and statistics continue being presented for conversation. Interestingly enough, those who once held a lower opinion of the current quarterback's predecessor now sometimes provide statistics as talking points for the current quarterback, whom they hold in greater esteem than his predecessor.
Did opinions change over time about using statistics within discussion about players? Or is the current use of statistics for presenting relevant data into discussions associated with the current quarterback simply an example of hypocritical double standard?