Video: Why Dak is the most accurate. NFL Network

[gjkoeppen]

Uh... yes. That is how stats work.

My point was (and still is) that they only tell part of the story. I'm not sure we'r actually disagreeing here.

I'm beginning to think you just want to knit pick certain plays to show stats or averages really don't mean what they do. Again the bad get added in with the good to get the average. For what ever bad play you want to use to show stats or averages don't tell the whole story an equal number of good plays can be shown to show the stats or average are right and do tell the story. The only things stats can't show directly is heart and desire of the player but if a player is forced to get enough dirty yardage it does sort of show is heart and desire.
.

 

[Haimerej]

I'm beginning to think you just want to knit pick certain plays to show stats or averages really don't mean what they do. Again the bad get added in with the good to get the average. For what ever bad play you want to use to show stats or averages don't tell the whole story an equal number of good plays can be shown to show the stats or average are right and do tell the story. The only things stats can't show directly is heart and desire of the player but if a player is forced to get enough dirty yardage it does sort of show is heart and desire.
.

I'm not nitpicking, I'm saying stats don't tell the whole story. I'm not even disagreeing with you on how stats show averages. I definitely disagree with your assertion that they, "tell the story," though. If that were the case, why wouldn't coaches just review stat sheets with players?

Stats don't directly show a lot of things. For example, they don't show when a player makes the wrong read- be it a QB, WR, RB, defender, etc. If an option route is called and the QB and receiver see it differently, for example the receiver runs an out but the QB throws a go and gets intercepted, the stat says the QB made the mistake. What if his read was the correct one and the WR screwed up? Stat sheet still says it was his mistake.

 

[GreenMean69]

You said it right with Irvin. He wasn't as good as he was in later years and that is EXCATLY what I've been saying about Aikman. You just don't want to admit that there is a 4th round QB that has had a better 1st 2 seasons than Aikman. You want to use excuses for Aikman's poor accuracy early on and don't want to allow Prescott the same time to improve his accuracy.
.

The QB postion was a lot different back then. the QBs and WRs were not coddled like they are today. Do you think half these whiney QBs today could last back then ? Brady would not still be playing at 40 .... the guy crys when a finger touches his helmet

 

[gjkoeppen]

I'm not nitpicking, I'm saying stats don't tell the whole story. I'm not even disagreeing with you on how stats show averages. I definitely disagree with your assertion that they, "tell the story," though. If that were the case, why wouldn't coaches just review stat sheets with players?

Stats don't directly show a lot of things. For example, they don't show when a player makes the wrong read- be it a QB, WR, RB, defender, etc. If an option route is called and the QB and receiver see it differently, for example the receiver runs an out but the QB throws a go and gets intercepted, the stat says the QB made the mistake. What if his read was the correct one and the WR screwed up? Stat sheet still says it was his mistake.

I do see some of what you're saying but a players stats tells the coaches, GM or whoever what the player has done thus far. A lot of what you're talking about is refining a players game or correcting problems that could make the player better but the stats do tell what the player has done thus far. On one of your points I have for a long time said that if the pick was not the QB's fault he shouldn't have the pick applied to his stats. They should have a new stat like other's fault to put those type of picks under like when a defensive lineman jumps up and tips the ball and it gets picked.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

The QB postion was a lot different back then. the QBs and WRs were not coddled like they are today. Do you think half these whiney QBs today could last back then ? Brady would not still be playing at 40 .... the guy crys when a finger touches his helmet

The if that's true then they surely would have moved on from Aikman after the 1st 2 seasons he had but they didn't. The allowed him time to improve his game and that's all I'm say is those that want to move on from Prescott should give him the same time to improve his game. The reason that QB's can play longer is because the NFL finally figured out that the QB is the most important position on the field and and it's in it's best interest to keep them playing as long as they can still preform at a high level. Aikman played 11 years and the last 3 were with a beaten body. He still had a very strong arm and intelligence to keep playing but not physically. If the NFL had the rules then Aikman very well may have played 15 - 18 years.
.