You can't measure anything without statistics. Any other way is subjective and irrelevant.

---

That's not true.



That's complete not true. (the irrelevant part, it is subjective)

Does the best RB in the NFL alway have the best stats? No, not if there OL stinks... this is a team game and stats never tell the complete story with team games.

Like Rodgers threw a pick when it bounced out of Jackson chest, that counts for a pick for Rodgers but he did his job by hitting his man. Stats can be very miss leading.

To measure anything only using stats is pointless, other than a talking point because they never tell the whole story.

Why don't the players with the fastest 40s always run the fastest on the field? Because stats don't tell the whole story!

If somebody puts up great stats makes them great right? Nope... why? Because it may not be them.

Like in college football last year one CB had a heck of a lot of INT and was one of the leadings in college. That made him great right? Wrong and reason he was getting so many passes was he was the weakest link and team keep trying to beat the weakest link with a true shut down CB a good run stopping team and good S so most of the QBs threw the ball his way and he just made a lot of chances and got some of them.

This reminds me of when a Bears fan was trying to tell me that Corey Williams was hands down the best defense lineman we had, even though he wasn't usually one of the starters until Jolly went down. Stats never tell the whole story.


And the fact is that on the field

A great offense with a horrible defense team, can put points on the board but since the defense is horrible so can the other team so that levels out to 0 because both team would have it. A great offense can also control the clock but a team against a horrible defense can do the same thing so that also equals out to 0. So while a great offense would be great, if it comes with a horrible defense but team get the same control of the game.

So a great offense with a horrible defense team= 0 plus luck.


A great defense with a horrible offense team, can stop the other team from putting up points and the offense couldn't put up points so that all levels out to 0. But the defense can put up points once in a while with turnover returns for TDs or in range of the kicker so that a plus 1/10 because it doesn't happen a lot. Also the if the defense does their job the offense has good field position, I'll give a 1/10 (if the offense does it's job it's up to a kickoff and the offense has no control of where the ball is for the defense if they do there job with getting points on the board) And a great defense can stop the offense control of the clock by stopping them other than 3 straight runs which at the same time even the horrible offense can do so that leads to a 0 as well.


So a great defense with a horrible offense team= 2/10 (or what ever you used for those points plus luck.


A great defense is better than a great offense if there counter parts are the same.

---

+1

---

Agree, Besides, who was it that said 47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Zombie, my point is that the #1 point scoring offense, IF they would have no help from a mediocre defense may have been a #4 or 5 offense or lower....

---

Beast, your whole argument is idiotic. How do you measure who is best without statistics? Anything based on feeling or opinion is by definition subjective and not objective.

---

I really don't know.




No your argument is the idiotic one.



I don't know how a sport person doesn't know this but the answer is by playing the game, "That's why they play the game"



It is based on opinion, but that's why the pro scouts/GM/coaches are paid so much (to have the right opinions).

It's all based on opinion.


Like the stats say KGB had a lot of sacks, so he much of been the second best DE last year right? Wrong because he can't stop the run. The sack stats doesn't show that.

Stats help people to follow and they basically break stuff down for people to follow but really stats don't tell the stories.


Stats are nice to hear and nice talking points but really stats never tell the whole story.

Like Poppinga and Collins the last couple of year. Poppinga has been talking OL to free up Barnett and that's a big. Also a lot of people were calling to sit Collins and let Rouse play just because he had better stats. But in the game it showed the truth that Collins was clearly better, which the stats didn't show.

And as for the good stats like who blew the coverage or how what % of plays did someone have good coverage that's all opinion of what's good coverage and what's bad and where the ones on the line goes.

You have to watch the game not stats to figure out whose good and whose not.

It's like Bigby last year had some huge numbers some games but that's because the QB didn't want to throw at Harris, Woodson or Collins so they threw it Bigby way and he was the first one to get there and make the tackle because he was suppose to be covering the guy.

So Bigby got some tackle stats but not doing his job. That's a bad thing but yet he gets a good stat for it.

Stats never tell the whole story unless there is some opinion in them, like those tackle shouldn't count in Bigby good stats.

Or like the pass that bounced off of Jackson chest shouldn't be a bad stat on Rodgers because Rodgers did his job.

I mean Rodgers does he's job while Jackson doesn't but Rodgers is hurt more by the stats.

The stats don't tell the whole story.... so you can't make a great judgment only on stats.

Like Favre has throw a lot of INT... how many of those INT are on the WRs? Yet even though it's the WR fault for the INT the bad stats still goes to Favre. That's not fair...

The film/video is fair because the people can make their own judgment.

---

Obi - Please give examples. I'm not remembering anything like this.

I remember having the #1 O and the #28 D (out of 28 teams). We were 8-8. Made for some fun games though. I think that was '83.

Now, this is a reply to a few other posters. How does a good O help a D? Remember that SB with the Redskins and I forgot who was playing them but John Riggins just ran the ball down their throats?

He single-handedly killed the other team. Just killed them. Kept their high profile O off the field because their D was on the field all day, trying to tackle John Riggins.

Same thing happened to us in '97. BF , the best QB who ever played the game, was never on the field. It was all what's his name, running the ball and completely wearing out our D. We had an elite D that year, but just couldn't stop that guy. Well, it was a combination of their small OL that kept chop blocking our big guys. I remember our DL was bigger than their OL, and our boys on DL were literally exhausted. By the fourth Q, you might as well had girl scouts trying to tackle him because our boys were done.

Same thing with the WCO. You run short routes. You eat the clock. You wear down their D. You pass for 7 yards. 2nd and 3. Run for 3. 1st down. Next set of downs - pass for 8. Run for 3. 1st down. Next set of downs - pass for 6. Run for 3. Pass for 5. Next set of downs. Repeat. Over and over and over until their D is practically throwing up and begging for the clock to hit 0:00.

Yes, there are Os that score too fast. I'm not talking about them though. I'm talking about the Os that stay on the field all day long and never give your D a rest.

---

Packers scoring this year... They have one of the higher scoring stats but as I remember, weren't there at least 3 DEFENSIVE TD's? take away 21 poikints and their scoring rank goes down...

I just pointed out that there were more instances of mediocre offenses being enough to win the SB with a stellar defense...

---

With the Int for a TD today that makes 4 Ints on the year. Plus another defensive TD for a total of 5.

---

oops. Add another one for the defense. Sweet.

---