I understand the importance of statistics and their place in evaluation. I work with detailed statistics daily. However, in some cases, they do not always tell the whole story. I always examine statistical significance and the implications of it. After that, though, I always examine the practical significance of the results. I often find that although a certain effect is statistically significant, it has little to no affect to those actually practicing the work being researched. For example, I was in a heated debate elsewhere about the fact that the Packer's defense "wasn't that bad." While I agreed that perhaps they weren't the worst defense in the NFL, they were still pretty damn bad. Last in yards and most plays over 20 yards? OK, that's bad. 19th in points? OK, that's still bad to me. Some argued that 19th isn't that bad. My argument was, which wasn't supported by any statistic, that the defense was not "clutch" at all last season. I cited few examples that anyone that watched every snap would have seen. Such as the failure of the defense to come up with some stops on obvious run plays against the Chief's, which lead to them running out the clock, negating any last second opportunity for the offense to win the game (although I realize there was no reason to think they would have anyway). Or perhaps the game against the Charger's where Vincent Jackson ABUSED the secondary for 3 tds and who knows how many yards in a game that should have never been close. Or worst of all, during the most important game of the season (divisional playoff game against the Giants), the failure of the defense to contain a HUGE draw play which allowed them to attempt and SOMEHOW complete a long hail-mary. Those plays epitomized the 2011 Packer's defense to me and are a good examples of a reasonable use of the "eye test" for evaluating certain circumstances in the NFL. I don't NEED to look at statistics to know the defense was bad when they allowed such things to happen. A good defense simply doesn't allow such things, especially when it matters most. I understand no one here is trying to argue that they were good, but I'm just hoping to illustrate a point (which is probably rhetorical anyway).
In the case of Barnett, he was a solid player but far from a dominant force in the middle, especially in the 3-4. His injury history was likely what decided an otherwise close race after a decent-to-solid season by Hawk. I agreed with the decision then and one season from two players are two different teams doesn't really change that for me. Perhaps two would though, but even then, the circumstances are different and it's hard to compare.
I'm not going to attempt to say that Bishop is good in coverage, by any means. I do remember reading, however, that Dom often asks more of Bishop and "hides" Hawk in coverage. I believe it was an article by Rasaam (sp?) on this forum. That SEEMED to be the case to me but I am not knowledgeable enough to know if it is true or not. The point is, perhaps is not entirely accurate to only use statistics or any indexing system to judge a players performance. As the cliche' goes, only the coaches and perhaps the rest of the defense truly know what each player was asked to do on any given play. I remember many plays where Bishop was left one-on-one in man coverage with an athletic tight end and not enough adjustments were made to prevent this, despite his obvious struggles. This could be another example of something that the "eye test" could apply to. Sure, it's not entirely valid, but neither are statistics. As I said, only the coaches and players know who messed up on a play. I think it is often the coaches fault for asking certain things from players that they can't handle. If Bishop can't handle consistent one-on-one coverage against tight ends, stop asking him to do so often. If I had to guess, the reasoning for it was Dom had the most faith in Bishop over any of the other LBer's. Hopefully that will change this upcoming season though because Bishop certainly leaves something to be desired. I'm not yet convinced, however, that the disparity between some of the coverage statistics between Hawk and Bishop is as dramatic as they suggest, and yes, I have seen the numbers.
EDIT: Perhaps some here will purchase the "All 22 " coaches film and will provide some better input. Although as mentioned in the article, even then many opinions may be too strong (and relates to my statements above):
Originally Posted by: doddpower