[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Let me spell this out for you since you are obviously a little hyper sensitive and emotional about this. You mistakenly took my post as an attack. The expression 'Stats are for losers' comes from the situation of a player that plays on LOSING TEAM and has nothing to point to but his own individual stats, despite his teams being a big failure. So I was not attacking or calling your friend Jsarno a loser, I was calling the Cardinal TEAM losers. FACT #1.

That was quite the stretch twisting the very non-specific "stats are for losers", to "The Arizona Cardinals have a losing record". I think a better approach may have been, "My bad, I apologize, You may have misinterpreted my vague as hell statement of "stats are for losers" as calling someone a loser. Next time I will be more specific."

I think G-tripp is simply pointing out that it's a very weak argument to just start chucking out things like "Young is still the best young QB regardless of how you spin the stats.". What does that mean? Why is he the best young QB. How is he "spinning the stats". Are you saying wins define how good a QB is?

Let me ask you something...Do you have a Trent Dilfer poster on your wall? No. Why? Because he sucks. He won a superbowl, so by your standards he's a great QB? That's an insane argument.

Originally Posted by Defensewins

FACT #2 is we are different when it comes to sports. I played a ton of sports during my life time. I played this game to win, not to be #1 in the stats department. By the way you cling to stats as the end all of fact, you might be more of a sports fan than an actual player. Stats are very misleading. Look at the Pats game this weekend. Randy Moss was doubled and received most of the attention of the Cowboys Defense. So his teammates benefited from it and a guy like Wes Welker had a career day. Well according to your non-bending "Stats Never Lie" theory Wes Welker is a better receiver than Randy Moss. We all know that is not the case. All of the Pats WR's benefited from playing opposite R. Moss and that does not show up on a stat sheet. Moss was statistically was 4th in receiveing that day, stats by themselves are not fact. You also have to consider who you are playing against when looking at stats.

The problem here is that you're taking a situational stat here and using it to benefit your argument, so I'm going to call you out on it. In Chemistry class did you ever take one reading out of 1,000 and just use that to base your conclusion? No. You don't because it's bad reasoning.

I see your point, but I'm saying it doesn't apply here.

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Please don't take this as an attack on you. You asked me to back up my points with fact and I have. I am just stating a different opinion on the whole stats issue. However your comments on your highly emotional post challenging my football knowledge and calling me "blissfully ignorant" is a personal attack. Someone starting a thread every two weeks calling a QB on a winning team and singling him out is also an attack.
Football players are paid to win, not be #1 in stats.

I think you need to calm down. G-Tripp was attacking your argument, and not you. See- "Nothing personal, but if you are going to defend your boy, I think there should be an argument there that isn't a personal attack."

I understand your opinion on stats, and I tend to think it's a dual edged sword.

Sometimes stats are taken out of context, sometimes they're misleading. They're are many occasions where many here on the warpath, including me, use them inappropriately.

IMO if you're arguing about the success of a quarterback, stats are very effective. Also, if you want to get technical, saying "He's 3-2" is also a stat.