KC Joyner Hearts Fred Bennett [ESPN the Mag]

[ArlingtonTexan]

Originally Posted by KJ3

well if the numbers are there to back it up what do you have against them? stats don't tell the whole story, sure enough...but there is reason why they are kept!

I am not convinced that many (not all) stats kept are reflective of good or bad play. I do find both Joyner and football outsiders insteresting in looking at a game differently, but not better than people who have a good eye for the game. The flaw is the attempt to make everything quantifiable, somethings are not.

Overall, if I think the method is flawed, but yields a result that I like that does not override my feeling the method is flawed.

[kravix]

Originally Posted by ArlingtonTexan

I am not convinced that many (not all) stats kept are reflective of good or bad play. I do find both Joyner and football outsiders insteresting in looking at a game differently, but not better than people who have a good eye for the game. The flaw is the attempt to make everything quantifiable, somethings are not.

Overall, if I think the method is flawed, but yields a result that I like that does not override my feeling the method is flawed.

you are right.

Its like that commercial. 90% of all statistics can be made to say anything 60% of the time.

Stats need to be compared against tons of other factors to really make a point.

Take Reeves. He played opposite Newman, one of the better shut down corners in the league. His breakdown doesnt reflect that. He had one of the worst safeties in the league supporting him over the top. Stats dont reflect that.

Look at the Denver corners. They are an insane tandem. One of them has to come up on the short end of the stick stats wise. That doesnt mean he isnt a good corner.

[KJ3]

Originally Posted by Bigtinylittle

I remember reading that Sanders used to play off receivers quite a bit sometimes, hoping to lure the QB into throwing to his man. That's scary good.

put yourself in the qb's perspective (if you haven't already), this guy is actually daring you to throw. if you don't you're a punk, if you do you're in trouble.

Originally Posted by kravix

you are right.

Its like that commercial. 90% of all statistics can be made to say anything 60% of the time.

Stats need to be compared against tons of other factors to really make a point

like that bennett had petey faggins playing across from him and brown or demps over the top? our defensive backfield wasn't exactly chock full of stellar players when bennett came into the mold. roy williams sucks but he makes pro bowls somehow.

[KJ3]

fred bennett:
2007 14 games played, 8 started, went for 3 interceptions and 47 yards returning, 14 passes deflected, 2 forced fumbles, 54 tackles with 8 assists.
according to: http://www.pro-football-reference.co...B/BennFr99.htm

2 rookies had more int's, 1 had more pass deflects, he led forcing fumbles, around 4th in tackles but for all these numbers in only 8 games started i think they shine a little brighter. plus he did this with little to no help, after being thrust into the spotlight with dunta going down and after an early-season hamstring issue. there are a lot of factors supporting him booming next season too.

like help across, behind and in front from the d'line. like a year under his belt. like his size and speed, not to mention that he plays with intensity and...dare i say....dunta-esque heart. ray rhodes and john hoke. like a full season to accumulate stats.

stats don't tell the whole story, factors matter, and all that...but i suppose you paint the picture you want to see. i see bennett as a good, young cornerback with elite size and speed, nice ballskills, a fiery competitor, and all the reason in the world to turn into something unbelievable behind an ever-developing supporting cast.

[kravix]

Originally Posted by KJ3

roy williams sucks but he makes pro bowls somehow.

So do overrated rookie QB's with just over 2k yards and 50% completion percentages.

I hate that the Probowl is more popularity than talent. Neither on of those guys is going to make the All Pro team though.

[KJ3]

be fair though, vince-anity backed his way in right? he was an alternate and the usual suspects didn't show? it's not like he's just getting popularity probowls like horsecollar-man.

still, both newman and williams are better db-mates than faggins and any safety we have. i'm just trying to level the "factors" out to make the statistics that have been given about bennett seem a little more "telling".

[Bigtinylittle]

Originally Posted by kravix

you are right.

Its like that commercial. 90% of all statistics can be made to say anything 60% of the time.

Stats need to be compared against tons of other factors to really make a point.

Take Reeves. He played opposite Newman, one of the better shut down corners in the league. His breakdown doesnt reflect that. He had one of the worst safeties in the league supporting him over the top. Stats dont reflect that.

Look at the Denver corners. They are an insane tandem. One of them has to come up on the short end of the stick stats wise. That doesnt mean he isnt a good corner.

I agree with this. Statistics are overrated. A good eye is more important. A good eye for talent comes from a long process of learning to understand what makes up talent. Football is a very complicated sport. I think the the main problem Casserly had is that compared to other GMs he just didn't really have a good eye for talent. And by that I mean not only how good someone HAS BEEN, but also how likely they will be to be good in the future. Of course, it's a guessing game even for the best of coaches and GMs, but the guys with the best eyes will tend to be the ones with the best quesses. One of the things that makes me so optimistic about the future of the Texans is that Kubiak and Smith DO seem to have that eye.