louisianacajunsam wrote:so arguing that kurt warner isnt good because its just the system...i dont know how you can judge that..its your opinion is all..but due to his numbers, he is in fact a very good quarterback, even with some GREAT years
You could be right about me nitpicking - but it is just a big pet peeve of mine when people cross statistics to prove talent absent of situation - they simply do not measure talent exclusively.
Take what you wrote above - I would completely agree with everything you wrote - except for the last part. How do we judge if Warner is good, bad or great? I dont really have a good answer since I dont believe statistics measure ability all that well at all.
But let me rewrite your last sentence to the way I see things:
but due to his numbers, he is in fact a very successful
QB with some extremely successful
The difference is that "good" implies talent while "successful" implies the relationship between talent and situation.
The reason it is a pet peeve of mine is because the implications begin to translate into myths. My favorite example is Culpepper - to some, he is absolutely a top 5 QB in this league based on his talent. How did people come to this conclusion about his talent? By looking at his statistics. To me, I say the situation he was in played perfectly to his strengths (talent), and when that situation changes to a scheme that plays to his weaknesses - accuracy and reading defenses - then his statistics will reflect that and eventually people will stop thinking he is a top 5 talent because his statistics arent as good as they used to be. But what really happened? Did his talent and ability change? Not really.
Its all about judging players - if you cannot seperate skill and ability from the situation, then you begin to make bad decisions regarding that player's ability. Using common statistic to begin an assesment of a player's talent level already starts you off on the wrong foot and creates myths. Do you understand what I am saying?