My case against Jarvis Jones

Oye said
This is such a strange premise for a thread.

First, who has said the above? Who has advocated taking a guy just because of the numbers he put up in a single statistical category?

Virtually every fan of Jones' only argument is "the production speaks for itself."

Secondly, you're selling us on the idea of not using a single criterion and the way you're doing that is by using a single criterion for your case against him. So is a singleminded approach good or bad?

Actually, I'm not. If you learned how to read rather than picking a part bits of pieces of posts to make your point, like you do on every single thread you participate in, you'll clearly see that I also pointed out his medical concerns and questionable work habits.

Finally, I'd speculate the motive behind the thread reflects the larger obsession with statistics (even though you claim you're preaching against it while you're really perpetuating it).

And you'd speculate wrong. I don't have an obsession with stats. I pointed out stats only because I am trying to illustrate that they don't always matter when trying to project.

You dug up a stat that nobody else on the board has discussed.

False, maybe you should read more. Everyone is in love with Jones' sack #s. Heck, its the only rebuttable for his defenders.

You did a bit of googling to come up with a largely meaningless list that you formatted in such a way that it looks meaningful and authoritative. And when called on it, you don't change the methodology. Instead, you change the number of the sample pool. That's really poor research, even for casual football conversation.

What a knot of contradictions.

Sorry you don't understand the game of football or football analysis.