I accept your explanation of analysis being inferences drawn from evidence. I simply said yours failed because you stated a strong conclusion – i.e. Austin’s production didn’t help the offense - without providing much evidence.
It is not good analysis to look at the results of something and conclude that one of the variables did not help without analyzing other important variables. Inferences are fine after analyzing all important elements.
You did a better job of that in response here. However, you’re still missing any analysis on the effect of Foles’ extremely subpar year at QB and nearly all rookie OL. Both of those variables have a huge impact on the passing game.
I simply was suggesting that your argument would have much more credibility if you had of done a better job of stating why it was Austin and Gurley who did not help the offense rather than the variables of QB and OL having the biggest effect.
On the second point, before we can say that Austin has managed to defy the odds, we have to establish what the odds are. It’s not established yet that being 5’8” and 180 lbs gets you injured more frequently in the NFL. If we’re playing the evidence card, we need some here. I’m glad you offer the trend line charts as evidence to support your last point. This improves your analysis. I’d like for you to point me in the direction of where you saw this info. I tend to think that it is common sense if a defense dedicates resources to taking something away, a good OC should be able to exploit that somewhere else.
