If I were to say the stat is 85.9 it means nothing
If I were to say 85.9 is a defensive passer rating it means a little more
If I explained the formula for passer rating and then said this is applied to defensive that is more context
If I explaind the for a passer the higher the number the better the stat
If I explained the lower the number the lower the stat, even more context
Still, we don't know what 85.9 means
If I said the leage average for a certain time was 90.0--okay more context
If I said the 85.9 was for a certain time--even more
If I said that the time frame was for both--logic says the numbers can be compared one to another
If there is a number for 32 teams they can be ranked--great more context.
If a team is 8th out of the 32..okay, the top 1/4 of the teams--even more
if 4 teams are selected for a reason (championship weekend) for a comparison of a favorite team
okay--compare
The context is there.
Same for all the stats.
Rinse and repeat
I it a perfect system?
No,
Does it have value?
Yes.
If we don't like what it says can we throw it out?
No.
Are there other things to look at?
Sure.
Have they been presented in context?
Yes.
Are there enough games to smooth out differences?
As much as possible over a two-year period.
Again, is it perfect?
No.
Do the stats say Morris' scheme is best in NFL?
No.
Do the stats support the thesis that Morris' soft zones don't work and warrant firing?
No, not even close
Where do coaches that get fired rank on the same set of data?
Would have to check but Miami and Vikings coaches far lower overall
What kind of defenses did they run?
They varied, neither as soft as Morris, but Miami, a pressure team, plenty of Man, Vikings much softer
Again----Morris is not a bum of a coach. People here just cannot stand him
for the way things look, they are not judging based on success and results
