As Roman noted you can pick diff. numbers and make them say what you want. Similarly you could choose bad statistical parameters or miss good ones and come up with crap / laughable results, like this one.
Like any journalistic publication PFF is going to publish good and bad stuff and hopefully the good far outweighs the bad. Writers are under a deadline and want to make a name for themselves. Sometimes that leads to stupid garbage like this article.
Football is such a difficult sport to "analyze" that I'm always doubtful when I see these classes of articles.
I've always felt that a coach is what his record says, especially over a period of 5 to 20 years. For example, Fisher made it to one superbowl and I believe a couple of playoff appearances, however his overall record was below average but not in the pure stink category. Belichick is regarded as the best coach in history but he had some very grim years in Cleveland I believe.
