...sometimes, in order to prove our work is valid, we sometimes ignore the obvious. He lost me when he said that Matt Ryan compares to Carson Palmer, but then says he is better suited to the second round. Then says that Woodson would go in the late 1st round. I don't think I've seen ANYWHERE that someone has said that Woodson was a better QB than Ryan.

Its an enjoyable read, but stats don't tell the whole story. For example, lets look at these stats:

Att    Comp    Pct.   Yards   TD   INT
378    221    .584    2432    17    23 #1
654    388    .593    4507    31    19 #2

Geez, #1 sure threw a lot more Int's in a lot less passes than #2 did. One would surmise that #1 had questionable decision making. Well, #1 just happens to be Dan Marino's Senior year stats, while #2 is Matt Ryan.

Now, I am not saying that Matt Ryan is better than Dan Marino. The point I am trying to make is that stats don't tell the whole story, just merely a part of it.

Like I said, I like this guy's work, but he did draw some faulty (in my opinion) conclusions, or at the very least, blindly went with what the stats were saying without applying some common sense.

Who'd take Flacco on that basis? Brennan means another Beck - be it great-good or terrible. Johnson was not really on my radar. I think I've been riding too much hype.