does intangibles have a place versus stats
 

Sure I know but this is a different kind of question and brings up other qualities than stats in to determining who is better --

Vick -- as a QB his stats are average --- what he brings to the team is priceless.

Leadership -- by his very presence a player who makes all other players around him better but his stats are only fair

Team chemistry -- Moss -- does his stats outweigh the cancer and laziness he brings -- Minn didn't think so -- some may disagree ---

Question -- where does intangibles play in our world of statistic.

does intangibles have a place versus stats
 

Only toward personal opinion...

Stats are just used to solidify that opinion..particularly situational sats...

does intangibles have a place versus stats
 

Intangibles, huh? Most of the time folks wouldn\'t know what intangibles were if they bit \'em in the butt. :D

As much as stats are twisted, intangibles are even less credible. First, intangibles cannot be proven and are usually defined by the person talking about them.

I\'ve often head folks say that a player has \"it\". Well, what is \"it\"? Can I touch \"it\"? Can I see \"it\"?

No, I can\'t. But, there are some things you can\'t see that are there none-the-less. Promblem is, folks just use \"it\" to make an aguement for some player they like and when they don\'t like a player ... then, they don\'t have \"it\".

That\'s IT ... Folks ........

does intangibles have a place versus stats
 

Stats are important and give a person a reason to argue for or against a player. However, some players bring in intangibles such as locker room presence, leadership, and winning attitudes. I don\'t believe that\'s enough to select someone as an impact player to fill a major need. But there is no arguing a great stat line I\'ll take a LB with 100+ tkls over what we have anyday.

does intangibles have a place versus stats
 

I think that evaluating football players is like evaluating art. You can\'t make it a science to determine who\'s best.
For just about every stat, there\'s an IF or a BUT that can used to arrive at a different conclusion.

Emmitt Smith\'s yardage stats say he\'s the best RB of all time.
BUT IF Barry Sanders, Jim Brown or Walter Peyton had that same O-line Emmitt had, he wouldn\'t even be close to them right now.

Joe Montana is the greatest QB of all time.
BUT IF you put an Archie Manning, or Dan Marino, or Fran Tarkenton in that same 49er system, surrounded by that 49\'er talent, who\'s to say Archie wouldn\'t be considered the greatest of all time. Or even a young Johnny Unitas in today\'s wide open offenses?

Jerry Rice-Put him on the Billy Joe era Saints team for 10 years and see if he\'s still considered the greatest of all time.

I HATE STATISTICS.

does intangibles have a place versus stats
 

Statistics are just one way of summarizing a part of the data, and they should be treated that way. To be useful, they require analysis - that analysis should be provided along with the stats.

Intangibles is just a category. It stands in for all that stuff that cannot be neatly summarized, the way that statistics are.

There are many ways to evaluate art, and guess what, one of them is statistically. Of course, as always, the stats are just one way of summarizing the artwork. Thus, it leaves stuff out. However, it is an accurate way of accounting for those parts of the artwork that have been described by it. Thus, statistics are informative, even in evaluating art. However, as always, stats only tell part of the story.

I don\'t see what the problem is. Statistics just aren\'t a complete way of describing the facts. Other kinds of arguments will be needed. In fact, stats are poorly suited for telling some parts of the story. The catch on 4th and long that takes the ball 16 yards to the opponents 1 yard line with 6 seconds left (and sets up the winning score) is described statistically this way - 1 catch for 16 yards. That hardly says the same thing.

Intangibles cannot be described statistically (except for height, weight, and 40 times, etc.). These are things that matter, but, as Billy points out, ONLY if they are properly described. One cannot simply say \"x has great intangibles\" - what the hell does that mean???