Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon
Someone said that Ramsey played better than Roethlisberger yesterday - as if that were really important.
Let me show you how meaningless single game stats can be in terms of evaluating the overall value of players.
Yesterday:
Roethlisberger 9 for 20; 131 yards; 0 TDs; 0 INT; sacked 4 times
Ramsey 19 for 34; 138 yards; 1 TD; 1 INT; sacked 5 times
AJ Feeley 17 for 33; 159 yards; 1 TD; 1 INT; sacked 1 time
So obviously, if you were starting a new team and had to take a QB and these were the three options open to you, you'd take AJ Feeley, right? And of course Roethlisberger is clearly the worst of the lot, right?
|
That kind of comparison
IS important and meaningful, SC, when all other things are equal. But that is so clearly NOT the case that, of course, it becomes a moot point to argue that Ramsey performed better than Roethlisberger. There were so many other problems for the Redskins in that game, that Ramsey would have had to put up at least 250 yards and 3 TDs with zero interceptions for his stats to be relevant. Considering that no quarterback has put up that kind of performance against the Steelers all season, I'd say that's a pretty tall order for a quarterback starting only his second game this season.
And I don't think anyone's saying Ramsey-- or Feeley for that matter-- are better quarterbacks than Roethlisberger. I think folks are just trying to point out that maybe Ramsey didn't do all that bad against the league's top defense. He actually did better against this defense than some of his counterparts who have faced this defense and also lost...
And in this particular game, he actually
did perform
statistically better against the top defense than everyone's favorite golden boy did against the league's #2 defense. But it didn't matter because the Steelers are a better
team than the Redskins-- and that's something that nobody can argue against.