And with that you're illustrating precisely the strength of film study -- a very small sample of play, with regard to which analytics could have a large margin of error.
The strengths and limitations of analytics and film study are precisely the converse of each other -- film study is great for small samples, and suffers with regard to larger samples. Analytics precisely the opposite.
Nobody questions whether the Super Bowl winner is a good team, and says "wait -- I need to check the film first." The large 19- or 20-game sample of play throughout the season, along with the statistical results, tells the tale.
Likewise, nobody wonders whether Peyton Manning is a good QB and says "wait -- I need to check the film first." His career statistics are sufficient, and offer much more complete a picture of the kind of player he was than any reasonable sample of film would.
Additionally, one would have to watch an amount of film that's hardly humanly possible, while controlling for human error (which isn't possible), to determine for example where exactly the Dolphins' offensive line falls in relation to all of the other lines of the league.
So when there is a small sample of play, by all means, use the film to evaluate it -- film is the far stronger means of analysis in those instances, and can often uncover where the statistics have gone awry. When the sample is large, however, statistics provide the stronger analytic medium, far more free from human bias.
