Not sure if this has been brought up by anyone before, but all this talk about RW's short stature and using height as a predictor of success as a QB in the NFL got me thinking about some basic rules when using Statistics. In Stats, it is fairly easy with developed mathematical models to prove correlations between 2 variables, but where a lot of people get into trouble when applying statistics is thinking that correlation means causation. For example, I can prove mathematically that the life expectancy in a country is directly related to the number of television sets per capita (which is absolutely true BTW). Should this fact lead me to conclude that TVs are so healthy for people that they extend their life? Or should I look for another factor tying in those 2 variables- in this case TVs are most likely representative of a higher standard of living, which means better healthcare, hospitals , etc. In Statistics this is called the "lurking variable". My point is this, what if all this years NFL teams have thought that height is important in and of itself due to being able to see over the line...but what if reality the really important factor was let's say hands size (and the resulting ability to grab the ball better and generate better velocity from spin)/ Not entirely sure on the physics aspects of this, but the size of RW's hands is something Brock Huard has mentioned often. So. it just so happened that taller people have longer fingers and bigger hands more often so everyone assumes the height itself is the important thing. Maybe some time down the road, they'll be measuring only the hands of the QBs, not their actual height at the Combine. I am certainly not convinced how much difference a couple of inches can possibly make when you are standing behind an O-line made of 6'7" monsters...I would appreciate your feedback- I am not a frequent poster, but I feel I may be onto something here- at least as a discussion starter if nothing else.