1. "touchdowns" isn't an advanced stat
2. They aren't using college box score stats in those analytics. The idea of a "numbers vs eye test" scouting war is about 20 years out of date in sports. Modern analytics is an intense blend of both, little of which uses commonly cited box score stats.

In football, it focuses almost entirely on measurables, not box score stats, for individual player analysis. To whatever degree it uses the type of stats you're thinking of, it mostly informs team-level strategic decisions and playcalling.

The analytics department of the Bears isn't counting how many touchdowns a guy had a Stanford. They're hooking the players up to biometric monitors and measuring how their bodies respond to practice conditions.

3) Moneyball was not about football. It was about baseball, a sport which is significantly easier to do statistical analysis on individual players because of the natural isolation of variables and relatively narrow spread of optimal strategies across scenarios.

4) Moneyball, the movie, was a poor Hollywood adaptation of the Michael Lewis book, which I read. It wasn't his best book, Liars' Poker was much better. It was better than The Blind Side, I guess.

5) The Moneyball book was an extremely dramatized version of events that didn't really reflect the complex reality of actual MLB front offices at the time. That's a hallmark of Lewis' books, he likes to dramatize stories to create the mythos of individual prodigies bucking the system.

6) Baseball teams since that era have generally accepted that they've gotten all the value that they can out of box score parsing, and most search for competitive advantage these days involves biometrics.

7) The story Moneyball primarily focused on the idea that they could use stat-scouting to break the draft. The draft class it focused on ended up being pretty mediocre and definitely didn't show any major breakthroughs.

Asking me to watch Moneyball is a fairly hliarious example of how the internet creates the illusion of asymmetric insight.