re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

I freaking hate Tom Cable. He's a shit human being. Ironiccally thats why I don't want him to get fired. Obviously if he gets fired he still gets paid. I want him to have to deal with being a loosing coach for however long his contract is.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=30gut;737082]Dude, the article isn't trying to parse wether the QBs were playing poorly or not i think the author would concede that either all the QBs were playing poorly and should have been benched or that all the QBs were playing poorly and deserved to work their way through it. But, either way he's not claiming that the black QBs were playing well. The article is pointing out that it appears that when 2 QBs are playing poorly it appears that the black QB is more likely to get pulled.



Good point but if Flacco would have been pulled (which many silly Baltimore fan's wanted) he would have never had the chance to throw the TD to start the 2nd half.[/quote]You missed my point.
I'll simplify: He did not say anything about how the QB was playing on the other plays of the game. The interceptions are only 1-4 plays in a game. How was the QB playing for all of the other plays? No analysis in that regard whatsoever.

I remember McNabb's debacle in Baltimore. He wasn't just throwing picks, he was in a "VERY COLD" mode throughout the half. Kolb comes in, leads them down the field, and then Reed picks him off in the end zone.

Campbell sounded like he was having a repeat of the Kansas City game here.

As for Flacco, I didn't watch the game, but some of his passes were thrown to Housh, who promptly dropped them and killed some of their drives.

More likely to be pulled within the small, but there is no "generic one-brained white establishment" here. It's Andy Reid, Jeff Fisher, and Tom Cable and whatever is going on in their heads vs. the other coaches.
Now Young's case is an interesting one, but I don't know if it's like pulling the goalie in blowout in hockey.

Campbell is no surprise, He's a Celeron Processor. He may have nice Ghz, but his lack of an L2 cache is glaringly obvious. He also needs bigger fans to cool him.

As for Vick, I think Reid has a fat ego and just wants his Mr. Cob to be the one, regardless.

As for Tarvaris, Childress was IN LOVE with the guy when he first drafted him. But Brett Favre PROVED he was miles ahead of him.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;737156]You missed my point.
I'll simplify: He did not say anything about how the QB was playing on the other plays of the game. The interceptions are only 1-4 plays in a game. How was the QB playing for all of the other plays? No analysis in that regard whatsoever.[/quote]
I don't want to quible with you but if a QB throws 3-4-5 picks he's not playing well.
I don't think it needs much more analysis.
I'm not saying they got pulled because they're black and it was a willful decision based on race.
No.
What i'm saying is that if you objectively look at the scenarios net-net it would appear that if 2 QBs are having bad games that a black QB is more likely to get pulled.

I'm not trying to add anything more to it then that; i'm just looking at the raw data.

[quote]As for Tarvaris, Childress was IN LOVE with the guy when he first drafted him. But Brett Favre PROVED he was miles ahead of him.[/quote]

You're getting the timeline mixed up.
Jackson was benched the year before Favre got there.
They Vikings had a rough few games and Jackson got benched.
I remember virtually everyone disagreed with the move ESPN/NFLN.
Brad Childress is the original 'master of panic'
Later on that season Jackson is back in the line-up and has the best 4 games of any QB in the league not named Manning and the Vikings go to the playoffs.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=30gut;737190]I don't want to quible with you but if a QB throws 3-4-5 picks he's not playing well.
I don't think it needs much more analysis.
I'm not saying they got pulled because they're black and it was a willful decision based on race.
No.
What i'm saying is that if you objectively look at the scenarios net-net it would appear that if 2 QBs are having bad games that a black QB is more likely to get pulled.

I'm not trying to add anything more to it then that; i'm just looking at the raw data.



You're getting the timeline mixed up.
Jackson was benched the year before Favre got there.
They Vikings had a rough few games and Jackson got benched.
I remember virtually everyone disagreed with the move ESPN/NFLN.
Brad Childress is the original 'master of panic'
Later on that season Jackson is back in the line-up and has the best 4 games of any QB in the league not named Manning and the Vikings go to the playoffs.[/quote]I'll keep paragraphs extra short so you stop making these annoying inferences that do not satisfy Leibniz's Law.

In the aggregate, four interceptions mean a bad game. But it doesn't say anything CONCLUSIVE about the non-interception attempts. That's what someone who didn't watch game does not know.

Yes, it's probable the QB had many other bad plays, but if you didn't watch the game, you don't know. If you did watch the game, the you have to analyze their play more deeply. At least cover the "trends".

Stats are not "raw" data. It's a shorthand substitute for the real data that accounts for everything that happened. Data is "lost in transmission". Can you understand "lost in transmission"?

The official stats ONLY record the [B]outcome[/B] of the plays, not the everything else that was going only. Stuff like whiffed blocks, bad routes, boneheaded throws are all LOST when they go to the stat sheet.

I know Jackson's situation. Everyone disagreed because they thought Favre's skills deteriorated the season prior and they were annoyed with his indecision. I also know that early that season, Jackson was strained mentally with off the field stuff and at the end of the season, that was behind him. To expect him to somehow play well WHILE IT WAS STILL GOING ON, is begging for the near-impossible.

But still, his damn perferomance was the primary reason he got his ass benched, and I'm pretty sure if I ever watched those games, I won't be giving high reviews of Jackson. The fact that the woke up after Ferrotte stepped in is more than enough to infer that Jackson's play was THAT BAD.

And btw, it's not like no white QBs have sucked soooo bad that they keep the position they're handed. Sure, the two(Leinart's first benching and Heath Shuler) I'm thinking of were replaced by white guys, but their replacements outperformed them by a mile.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=Mechanix544;737128]LOL, sorry, but I would take Shaub in a heartbeat over DMac. Love DMac, but Schaub right now is the better QB.[/quote]

I would rather take Andre Johnson and a running game to go along with McNabb.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

yeah dude, don't count out mcnabb. how many conference championships has shaub been too? I know the man is a flat out studhorse, but don't deny that winning is contagious...and mcnabb is a winner. and he makes people win around him cause he's an excellent leader...wihch is what wash has needed for ... dare i say decades?

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=tootergray34;737306]yeah dude, don't count out mcnabb. how many conference championships has shaub been too? I know the man is a flat out studhorse, but don't deny that winning is contagious...and mcnabb is a winner. and he makes people win around him cause he's an excellent leader...wihch is what wash has needed for ... dare i say decades?[/quote]

Personally, I think it is a bit narrow minded to say who do you take between Schaub or McNabb. Honestly, right now the Texans are the better team, they have better weapons (AJ and a Foster), and a pretty good defense that compliments their talented offense. While McNabb shows he is still an elite QB (or a very good QB), obviously he wasn't able to completely carry the team.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=tootergray34;737306]yeah dude, don't count out mcnabb. how many conference championships has shaub been too? I know the man is a flat out studhorse, but don't deny that winning is contagious...and mcnabb is a winner. and he makes people win around him cause he's an excellent leader...wihch is what wash has needed for ... dare i say decades?[/quote]I can safely deny that winning is contagious. You know what is contagious? This nasty cold I have. Can barely breathe.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;737156]Campbell is no surprise, He's a Celeron Processor. He may have nice Ghz, but his lack of an L2 cache is glaringly obvious. He also needs bigger fans to cool him.[/quote]

GREAT analogy haha

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;737297]In the aggregate, four interceptions mean a bad game. But it doesn't say anything CONCLUSIVE about the non-interception attempts. That's what someone who didn't watch game does not know. [/quote]

Did you read my post or are you just being difficult.
Where did i say anything about wether the QBs play was conclusive?
Like i said in my previous post i don't want to quible about individual performances.
But it appears your intent on quibling over non-relevant issues.
Can you agree that net-net throwing 4 or more INTs would indicate a bad game?

[quote]Stats are not "raw" data. It's a shorthand substitute for the real data that accounts for everything that happened. Data is "lost in transmission". Can you understand "lost in transmission"?[/quote]

Nice, classy posting style.
Its in keeping with someone that can't make their point understood and stoops to patronization.
There's no need to complicate the issue here.
Given poor QB play are black QBs getting benched/yanked quicker then there non-black counter parts?


[quote]I know Jackson's situation. Everyone disagreed because they thought Favre's skills deteriorated the season prior and they were annoyed with his indecision. I also know that early that season, Jackson was strained mentally with off the field stuff and at the end of the season, that was behind him. To expect him to somehow play well WHILE IT WAS STILL GOING ON, is begging for the near-impossible.[/quote]

Well apparently you don't because Favre wasn't even on the team yet you keep refering to Favre.
Second what the heck are you talking about 'mentally strained' can you be more vague?

[quote]But still, his damn perferomance was the primary reason he got his ass benched, and I'm pretty sure if I ever watched those games, I won't be giving high reviews of Jackson.[/quote]
Wait, you're talking the Vikings games but you didn't even watch them?
LoL, this is getting funny.

[quote][B][I][U]The fact that the woke up after Ferrotte stepped in is more than enough to infer that Jackson's play was THAT BAD[/U][/I][/B][/quote]
For someone posting in such a patronizing manner one would expect your own arguements/inferences to be logical.
For a psuedo-intellectual like yourself you should be above such an obvious logical fallacy.

[quote]And btw, it's not like no white QBs have sucked soooo bad that they keep the position they're handed. Sure, the two(Leinart's first benching and Heath Shuler) I'm thinking of were replaced by white guys, but their replacements outperformed them by a mile.[/quote]

This is a strawman argument that has nothing to do with anything i posted.

HTTR!

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

30gut, you've already insulted me by oversimplifying or completely misunderstanding my sentences, and I'll be damned if I let that continue. I'll play nice though, and copy and paste your sentences so as to not stoop to your level.

So, onto an analysis of the article itself. Hopefully, this will clarify some crap.
[quote]The point is that many NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks if they don't play well and replace them with a white quarterback, and let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.[/quote]
After his block supporting points, he then [B][I][U]infers[/U][/I][/B]:
[quote]This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.[/quote]




Premise 1: NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks if they don't play well
Premise 2: They replace them with a white quarterback
Premise 3: They let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
Conclusion: This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.




And if that is visually challenging:
1. NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks if they don't play well
2. They replace them with a white quarterback
3. They let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
_________________________________________________
Therefore, This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.




So, let's examine premise 1.
First part: NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks
Declarative statement
Key verb: "seem".
Second part: if they don't play well
Makes the statement a conditional.
Third part: replace them with a white quarterback
Completes the main idea of then sentence.



So, WITHOUT LOSS OF MEANING, this can be written as:
1. If they [black qbs] don't play well, then NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks and they replace them with a white quarterback.
2. They let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
-------------------------------------------------------
Conc: This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.




Now, without any of your help, I'll try to tackle this article to achieve the same aim, but in a far more systematic manner so everything will be put out in the open.

Objection to premise 1:
Without deeper examination into the QBs play then just comparing a few stats, then all that can be said is that it just seems that way.
No deeper examination is provided. Hence, the statistical analysis is suspect.

Why is a deeper examination necessary? Because your support relies on stats, and the stats are INSUFFICIENT to describe exactly how and where they were so bad. Two players can both a 4 INTs games, but the aggregate "badness" is ALSO affected by how they play on all of their other plays, mainly their other pass attempts.

The IDEAL remedy is studying the TV broadcast, as the TV broadcast has the least amount(still has some) of data loss.
If stat analysis must be used, then it must be more complete or problem of inconclusiveness will not be remedied. Citing the play-by-play, YPA, etc are just a few things that can be cited.





Analysis of premise 2: It is just a declarative statement that leads to the conclusion.



Conclusion: This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.

Analysis of the conclusion: He infers that this is "an awful pattern". As anyone can tell, the [B]apparent[/B] double standard is between bad performances and qbs being benched. According to him, white qbs are more likely to have poor day and not be benched than black qbs.

Things I find wanting in the conclusion:
Problem 1.
Throwing a bunch of INTs and/or losing a bunch of fumbles are an indicator that it is a bad day for the qb [B]in the aggregate[/B]. Perceptually, the[B] at least[/B] 50% of the "aggregate" badness is because of those turnovers, WHEN ONE IS LOOKING AT THE STATSHEET.

However, these three-five plays are insufficient reason to bench a quarterback. What needs to be known is the "trend" in the quaterback's play prior to his benching. That means giving some sort of info stuff like miscommunications, accuracy woes, misreading defense, wide receiver drops, etc.

None was to be found in the article.







Now to repeat myself again and again
[quote]Did you read my post or are you just being difficult.
Where did i say anything about wether the QBs play was conclusive?
Like i said in my previous post i don't want to quible about individual performances.
But it appears your intent on quibling over non-relevant issues.
Can you agree that net-net throwing 4 or more INTs would indicate a bad game?
[/quote]
Nice try.
You want me to agree with you about a ton of turnovers being a bad game and then say "Ha, see they both had bad games. The black qb is benched in bad games while white qb isn't".
So, these turnovers are supposed to be a large part of a QB's "aggregate" badness in game. This aggregate badness is a standard for benching QBs
It can be summarized in the statement "If a qb commits a lot of turnovers, then he should be benched".

Now, for the syllogism:
If a qb commits a lot of turnovers, then he should be benched.
White QB John Doe was not benched.
----------------
Therefore, he must have not committed a bunch of turnovers.

HOWEVER, he actually did commit a bunch of turnovers. This contradicts the syllogism. Something is wrong. It has to be racism.

O wait, could the first premise be a load of bull in the first place?
I would answer hell yes. There other aspects of QB play that make up their aggregate "good/bad-ness" on gameday. Some things are under his control, like being accurate, being poised under pressure. Some things are beyond his control, like wide receivers dropping his passes. Others are a mix of both, like accuracy. If he's stinking up the joint these other areas, which coaches would certainly pay attention to as they KNOW how to evaluate these things to some degree, then benching him seems plausible.

Now, if the guy really wasn't playing that badly and was benched, then yes, that CERTAINLY is cause for concern.

However, you did not consider whether it is a SUFFICIENT condition to being benched.

I do not believe "4 INTs being a bad game" and "4 INTs being a sufficient condition to being benched synonymous". Do I need to clarify at this point?

I do not believe 4 INTs is a sufficient condition to being benched. Other factors must be considered. Still following?

Those other factors are how the QB is performing. Namely, his other pass attempts. You do not believe this.

[quote]Like i said in my previous post i don't want to quible about individual performances.
But it appears your intent on quibling over non-relevant issues.[/quote]

It's quite clear that you want to me to say something general on something that can't be generalized very well. I'm not biting. First prove to me that 4 INTs in themselves is a sufficient condition to being benched. In fact, I'll even put the statement in if...then form. If a QB throws 4 INTs in a game, then he must be benched regardless of race.

[quote]
Nice, classy posting style.
Its in keeping with someone that can't make their point understood and stoops to patronization.
There's no need to complicate the issue here.
Given poor QB play are black QBs getting benched/yanked quicker then there non-black counter parts?[/quote] I believe you are deliberately trying to mis-characterize I say. Hence, extra verbosity and pauses. I'll gladly sacrifice politeness for clarity and the searing of premises into a person's mind.




[quote]For someone posting in such a patronizing manner one would expect your own arguements/inferences to be logical.
For a psuedo-intellectual like yourself you should be above such an obvious logical fallacy. [/quote]You talking about inductive or deductive reasoning here? I'll admit I should have added a "likely" to the sentence to make my statement "it is probable...".
Oh I see, I didn't account for CONFOUNDING VARIABLES? That's a flaw in my METHODOLOGY. And yes, by definition, I'm a hypocrite. I'm 2 for 2 here. But at least I try to find the most [I]probable[/I] argument.

With all that said, the author's inference sure is quite a jump given all the CONFOUNDING variables that go into a benching deicision.




I doubt you can prove me to be a pesudo-intellectual. The "explain the opponent's argument, analyze it, and post your objections" has been standard for a long time.
A pseudo-intellectual tries complicate stuff and post sophist arguments. My vocab isn't fancy and all the sentences should not be difficult to read except where there are grammatical errors.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

Also, Jackson's situation is rather interesting in that he wasn't given back the job the following week. He also reportedly made great strides from the previous year in training camp.
Campbell(after Kansas City) was. McNabb was. Vince Young was.

So, it is [I]probable[/I](inductive reasoning) that he really was playing poorly during his "bad" stretch, and not just in a couple aspects related to qb play.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

This is starting to look like an offseason thread.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

Does anybody know yet if Cable has announced a starter going forward? People's twitters and stuff say that Bruce had a separate meeting with Cable and Al Davis....

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

Word is there is a beef between JC and Bruce LMAO...