Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

Yeah i agree alot of QB's can look good their first start, but to into Tampa where their D is pretty agressive ithink he did outstanding in their house on the road. i figure if a QB can go into someone elses house and perform like he did i think we have a pretty good QB for a long time to come.


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Grade

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=illdefined;249117]Cooley didn't drop the TD pass he improvised and came back to Campbell for. that ball would've been in the stands if it were Mark. same with the clutch 3rd down pass to Thrash. they stayed trying to make the play instead of expecting a throw out of bounds once the play broke down. i'd call that a spark, and thats why we're talking about JC like this today.

i also don't see any 'statistical' reason for you to assume that Campbell would've been just as bad or worse than Mark was in Philly.[/quote]So you are saying that Campbell had a better 2 plays, and I think he played a game similar to if not worse than what Brunell would have done if he had started the game.

You aren't really responding to my point, because I'm talking about the game as a whole. You mentioned two plays in which you believe that Campbell did stuff that your perception of Brunell would not allow for.

I'm going to make this statement: "Campbell played nearly as well as you would expect Brunell to have played had he gotten the start instead of Campbell." This statement is heavily evidenced. Now if you perceive this to be an insult to Campbell's day, then I would suggest you go back and compare Brunell's season average to Campbell's day. Campbell played very well. And I have no better evidence that Brunell did his part well this season, then to take everyone's grade for Campbell, take the stats that Campbell produced in doing so, and looking at what Brunell did with the same team.

Regardless of whether you think there should have been a change (I agree with the decision after watching Campbell play this week, he is ready), I want [U][B]someone[/B][/U] (anyone who holds the position) to [U]tell me how we are a better team now then we were 5 weeks ago[/U]. Use evidence. Not cliches like "Spark". Either logical arguements or statistical evidence. If you use the vertical game angle, give a case study comparision (where in history has it been successful before).

But when you have problems and fix something completely unrealted to those problems, you aren't going to get any better. That's my point.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=illdefined;249117]Cooley didn't drop the TD pass he improvised and came back to Campbell for. that ball would've been in the stands if it were Mark. same with the clutch 3rd down pass to Thrash. they stayed trying to make the play instead of expecting a throw out of bounds once the play broke down. i'd call that a spark, and thats why we're talking about JC like this today.[/quote]Also, are you saying Campbell needed this offensive "spark" just to be [I]as good[/I] as Brunell? So what does that mean for Campbell when the effects of the "spark" "wear off", if indeed that is how this spark operates.

Better yet, start by explaining to be exactly what a spark is, besides term you heard on TV, and might apply. How do we, as fans, identify a spark?

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

Don't mock the spark GTripp. The spark surrounds us and it binds the universe together. You must go with me to Alderon if you are to learn the ways of the spark. May the spark be with you.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=70Chip;249195]Don't mock the spark GTripp. The spark surrounds us and it binds the universe together. You must go with me to Alderon if you are to learn the ways of the spark. May the spark be with you.[/quote]Haha. I love this guy.

No seriously, if someone compared it to the force, it would have slightly more credibility in my mind than it does now with it's assumed properties and effects.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=GTripp0012;249199]Haha. I love this guy.

No seriously, if someone compared it to the force, it would have slightly more credibility in my mind than it does now with it's assumed properties and effects.[/quote]

When you are 3 - 6, it's any port in a storm. People are looking for something to latch on to.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

GTripp, I dont think the move to Campbell was about "fixing" something. It was about putting the TEAM in the hands of a guy that Gibbs handpicked to be the QB. Mark Brunell was playing just good enought to keep his job. Gibbs knows that MB is nearing the end of his career and that this team isn't the SB contender that we all thought they would be. I also think that he realized that this offense takes a very long time to master and that Jason Campbell's time learing the offense would be better served if he was actually playing instead of charting plays on the sideline. MB had good stats, but we are not winning so staying with a guy you know isn't gonna be around much longer is stupid.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=gibbsisgod;249203]MB had good stats, but we are not winning so staying with a guy you know isn't gonna be around much longer is stupid.[/quote]Good points, and I think this one i've quoted states exactly why a change was the right decision.

I really respect your opinion, so I'd like to ask you whether or not you think we are a better team than we were 5 weeks ago.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=GTripp0012;249206]Good points, and I think this one i've quoted states exactly why a change was the right decision.

I really respect your opinion, so I'd like to ask you whether or not you think we are a better team than we were 5 weeks ago.[/quote]I dont think we are better right now. But I think we will be better at the end of the season. 5 weeks ago this team had hope and alot less injuries.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=70Chip;249202]When you are 3 - 6, it's any port in a storm. People are looking for something to latch on to.[/quote]I gotta say, I was never any more disappointed this season than I was right after we lost to the Vikings. I figured that was as easy as a victory gets, and that nothing would be easy this season. I got out of my ditch momentarily after the Jags win, but crawled right back in after the Titans loss.

Which is why the question is over the last 5 weeks. Since we lost to the Titans, I've had no real expectation for immediate improvement, or a quick fix. But some people thought that a QB change would solve that. One week in, I'd like to know, not how we are better prepared for the future, but how we are any better than we were right after the Titans' loss.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=gibbsisgod;249208]I dont think we are better right now. But I think we will be better at the end of the season. 5 weeks ago this team had hope and alot less injuries.[/quote]Yeah, I'd agree that our offense will improve. I've also seen a projection that our D will improve drastically (I fail to see it, but its the same system that said the Raiders and Chiefs would have top 10 Ds this year...and honestly, who saw that one). So from here on out, I believe we win more than we lose and finish up 4-2.

But right now after this Buc's loss, I don't think we are any better of a team than we were after the Titans loss. I'm sure SOMEONE thinks we are, and I would like to hear why.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;249189]Regardless of whether you think there should have been a change (I agree with the decision after watching Campbell play this week, he is ready), I want [U][B]someone[/B][/U] (anyone who holds the position) to [U]tell me how we are a better team now then we were 5 weeks ago[/U]. Use evidence. Not cliches like "Spark". Either logical arguements or statistical evidence. If you use the vertical game angle, give a case study comparision (where in history has it been successful before).[/QUOTE]

is "luck" cliche? because thats the only way you've been explaining away Brunell's game in Philly. isn't much more likely that his age and the conditions had finally gotten to him? at least that's tied to a factual number. 36.

you also insisted Campbell "wouldn't be pretty" at all in Tampa, and fully expected 3 INTs in spite of your own 'projected stats'. you stick die hard to stats only when it suits you, and then subjective facets of the game when they don't follow your point. things you villify everyone else here for doing. which is it gonna be?

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

"spark" in this regard, is simply hope. not only were we losing, but we were losing the exact same way every time. bad defense, and a non-scoring offense. everyone on BOTH teams knew what to expect, and it was simply becoming rote on how'd we lose. Brunell's limitations as a QB were a secret to no one, including our own WRs.

the prospect of Jason Campbell gave everyone on this offense hope that the throw Brunell couldn't or wouldn't throw, could now be made. Al Saunders included, and he even said he'd change the offense to accomodate it. an ATTEMPT to fix something that regardless of your rather meaningless stats, was clearly not good enough, is a spark to this consistently beaten offense.

you can dismiss my terms all you want, i've heard "luck" on tv as well, and i've also heard "momentum". do you think that exists? even though FO doesn't keep track of it, do you think things like emotion, frustration, and momentum matter in a football game? you obviously think luck does, so why not hope?

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=illdefined;249215]is "luck" cliche? because thats the only way you've been explaining away Brunell's game in Philly. isn't much more likely that his age and the conditions had finally gotten to him? at least that's tied to a factual number. 36.

you also insisted Campbell "wouldn't be pretty" at all in Tampa, and fully expected 3 INTs in spite of your own 'projected stats'. you stick die hard to stats only when it suits you, and then subjective facets of the game when they don't follow your point. things you villify everyone else here for doing. which is it gonna be?[/quote]No, luck is not cliche. Luck is basically saying that based on the talent and the conditions (measurable or at the least, observable), a certain amount of the bounces the ball takes or whatnot could favor one team or another, and did. In Phili, the team was dominated (by the defense and the conditions) from the Oline to the recievers to the running game to the QB. If it was Campbell, we still would have been dominated.

I thought Campbell would struggle against Tampa Bay, and he didn't. So he exceeded my expectations for THAT game. You can't project stats for a single game...simply too much of it is left to chance. Surely you must realize this simple concept.

I'm sorry you believe I stick die hard to stats only when they help me. It's not true, and will surely hurt you if you argue as if I'm blindly biased. I mix subjective things with my statistical arguements to better understand the NFL. If you have a better way to do it, I'm all ears.

I rarely villify anyone. If asking them to explain terms that don't exist is villifing them, then I believe all good philosophers are as hypocritical as you percieve me to be.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=illdefined;249225]"spark" in this regard, is simply hope. not only were we losing, but we were losing the exact same way every time. bad defense, and a non-scoring offense. everyone on BOTH teams knew what to expect, and it was simply becoming rote on how'd we lose. Brunell's limitations as a QB were a secret to no one, including our own WRs.[/quote]And how has this changed with Campbell? If he didn't provide this spark, thats one thing. But if he did, how did no one around him played any better?

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;249231]I'm sorry you believe I stick die hard to stats only when they help me. It's not true, and will surely hurt you if you argue as if I'm blindly biased. I mix subjective things with my statistical arguements to better understand the NFL. If you have a better way to do it, I'm all ears.

I rarely villify anyone. If asking them to explain terms that don't exist is villifing them, then I believe all good philosophers are as hypocritical as you percieve me to be.[/QUOTE]

should i dig up all your posts you dared me to save? you say you mix up your arguments, but your mixing depends on the outcome of the last game and who was QBing.

when Brunell does statistically well, despite everyone's observations - he did well in your eyes. if he didn't do well statistically, but still in line with everyone's expectations, it was 'bad luck'. subjective to say the least. even more so than remarks about the team's emotional state. meanwhile, you insist to see stats to back up OUR arguments and when we tell you exactly how your stats can be easily skewed - you dismiss us as being "subjective". at best, i'd call that being more than just a little inconsistent.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;249235]And how has this changed with Campbell? If he didn't provide this spark, thats one thing. But if he did, how did no one around him played any better?[/QUOTE]

now you're just being circular. i've already stated Cooley, Thrash (Yoder too) stayed involved in those broken plays in new hopes that Campbell would make the tough throw after the play was busted. tough throws Brunell hasn't made all season.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

oh and philosophy is all about theoretical and purely observational terms. the vast majority of your posts are much more akin to accounting.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;249189]Regardless of whether you think there should have been a change (I agree with the decision after watching Campbell play this week, he is ready), I want [U][B]someone[/B][/U] (anyone who holds the position) to [U]tell me how we are a better team now then we were 5 weeks ago[/U]. Use evidence. Not cliches like "Spark". Either logical arguements or statistical evidence.[/QUOTE]

First, you admit that 1 game is not a good enough sample to assess the offense's performance under Campbell. Then, you ask us to use statistical evidence or logical arguments to say how we are a better team than we were 5 weeks ago. Sounds like you are laying the groundrules such that no one (but you) can possibly be right.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;249189]I'm going to make this statement: "Campbell played nearly as well as you would expect Brunell to have played had he gotten the start instead of Campbell." This statement is heavily evidenced.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea how you can make that statement. How is it heavily evidenced? Are you referring to Brunell's stats this season? Those stats wouldn't have accurately predicted Brunell's stats against Philly, or the Cowboys, or the Giants.

Also, Campbell's QB rating against TB was better than Brunell's 2006 QB rating.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

All you Brunell lovers need to stop! Campbell played well Sunday, all things being considered. He threw the deep ball! B Lloyd just dropped it. He put the ball where it needed to be. He has a cannon for a right arm! No picks thrown, and he was going down field! I say, bravo to the young QB! I can't wait 'til the next game. I'm anxious to see him improve so all you Brunell lovers can shut the hell up! Just face it, Jason Campbell is our future, and the future is now!

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

hey he didnt throw a pick

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

Tripp, seriously dude. It's OKAY to be wrong sometimes.

Your supposed to use stats as evidence to back up observed behavior... not to back up pre-determined biased "theories" that simply don't exist...

You're manipulating evidence to suit your argument... not changing your argument to suit your evidence...

I love the passion and effort you put into posting, and I love hearing your opinion. I just think your taking this Brunell issue a little too personal and it's clouding your characterstically objective opinion.

All Love-

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

OMG I'm so sick of hearing about Brunell.... It's like the THING that wouldn't leave....

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;249269]Also, Campbell's QB rating against TB was better than Brunell's 2006 QB rating.[/quote]Yay! An actual arguement! This makes GTripp happy.

I said they had similar games. The fallacy in QB rating is that it is reliant on TD passes. (It's why I've said time, and time again it's a bad stat) Jason Campbell ran an offense that scored 17 points on 2 TDs (and the D forced 2 turnovers, which is something that they haven't done this season, though I'm not sure it helped us score more points), and Brunell average's one TD a season. My steadfast belief is that since Brunell's offense averages 2 TD's a game, he shouldn't be penalized when Portis runs it in. But it does create a discrepancy in QB Rating.

But yeah, that's not to take away from Campbell's lofty QB rating from Sunday. Just to show how easily a QB rating of 93 and one of 85 can be showing the same thing.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=RobH4413;249295]Tripp, seriously dude. It's OKAY to be wrong sometimes.

Your supposed to use stats as evidence to back up observed behavior... not to back up pre-determined biased "theories" that simply don't exist...

You're manipulating evidence to suit your argument... not changing your argument to suit your evidence...

I love the passion and effort you put into posting, and I love hearing your opinion. I just think your taking this Brunell issue a little too personal and it's clouding your characterstically objective opinion.

All Love-[/quote]I see what you are saying.

I disagree that I'm being biased at all in this arguement. I mean, I've changed my positions as the evidence warrented I do so. I was opposed to the change pre Sunday, and now after watching Campbell play, I support it. That's not biased, that's objective.

I think a good point would be that maybe I'm spending too much time argueing something insignificant. I'm losing interest, not because anyone has even brought out a counter point to make me remotely consider that my position on Brunell's performance is wrong, but because in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter who's QBing this team, we are still going to struggle with this D. I hold that position, and for someone who does, I certainly do spend a lot of my time argueing an insignifcant point.

But, I'm not sure I feel right letting it go.

Also I really am not manipulating any evidence whatsoever. I tend to only present my side, if that's what you are saying. That doesn't mean I'm ignoring the other evidence, I've probably considered it before stating my position.

If I was wrong, I'd be the first one to admit it.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;249267]First, you admit that 1 game is not a good enough sample to assess the offense's performance under Campbell. Then, you ask us to use statistical evidence or logical arguments to say how we are a better team than we were 5 weeks ago. Sounds like you are laying the groundrules such that no one (but you) can possibly be right.[/quote]I'm not trying to set it up that way, but I would be surprised if someone could successfully argue that we are better now.

But yeah, we will get a more accurate sample as the season goes wrong. However, the point was to [U]say that we are better right now than we were 5 weeks ago and back it up[/U]. That's not set up unfair. If it can't be done, it can't be done. I MIGHT be right, ya know.

If you care, my official position is that I expect Campbell to improve and by the last two weeks, play as well as if not better than Brunell was in spite of the fact that he has no Portis (and Brunell struggled without his running game).

Here's something I'll admit: Last week when I argued that we shouldn't make the change, I seemed (in hindsight) to be oblivious to the fact that Portis was out for at least 4 weeks (before he was IRed), and Brunell has struggled this year without his running game. No one pointed that out, but it required no personal attacks or stat crunching (taking notes, illdefined?), and I would have probably gave the person who brought it up a quick "good point", and moved on.

But now with the division leader at 4 losses, and McNabb out for the year, can you at least see why I thought giving us the best chance to win was far more important than getting JC some expierence? We win that game, we are 2 games back. Now three games back, with winning out putting us at 9-7, it's still unrealistic that neither the Cowboys or Giants would win 4 out of their final 6. So it's pretty much over.

But it wasn't Jason Campbell who lost the game (in the same spirit that it wasn't Brunell that lost the others), I just want the guy in who gave us the best chance to win. Looking at yards/attempt, I would say that's Brunell, but it's too close to call by any other metric. And that's a complement to the job Campbell did Sunday.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=illdefined;249249]should i dig up all your posts you dared me to save? you say you mix up your arguments, but your mixing depends on the outcome of the last game and who was QBing.

when Brunell does statistically well, despite everyone's observations - he did well in your eyes. if he didn't do well statistically, but still in line with everyone's expectations, it was 'bad luck'. subjective to say the least. even more so than remarks about the team's emotional state. meanwhile, you insist to see stats to back up OUR arguments and when we tell you exactly how your stats can be easily skewed - you dismiss us as being "subjective". at best, i'd call that being more than just a little inconsistent.[/quote]Luck is everything that can't be controlled by your team. So if Nick Novak or John Hall misses a game winning field goal from 30 yards out, that's not bad luck, that's having a weak kicking game. But if John Kasay for example were to hit from 65 yards out to win vs. us, that's bad luck in the statistical sense. You can't make kickers miss kicks, you can't (in most cases) make the other team commit penalties, you can't expect to recover a fumble, you can't help it when team's come out and play their best game of the season against you (this can be measured). Anything your team can not control that affects the outcome of the game I would deem luck. Before you bring it up, I am not trying to dismiss bad play as luck. It's a big part of football, more than anyone seems to want to admit. But if we had caught Tennessee or Minnesota on any other day (and I really do mean ANY other day), this would be an entirely different season. That's horrible luck.

If a "spark" is hope, then it certainly CAN be measured (assuming it' affects the game). The stats won't show how much of a player's production is emotional motivation (which is why you don't know if a "spark" actually exists), and how much is talent, but does it really matter? Randy Moss is a superbly talented player. His stats (sabremetric and conventional) are awful this year, obviously because he is unmotivated. But should Moss be considered a better than what he's done simply because he's unmotivated? I should hope not.

You can't seperate emotion from talent in statistics...but why would you want to?

Do you disagree?

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

sigh. how 'bout responding to my posts directly Tripp, instead of taking potshots from other people's posts also questioning your arguments.

you accept fallacy in stats, just not yours. you accept objective observations unless they're made by someone other than you. you threaten to 'save' posts, but won't own up to your own posts predicting Campbell making loads of mistakes.

the gig's just up dude.

you're the only one on this board, the NFL, and the Redskins management holding on to your position (ok maybe Hess. but her argument is prolly based on how 'cute' Mark is). i encourage you to ask FO themselves if they believed their stats were undeniably right, and if benching your boy was wrong. i'm confident you won't like your answer, just like you don't like any of ours.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;249334]
You can't seperate emotion from talent in statistics...but why would you want to?

Do you disagree?[/QUOTE]

ok finally a direct response. well, you illustrated perfectly why a talented player like Randy Moss would most likely play a lot better motivated in a different environment. glad you finally recognize emotion as a HUGE part of the game.

Gibbs tried to change the environment HERE and motivate the entire team with the QB change, i think thats obvious. Jason Campbell has proven himself to be smart, talented and controlled - i really don't think Tampa was an isolated incident - the only debate left really is if waiting this long in the season and for Portis to get hurt wasn't too LATE to try and change the environment here. Jason Campbell's first close NFL loss should've been a lot sooner - its worth a lot more to us than Brunell's Nth loss with this team.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=illdefined;249336]sigh. how 'bout responding to my posts directly Tripp, instead of taking potshots from other people's posts also questioning your arguments.

the gig's just up dude.[/quote]I'm sorry, oh rightous one, that I dare respond to anyone before you. J/k, but what the heck is wrong with responding to others who also disagree w/me.

"the gig's just up dude"? Even when you aren't argueing, you aren't short on cliches, that's for sure.

[QUOTE]you accept fallacy in stats, just not yours.[/QUOTE]Uh, huh? Wasn't it me who all along saying QB rating was a bad stat when the easiest pro-Brunell arguement is that his QB Rating was a career high? My observations are consistent.[QUOTE]you accept objective observations unless they're made by someone other than you.[/QUOTE]Uh, wrong again, not that I'm surprised. I accept all observations, dismissing only the obviously biased ones and ridiculously unsubstanciated ones. Oh, and ones based solely on cliches and TV created-terms. I called your 'bend but dont break D' an interesting theroy even though "bend but don't break" doesn't really mean anything. [QUOTE]you threaten to 'save' posts, but won't own up to your own posts predicting Campbell making loads of mistakes.[/QUOTE]I threatened to save one of your posts jokingly because you said something post-Cowboys game about Brunell that you observered, that I had been observing ALL FREAKIN SEASON. I underestimated Campbell's performance. How in the hell have I not owned up to that? [U]I even admitted that Gibbs made the change at the right time.[/U] My first post after the game was that I was impressed that he took his shots downfield without turning the ball over. I wish Saunders would have turned Brunell loose, but at this point, it's water under the bridge.

[QUOTE] you're the only one on this board, the NFL, and the Redskins management holding on to your position (ok maybe Hess. but her argument is prolly based on how 'cute' Mark is). i encourage you to ask FO themselves if they believed their stats were undeniably right, and if benching your boy was wrong. i'm confident you won't like your answer, just like you don't like any of ours.[/quote]I'm also one of the few that is willing to question [U]anything[/U]. That doesn't make me right, or even a better member, but it certainly allows for this kind of arguement.

FO does not claim that their stats are undenibly right, in fact they have a disclaimer that statistical evidence is a tool, and in most cases is actually not a conclusion. Statistical evidence should not override what you believe. Funny thing is, [U]I said that on this here board a few weeks back,[/U] [B]BEFORE[/B] I read that on FO.

They think really highly of Campbell, but they also don't project on a game to game level because the sample size is too small.

They did however do a midseason projection (when Brunell was still the QB) and found our offense improving over the last half of the season, and our D significantly improving.

But you in many cases choose to ignore this neutral style that I use in presenting arguements and paint me to be a hard-assed jerk who can't admit that I'm wrong.

That's great, but I've yet to claim (at least on the Brunell situation) that I'm even right. Go figure.

Regardless of whether my Brunell points are valid, you don't even understand who you are argueing with. Unbelieveable.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=illdefined;249338]ok finally a direct response. well, you illustrated perfectly why a talented player like Randy Moss would most likely play a lot better motivated in a different environment. glad you finally recognize emotion as a HUGE part of the game.

Gibbs tried to change the environment HERE and motivate the entire team with the QB change, i think thats obvious. Jason Campbell has proven himself to be smart, talented and controlled - i really don't think Tampa was an isolated incident - the only debate left really is if waiting this long in the season and for Portis to get hurt wasn't too LATE to try and change the environment here. Jason Campbell's first close NFL loss should've been a lot sooner - its worth a lot more to us than Brunell's Nth loss with this team.[/quote]For the record, I never ever said (or thought) that emotion wasn't a direct part of the game. I said ALL ALONG that irregardless of emotion, production is what matters. I've played, so I understand the game from the emotional perspective. I think it was canthetuna who said that he doesn't care about [B]stats[/B], he cares about [B]results[/B]. Boy that one had me rolling on the floor in hilarity.

I disagree that Gibbs made the QB change to give the team an emotional boost. If he did, it didn't work. I think he also thought that Brunell took this team as far as it could go, then he IRed Portis (he could have been inactivated just as easily) and replaced Brunell in the same week to play for the future.

I think giving the reins to Campbell preseason looks like a good decision in retrospect, but going foward, I think Gibbs made the decision at the right time.

L's are L's, and the best chance to get W's is with Brunell (still). However, all things considered, Gibbs made the decision at the right time.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;249343]
FO does not claim that their stats are undenibly right, in fact they have a disclaimer that statistical evidence is a tool, and in most cases is actually not a conclusion. Statistical evidence should not override what you believe. Funny thing is, [U]I said that on this here board a few weeks back,[/U] [B]BEFORE[/B] I read that on FO.[/QUOTE]

so you admit QB rating is a bad stat, but you base all your statistical arguments on FO's stats, another imperfect formula, very much AS conclusions. all the time. thats the meat of all your posts, FO's stats.

"Statistical evidence should not override what you believe." despite your little disclaimer weeks ago, that's all your arguments have been about since. you contradict everything everyone here believes with FO's stats. except when Brunell finally assed it up in Philly, then your argument suddenly was based on "observations". real beauties too, like "the Redskins owe Mark Brunell a better send off than this and shouldnt be replaced because of everything he's done" and "you don't put in a new Quarterback when the team is doing bad". quite inconsistent with the rest of your stat filled posts this season. are you entitled to them, sure, does it clash with your empirical statistical style that you've grilled me and other posters with for weeks now? i'd definitely say so.

how about posting that little statistical disclaimer (both yours and FOs)whenever you lean heavily on them in your argument, or worse yet, dismiss other people's arguments.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;249344]L's are L's, and the best chance to get W's is with Brunell (still). However, all things considered, Gibbs made the decision at the right time.[/QUOTE]

um ok, you want to reconcile those two statements for us? if Brunell (still) gives us the best chance to win, why did Gibbs bench him last week when we were mathmatically still in it? enlighten us.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

Man this thread is blowing my mind. Brunell is on the bench, why can't we just let that go???

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;249466]Man this thread is blowing my mind. Brunell is on the bench, why can't we just let that go???[/QUOTE]

It's definately a tired subject, but I'm going to partake.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;249332]I'm not trying to set it up that way, but I would be surprised if someone could successfully argue that we are better now.

But yeah, we will get a more accurate sample as the season goes wrong. However, the point was to [U]say that we are better right now than we were 5 weeks ago and back it up[/U]. That's not set up unfair. If it can't be done, it can't be done. I MIGHT be right, ya know.[/QUOTE]

You're right GTripp, it cannot be done. As you correctly note, the "sample size" is not big enough to state with any precision how "good" our offense is right now. [I]But that also means [/I]that you CANNOT state with any precision how good our offense is right now (better or worse than under Brunell).

Please stop asking people to reference just stats or "case studies" in support of their arguments. Aren't you the one who said Brunell's performance in Philly was attributable to it being a road game in the friggin rain? You also claim that playcalling has adversely affected Brunell, and the offense more generally. So, if your arguments are, in part, based on things other than stats, you shouldn't complain when others do too. Stats and "case studies" are nice and all, but they are not the end all be all.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

[quote=GTripp0012;249343]But you in many cases choose to ignore this neutral style that I use in presenting arguements and paint me to be a hard-assed jerk who can't admit that I'm wrong.[/quote]

There's nothing neutral about this statement:"L's are L's, and the best chance to get W's is with Brunell (still). "

I know you want to believe you're playing this argument right down the middle, but if you're not a Brunell fanboy(which I believe you are), you're really playing the part of devil's advocate, by arguing on the side of Brunell simply because no one else is. If that's what you're doing, then so be it, but if you continue to support your argument with numbers only, and completely ignore the sub par, gutless play that was being displayed every Sunday fron the quarterback position, you can expect plenty of people to take issue with it.

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

:vomit: [quote=Mattyk72;249466]Man this thread is blowing my mind. Brunell is on the bench, why can't we just let that go???[/quote]
Campbell's thread hijacked into this Brunnell arguement:vomit:

Re: Grade Jason Campbell
 

Campbell is my dad