re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=MonkFan4Life;737024]Because if he were playing well in Oakland there would be one about that, only it would be at about 30 pages by now.[/quote]

And it would be just as worthless.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=MonkFan4Life;737023]You're right that many QB's make the mistakes that Jason makes, but the good ones have more positives. And until he finds a way to have more of those, then he'll ride the pine.[/quote]

Many QBs make the same mistakes that Campbell makes except that Campbell becamee the scapegoat for all the deficiencies of our bad Redskins team and now people seem predisposed towards bashing him.
Is JC a great QB? Nope.
But the fact remain JC is what he's is and unless you're one of those peoples that disregards stats JC was the 15th rated QB in the NFL under quite possibly the worst set of circumstances a QB can have. (As opposed to Palmer who was the 16th rated QB and put up identical numbers despite have every benefit that Campbell lacked.)

Now i don't know about you but if you traded for a QB would you put him in a situation that would help him win?
Does pulling him after a game and a half then [I][B]changing[/B][/I] the playcalling style to make the 2nd more comfortable strike you as the way to go about it?
The 2nd QB who had the benefit of better pass protection?


Q: Bruce was not sacked in the second half. [U][I][B]Was that a function of offensive line play, mobility or both?[/B][/I][/U]
Cable: I think a little bit of both, but[B][I][U] I thought we cleaned up some things[/U][/I][/B]. He got flushed twice, but [B][I][U]I thought we cleaned up some things in terms of blitzes.[/U][/I][/B]
We talked all week, the quarterback would have to handle that overload pressure sometimes and either get it out of his hand or get himself in a better play, better protection, and I felt that [U][I][B]other than the one free hitter on Jason early in the game, we just missed an assignment there, but really, Veldheer got beat the one time, other than it was kind of normal play back and forth. But I do think we adjusted well and I think we handled the pressures better.[/B][/I][/U]

Q: It appeared [U][I][B]Jason had deeper routes[/B][/I][/U] and Bruce had shorter routes . . .
(30gut-deeper rights although the pass protection wasn't great does that sound good to you?)

Cable: Early, [B][I][U]that’s true because we wanted to get him started right but we were still throwing the deep balls and the go-routes, the big daggers[/U][/I][/B] and those things, so it probably went back to more the same.

[U][I][B]But early, yeah, we wanted to get him in there and get him started and let him make some quick plays and see if he could get everyone’s confidence going.[/B][/I][/U]
(30gut-Why not do this same thing for Campbell^^ to start the game? But there's more.....)
Q: How much does who is at [I][B]quarterback influence the play-calling[/B][/I]?

Cable: Well, for us, I don’t think it matters for either guy. [U][I][B]I think it’s just the situation of bringing a guy off the bench at halftime and you want to get him something [COLOR="Olive"]quick and easy [/COLOR]and get him started.[/B][/I][/U]
[B][I][U]But you do that periodically throughout the game and I think every team, when you kind of feel a lull, you might get some quick balls or maybe some no-huddle, trying to change momentum a little bit. So I just think it’s a product of that more than anything.[/U][/I][/B]
(30gut-Again why not do that with Campbell?)

JC is in a tough spot in Oakland and its gonna take a lot to make it work.
He's seemingly caught in a power struggle between the HC and owner.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

man alive why do you fools care about your old qb anymore, you gots one of the best now with mcnugget !!!!!!!!

still not as good as my man shaub though yowser!!!!!!

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

That article is load of bull because it cites stats, but doesn't comment on how the QB was playing with regards to all the other throws he was attempting.

Flacco threw 4 picks, but he also came out of the gate with a TD drive to begin the second half against a good defense.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[url=http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/17452/examining-oaklands-qb-dilemma]Examining Oakland's QB dilemma - AFC West Blog - ESPN[/url]

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;737071][url=http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/17452/examining-oaklands-qb-dilemma]Examining Oakland's QB dilemma - AFC West Blog - ESPN[/url][/quote]

Oakland should've spent whatever they traded for Campbell on an offensive lineman. They are a terrible team and they got a mediocre QB to go along with that terrible offensive line.

As the Cowpukes have shown, you won't get anywhere with a terrible offensive line. Unless you have an elite QB like Rodgers or P. Manning or Brees. Then again, Al Davis runs that team, so this whole mess is not surprising.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=denim_monger;737035]man alive why do you fools care about your old qb anymore, you gots one of the best now with mcnugget !!!!!!!!

still not as good as my man shaub though yowser!!!!!![/quote]

Don't come on here with that Bandwagon stuff lol And McNabb is still better than shaub.. Matt needs Great Wrs to be successful, DMac never does.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;737041]That article is load of bull because it cites stats, but doesn't comment on how the QB was playing with regards to all the other throws he was attempting.[/quote]
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.

[quote]Flacco threw 4 picks, but he also came out of the gate with a TD drive to begin the second half against a good defense.[/quote]

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.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;737071][url=http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/17452/examining-oaklands-qb-dilemma]Examining Oakland's QB dilemma - AFC West Blog - ESPN[/url][/quote]

Interesting article.

[quote=Bill Williamson/Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc]Williamson said Campbell is a drop-back quarterback who can have success in the vertical passing game, which works well with Oakland’s receivers and their offensive philosophy. However, because of Oakland’s poor offensive line, Campbell is a bad fit because he can’t get out of trouble on his own and has no time to set up the long pass. That was evident in Campbell’s six quarters as Oakland’s quarterback in Weeks 1 and 2.

Williamson thinks Gradkowski is the type of player who can make do with Oakland’s weak offensive line because he gets the ball out of hands quickly and he makes plays with his feet. When the protection breaks down, Gradkowski can keep plays going. But Williamson said he doesn’t believe Gradkowski possesses the big arm to use Oakland’s fleet receivers and he isn’t a perfect fit for Oakland’s offensive scheme. [/quote]

I think Williamson underestimates Campbell ability in the short rhythm passing game.
Although it doesn't use his strengths Campbell ,at least in my opinion, proved that he can execute a 3-5 step drop passing game with effeciency that's a positive from his time in Washington he improved as quick rhythm timing QB b/c Zorn and the lack of pass protection forced him.
Look at Campbells play when Bingo Lewis was calling plays.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;737079]Don't come on here with that Bandwagon stuff lol And McNabb is still better than shaub.. Matt needs Great Wrs to be successful, DMac never does.[/quote]

LOL, sorry, but I would take Shaub in a heartbeat over DMac. Love DMac, but Schaub right now is the better QB.

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...

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote]A pseudo-intellectual tries complicate stuff and post sophist arguments.
[/quote]

Um...then don't look at your previous post then.

I don't have the time nor the inclination nor,lol, can i find my sophmore year philosophy text book to quible with you about SFCS.

It appears all you want to do is quible and that's exactly what i wanted to avoid.
I'm not playing any word games nor was i trying to get you to agree to anything you don't.
I asked you simple direct questions to figure out how you saw the issue.
The 1st was this:
And you went sideways on me:
[quote=My 1st question]Can you agree that net-net throwing 4 or more INTs would indicate a bad game?[/quote]
[quote=Your response]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". [/quote]
Nice try? "Ha"?
I asked a simple question and you are trying to view it as some sort of word game trap?

If you don't agree its cool.
But, to be clear YOU read something into the question that simply wasn't there.

[quote=My 2nd question]Given poor QB play are black QBs getting benched/yanked quicker then there non-black counter parts?[/quote]
[quote=You]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]
Again huh?
I gather, lol, your response to this is also no?
Cool.

[quote=SirClintonPortis;737341]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.[/quote]
Do you always post like this or are you upset?
Right, right i've been insulting you?
Well by that same token you're insulting me by overcomplicating my posts and you're wasting my time with a lesson in philosophy. (Which is actually quite funny b/c after you rightly call yourself a hypocrite for your own logical fallacious argument you then correct it to make it logical which we both know doesn't make it true. And since you didn't even watch the games you have no idea how Jackson actually played.)

You seem bent on turning this discussion into something its not.
Its like you are having a pre-arranged argument with yourself and trying to tie me in.
It would be alot simpler to just read my post without your pre-arranged argument in mind.
[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.
[B][I][U]I'm not saying they got pulled because they're black and it was a willful decision based on race.[/U][/I][/B]
[B][I][U]No.[/U][/I][/B]
[B][I][U]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.[/U][/I][/B]

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

You're so bent on having an argument that you glossed right over it.
My statement does not preclude that there could be a plethora of reasons related to each situation that may rightly or wrongly explain the decisions.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

Campbell is Out as Oakland's QB. Gradkowski is the starter going forward. Just saw it on the news.

This should be the end of JC's time as an NFL starter. He would make a good backup on a talented team where all he has to do is preserve the win, but his days of starting in the league should be over.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;737573]Campbell is Out as Oakland's QB. Gradkowski is the starter going forward. Just saw it on the news.

This should be the end of JC's time as an NFL starter. He would make a good backup on a talented team where all he has to do is preserve the win, but his days of starting in the league should be over.[/quote]

Damnit, Campbell got Ramsey'd! He was robbed, I tell ya. He never got a chance!

Hahaha. :vomit:

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

[url=http://www.raiderfans.net/forum/oakland-raiders-forum-message-board/169328-hues-call-its-gradkowski-update.html]Hue's call? It's Gradkowski (update) - Oakland Raiders Forum | Message Board - Where the Raider Nation lives![/url]

[url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/raiders/detail?entry_id=72902#ixzz10ICYcIOH]Hue's call? It's Gradkowski (update) : SFGate: Raiders Silver and Black Blog[/url]

[quote]"This past week's game at halftime [I][B][U]I made a decision to go in and talk to our head coach about making a switch at quarterback. [/U][/B][/I]OK. I have great latitude from our owner, Mr. Davis, and from Coach Cable, that anything that I think needs to be done on offense in order for us to score points that I'm able to do. ...

Read more: [url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/raiders/detail?entry_id=72902#ixzz10JqMQTHe]Hue's call? It's Gradkowski (update) : SFGate: Raiders Silver and Black Blog[/url][/quote]
Don't have to time go through the thread and continue with my mess until Friday. I don't even know what responses have came since my tl;dr post.

However, the Campbell benching is now completely irrelevant to the discussion as a BLACK MAN(Hue Jackson) called for the benching OF A BLACK QB. Not Cable, it was actually Hue Jackson who went to the Polish man.

re: The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball
 

Thank goodness this current regime knew what they had in Jc and made the switch.JC was a standup guy and likeable and I think too many{way too many}people would look past his play because of that.Patrick Ramsey has been crucified on this board and i dont see JC being any better.Can anybody ever imagine {in their wildest dreams} JC throwing for over 400 yards with no running game? I dont want to pile on JC,but thank God hes not our problem anymore

Drama in Oakland, according to PFT, that is
 

So we'll see if Florio is stirring the pot again or if this is really true. Then again, it is their "News and Rumors" section. lol.

[url=http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/Its-Official-Raiders-Have-a-QB-Controversy.html]It's Official: Raiders Have a QB Controversy | NBC Bay Area[/url]

And I must say, there has been a sudden invasion of Poles occuring in the NFL. Two Gronkowskis, a Gradkowski, and damn bunch of other -kowskis. It must be stopped. Their last names are offensive to my ears. /lolbadsarcasm

Re: Drama in Oakland, according to PFT, that is
 

wow .. i really thought JC had a chance to rebound in Oakland .. thank you jesus he is gone

Re: Drama in Oakland, according to PFT, that is
 

All their QBs suck.
Whats controversial about that?

Re: Drama in Oakland, according to PFT, that is
 

You can't play scared to throw in this league and JC is once again showing that he holds on to the ball for far too long. I would play Gradkowski...I believe he gives them a better chance to win than JC.

Re: Drama in Oakland, according to PFT, that is
 

Actually in watching the highlights of the Rams-Raiders game, I was surprised at how decisive JC looked. He was performing fakes, looking off safeties, and getting the ball out a lot quicker. No way would I have him over McNabb but at the very least it seems like his mechanics have improved.

Re: Drama in Oakland, according to PFT, that is
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;738013]Actually in watching the highlights of the Rams-Raiders game, I was surprised at how decisive JC looked. He was performing fakes, looking off safeties, and getting the ball out a lot quicker. No way would I have him over McNabb but at the very least it seems like his mechanics have improved.[/quote]

I must say, if this is what you observed, then Zorn is not that good of a QB coach while Jackson is.

[B]Be afraid, Joe Flacco. Be very afraid. You may suffer this year.[/B]

Re: Drama in Oakland, according to PFT, that is
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;738002]So we'll see if Florio is stirring the pot again or if this is really true. Then again, it is their "News and Rumors" section. lol.

[URL="http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/Its-Official-Raiders-Have-a-QB-Controversy.html"]It's Official: Raiders Have a QB Controversy | NBC Bay Area[/URL]

And I must say, there has been a sudden invasion of Poles occuring in the NFL. Two Gronkowskis, a Gradkowski, and damn bunch of other -kowskis. It must be stopped. Their last names are offensive to my ears. /lolbadsarcasm[/quote]

Are you being sarkowskis?

Re: Drama in Oakland, according to PFT, that is
 

you can put the turd in silver and black...but it still STINKS!

haha I kid I kid, I really like JC, nicest guy alive...he just never gets a break man. tipped ball INT's seem to happen to him more than anyone. Then Gradkowski comes in looking incredible and they are saying he's a better leader...poor JC. At least his "pockets straight"

what'd we get for him ... a 4th rounder?

Re: Drama in Oakland, according to PFT, that is
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;738018]I must say, if this is what you observed, then Zorn is not that good of a QB coach while Jackson is.

[B]Be afraid, Joe Flacco. Be very afraid. You may suffer this year.[/B][/quote]

But at least you'll fun with the slip and slide drill.
[YT]NfGZsPLDkY8[/YT]

Re: Drama in Oakland, according to PFT, that is
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;738032]But at least you'll fun with the slip and slide drill.
[YT]NfGZsPLDkY8[/YT][/quote]

my god, how did we get rid of this GENIOUS!