Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat
Youve taken everything ive said out of context. Its widely accepted that Campbell is a bad fit for our system and ive argued that point in various threads. You talk about our team as if its complete garbage, but its not. Its a very average team overall, but certainly a better team than Denver. I said Campbell had no value to US because we will most certainly let him walk next year... he has value to other teams running other systems, which is why we could get something for him now. And what evidence do you have that Cutler is not a winner? hes a great quarterback on a horrible team who made his teammates look better. Contrast that with Campbell - an average quarterback on an average team who doesnt fit the system and doesnt make anyone around him better. Cutler would be a better fit for this team.
|
The problem is not that you're wrong on this issue, or that I'm wrong on this issue, it's that you seem to be totally out of touch with reality.
First point: FACT - Campbell had better numbers under Zorn than under Saunders.
Spending a lot of time repeating oneself doesn't make you any more right, if in fact, there is no element of incompatibility between Campbell and Zorn. I know this is a fundamental belief of yours, but its at best, not
necessarily right (or wrong). You have to realize that if you want to make sense. It's not something you can use to prove anything else, because you can't establish that it actually exists.
Common knowledge does not prove this because it is not widely believed.
Second point: I jumped into this thread with a few simplistic regressions on Campbell's numbers, and then Cutlers. I linked you to thier pfr pages in an attempt to show that they're pretty similar. Cutler's been more efficient to date. But, they're close. They both have promising numbers, but neither has "accomplished" anything that would lead you to believe they are established.
FACT - If Campbell is not established, then Cutler is not established. Any argument for one over the other is based in their perceived potential.
Third point: You committ logical fallacies out the ying yang. This is because the evidence doesn't support your position. So 16-20, 80.4 career passer Jason Campbell becomes "just average". While 17-20, 87.1 career passer Jay Cutler becomes "a great quarterback". You are using designations to manipulate reality to fit your description of it. That's a logical fallacy.
Keep in mind that we're not arguing in utopian terms, "which man would you rather have at quarterback?" You've actually stated that a 16-20, 80.4 QB AND A FIRST ROUND PICK for a 17-20, 87.1 QB would be
the steal trade of the century. Um, holy crap. Well, gee, of course there's no evidence to defend that statement! I'm guessing if we actually did that, there'd be a Fire Vinny petition at least 20,000 signitures deep within an hour. But apparently, that's the steal of the century. We just don't know it.
Fourth point: What players does Washington have on it's offense that are better than league average at their position? Cooley, for one. Portis, is another. Sellers is above league average, but he plays less than a third receiver. Chris Samuels is still above average. Randle El is above average as far as 2nd receivers go, but he's not going to make a WR corps by himself. Also, Campbell, but you'd have to get your head out of Jay Cutler's rear to see that.
That's it. That's all the above average players on our offense.
Meanwhile, Denver has Tony Sheffler whose an above average TE. They have Ryan Clady at LT, who had a great rookie year. Casey Wiegmann is above average for a C. Chris Kuper and Ben Hamilton have been an excellent young Guard combo for them. That's 4/5 of the line. You could argue either way on Marshall or Royal being above average, I'm not going to dispute it either way. The running backs are just a revolving door though, they don't have a Portis type player (anymore).
It's pretty clear that Cutler has the better supporting cast, offensively. Yeah, his defense sucks. Yes, that makes a difference, especially in the record. But you have to at least try to acknoledge how that has affected the QB rating discrepancy.
Or you could continue with the pseudo analysis, and claiming common knowledge a day after saying "even though 99%" of you won't agree with me.
Quote:
|
are you serious? worst set of third receivers in the NFL. Since you criticize me for not qualifying my statements, how do you qualify that?
|
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2008
Sorry, second worst. Tennessee actually threw at Justin McCareins 73 times for his 30 catches. Although, he was a starting receiver, somehow.