Grade Jason Campbell

[Hail2em]

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

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

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.

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 someone (anyone who holds the position) to tell me how we are a better team now then we were 5 weeks ago. 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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

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.

Also, are you saying Campbell needed this offensive "spark" just to be as good 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?

[70Chip]

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

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.

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.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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

[gibbsisgod]

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

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.

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.

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

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

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

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.

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.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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 someone (anyone who holds the position) to tell me how we are a better team now then we were 5 weeks ago. 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).

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?

[illdefined]

"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?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

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?

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

"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.

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?