How Will Campbell Be Handled?

[That Guy]

I'd just like to state the right now Jason Campbell is an unknown. You can't treat him like a superstar or a bust or anything in between. I think it'd be best to watch him play in preseason and see if he's actually any good before proclaiming the great Campbell transition period. This is all squabbling over hypotheticals based off rampant (and varying) assumptions of a complete unknown.

He could be a bust or the best QB in the league, until you're sure of what you've got though, you should go with what you know (Brunell). If Campbell knocks him off with a great preseason performance, I'm all for immediate change. If not, its just a matter of seeing where he's at and how comfortable the coaches would be in inserting him when brunell is either injured or playing poorly.


now to the pointless rebutals:

Originally Posted by huddle

The question we're discussing is whether Gibbs relied heavily on the running game at the end of last year because he wanted to as a matter of philosophy or whether he was forced to by circumstance.

He has always run the football more when he has a lead. There's no change there

can't it be both? we won 5 straight games towards the end, so obviously we had the lead and started running more. brunell wore out at the end, but its not like we averaged 2.0ypc and decided to run anyways. It was working, so we continued to rely on it. I don't see why you'd abandon what's working without a good reason.

Originally Posted by Huddle

Yo, Matty

Here's a stat for you.

From Game One through SF, we averaged 267.5 yards per game. After SF, through the Tampa Bay playoff game, we averaged 143.5 yards per game. That's a 46% drop-off.

Coincidently, that drop off is also attributeable to the loss of patten. If you can blame it all on brunell, I'll go ahead and blame it all on losing patten. once he left moss losst 30yards/game, patten was contributing 24yards/game, and RBs lost 12yards/game receiving (TEs and other WRs made up the rest of the nearly 86 yards/game net loss). once patten went down, non moss WRs went from 3.5 catches a game to less than 1 catch a game.

Its convenient to blame brunell, but the loss of patten and the improvements in the running game also played a big part. (we run with the lead, and we won 5 straight games, so we had to be leading and thus running more for at least parts of those games).

I don't see how this year with better WR depth, better WR talent, and better scheme that we'll somehow be worse off.

Originally Posted by somebody

And I think if it actually wasn't going to inhibit learning as you suggest, then you'd actually see NFL coaches bring QBs along this way. But I never see that happen. It's just not a smart way of doing things.

the very fact that you think people should take your word (without ANY proof) over that of a collective group of experts is either hubris or stupidity. Either way, statements like this are why your credibility is dead.

Originally Posted by Huddle

No denial; but to be candid, the emotional reaction I got surprised me when I simply remarked that IMO conventional football stats are almost useless. I was made to feel like I'd just informed a kindergarten class that there was no Santa.

and yet in that same thread you were proven wrong on every point, and two days later you post an article about how great (DVOA) stats are (which, by the way, are still stats). So its nice that you think you're smarter than everyone else, except it's not true. And you ended up disagreeing with the very post that you thought was so well reasoned :P

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Um yes, I do. Because [NFL coaches] know a lot more about football than I do.

Or, as you seem to be insinuating, do you think you know more than they do?

do i even need to comment? with no experience as an NFL coach, the fact that you'd think you know more than them about any point of their job (as a collective whole) is insane.

and more irony from the unwitting master :P.



here's something that might be relevent:
Unskilled and Unaware of It