Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

You ask why can't Brunell be better than Brady, Manning, Grossman, Palmer, Pennington, Romo, Vick, and Hasselbeck? I can't believe you are actually asking that. I pray that you are not implying that he is better than them.

Either you are: (1) arguing that Brunell is better than those QBs; or (2) you concede that there is something wrong with those stats. So which is it?

Neither. I think he's better than Grossman and Vick...and Romo its far far too early to tell.

I will say this, those stats are based on one season. So is Brunell better than any of those remaining guys? Not even close. Has he done his job this season as well as them to this point? Most accounts say yes.

There are always extra reasoning that go along with statistics.

Anyway, Brunell is better in QB rating than most of those guys, so at what point do we discredit all evidence and bicker about nothing? I've said many times that QB rating is a flawed stat, but I'm serious now, when you say that Tom Brady is having a better season than Brunell, what are you basing that on? Record alone? Considering he's one of 53 guys on the Pats, that's pretty weak. Or are you basing it on what you hear from talking heads around the league, and what you accept without challenging.

Don't get me wrong, I also believe Brady is better than Brunell. But this season, Brady isn't as good as he normally is, and Brunell is better than his career average.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Don't get me wrong, I also believe Brady is better than Brunell. But this season, Brady isn't as good as he normally is, and Brunell is better.

Just for clarity, are you saying Brunell was a better QB this year than Brady is right now?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Just for clarity, are you saying Brunell was a better QB this year than Brady is right now?

Sorry. I'm saying Brunell is better than Brunell's career average. Got better with age. My bad.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Sorry. I'm saying Brunell is better than Brunell's career average. Got better with age. My bad.

Brunell is not like a fine wine, he hasn't gotten better with age. I can't believe you're actually saying he's better now than he was when he was younger.

And, in any event, we're not comparing Mark to Mark, we're comparing him to other QBs and what constitutes an acceptable level of performance.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Brunell is not like a fine wine

Yeah, he is. Look up 'corked'.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Neither. I think he's better than Grossman and Vick...and Romo its far far too early to tell.

I will say this, those stats are based on one season. So is Brunell better than any of those remaining guys? Not even close. Has he done his job this season as well as them to this point? Most accounts say yes.

Most accounts say Brunell has done as good of a job as those other QBs? I'm not sure what other "accounts" you're referring to.

I supplement statistically analyses with my eyes, and I've seen enough games of all of those QBs to know that Brunell has not been doing a good job and I think the overwhelming majority of other eyes concur.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I supplement statistically analyses with my eyes, and I've seen enough games of all of those QBs to know that Brunell has not been doing a good job and I think the overwhelming majority of other eyes concur.

Ditto. I'm even a person that puts a lot of stock in statistics, but the moment a wannabe professor that probably has no other understanding of the game of football other than the numbers, tells me that Mark Brunell is doing his job better than Carson Palmer and Tom Brady, is the moment I tell him he's retarded.

Instead of throwing around numbers, how about you use your eyes, and watch the performance on the field. A six yard completion on 3rd and 9 looks really nice for the passing statistics, but it does absolutely dick as far as actually winning the game. Throwing the ball away on third and long may prevent an interception, but again, give up plays don't put points on the board.

You know what happens when you put too much stock into statistics? You end up losing a close game to the Redskins, because some stupid card told you it was statistically smart to go for a two point conversion, instead of kicking the extra point in the first quarter of the game.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Ditto. I'm even a person that puts a lot of stock in statistics, but the moment a wannabe professor that probably has no other understanding of the game of football other than the numbers, tells me that Mark Brunell is doing his job better than Carson Palmer and Tom Brady, is the moment I tell him he's retarded.

Instead of throwing around numbers, how about you use your eyes, and watch the performance on the field. A six yard completion on 3rd and 9 looks really nice for the passing statistics, but it does absolutely dick as far as actually winning the game. Throwing the ball away on third and long may prevent an interception, but again, give up plays don't put points on the board.

You know what happens when you put too much stock into statistics? You end up losing a close game to the Redskins, because some stupid card told you it was statistically smart to go for a two point conversion, instead of kicking the extra point in the first quarter of the game.

Statistics should never override common sense...but then again if you think common sense tells you to bench the league's 10th rated QB, you should probably check which side of the arguement you want to be on.

Look, I have no problem with your position on the issue, but you've never been one to debate me really. You like to look at issues on the surface and draw conclusions quickly and then be stubborn about them when they are questioned.

I disagree with that philosophy.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Statistics should never override common sense...but then again if you think common sense tells you to bench the league's 10th rated QB, you should probably check which side of the arguement you want to be on.

Look, I have no problem with your position on the issue, but you've never been one to debate me really. You like to look at issues on the surface and draw conclusions quickly and then be stubborn about them when they are questioned.

I disagree with that philosophy.

Common sense finally told Gibbs that Brunell wasn't working out. Why don't you get ahold of him and feed him meaningless statistics that obviously have nothing to do with actually winning games.

And since you think I'm "stubborn" and can't look beneath the surface, I'll use some of your numbers to support my argument. You've said before that Brunell's horrible games have been the result of the rest of the offense playing poorly. That's an odd statement because you claim that since Brunell is ranked 10th based on DVOA, it proves that he's doing a good job, but Washington's rushing offense is ranked 9th based on DVOA. So if the rushing offense is ranked 9th, how does that hinder Brunell's performance?

The same website also has drive statistics, and in all on the times you've quoted DVOA, I've never seen you post drive statistics. Washington is ranked 16th in yards per drive, 23rd in points per drive, 22nd in TD's per drive, and tenth in punts per drive. But I'm sure there's an excuse as to why none of that has anything to do with Brunell...