Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

SGG has had an extremely open mind with you. He does with everyone in fact.

Look, I agree with you that Brunell isn't doing as poorly as most think. And I think it's misleading to say he doesn't spread the ball around. Now while I think long-term JC will be a great QB I don't expect a sudden explosion of points right away. However, I hope I'm dead wrong. I hope Campbell is a huge difference and we start getting convincing Ws. I think a lot of other Brunell supporters feel the same way, because above all they are Redskins fans.

But I think it's becoming increasingly clear that wins don't seem to matter to you. It's like you're personally offended by the change at QB and want nothing more than to be proven right. it's like you're hoping Campbell plays poorly and we lose so you can come back with more DPAR, DVOA, DVDA, DUMB stats to say "I told you so"

I don't know why you'd say that wins don't matter to me. I think you have me completely wrong. I'm trying to bring up intelligent discussion about the QB conundrum. Food for thought if you will.

SGG has been cool about the whole QB debate, maybe a tad reactionary (every game his position on Brunell seemed to change), but nothing if not fair. So I've said this to him already, but I was calling out him for making a close minded (and out of character) post, NOT for being a close minded person. He, in general, is one of the more open minded members on this fourm, and to clarify, I think he's a great moderator.

Why would you say that I hope Campbell plays poorly? I'll defend him too if he gets unjustly attacked. I'm on record saying that. I believe, due to readings i've made, that Jason Campbell will grow to be a great NFL QB. But grow is the key term.

The point of metrics like DVOA and DPAR is not to say "I told you so." It's to try to assess performance based on eliminating factors that those players can't control. I don't know what is so horrible about that. I'm not the I told you so kind of person...never have been. When the team is losing, tensions are high. If we were as good as we were supposed to be, this would not be an issue. But is it a really horrible thing if we were to question things before accepting them as fact. I personally think not.

If anyone does, it could be difficult to get along with me over the rest of the season. I'll apoligize in advance right here.

If anyone has something to say to me, feel free to PM me, I'm here daily.

No hard feelings.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

SGG has been cool about the whole QB debate, maybe a tad reactionary (every game his position on Brunell seemed to change), but nothing if not fair. So I've said this to him already, but I was calling out him for making a close minded (and out of character) post, NOT for being a close minded person. He, in general, is one of the more open minded members on this fourm, and to clarify, I think he's a great moderator

Not to be a smart ass, but I don't think you actually mean that I am "reactionary" (an ultra right-winger who hates liberals). If you mean that I've been somewhat inconsistent on Brunell (aka a "flip-flopper"), I must clarify my position because I think I've been consistent, not dogmatic.

I have had a major problem with Brunell since the start of the season (hence my posts in these threads). That said, I: (1) am willing to recognize that he's done good things for this organization (hence my "thanks Mark Brunell" thread); and (2) think he's played a few good games this season (hence my "give props to Mark Brunell" thread).

I don't think I'm being inconsistent by calling for Brunell's benching, but recognizing that he is not Adolf Hitler re-born (as I think some posters are close to doing) and that he's done good things for us and occasionally plays a good game. I think that's just being fair to the guy. I'm not going to be unwilling to admit it when he plays well. But just because he plays well one week and I recognize it, I don't think I've abandoned my general position that he is sub-par.