Mcnabb to Washington?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

The QB is the single most influential player on the field.

JC's absolute best season was 8-8. So far his ceiling is the mean and the same year that JC had his best season, McNabb was playing for the NFC championship. Following that season, McNabb won 11 games, JC lost 12.

I really don't give a damn about the YPA is or the completion percentage and all that. At this point in time, McNabb is a proven winner, JC is a proven loser.

You can prove anything you want with statistics at some point personal accountability needs to be considered.

JC has had plenty of opportunities to make the play to win us games late and he consistently falls short. I wish things were different but his history cannot be changed.

This boldly emphasizes my point. You can prove anything you want with wins and losses, but ultimately, you are what you are. Having a really successful run from 2001-2004 cannot make McNabb larger than life. What he has become is an aging middle-of-pack passer. This should not be construed into something it isn't.

When you manipulate the sample enough, you can produce evidence that suggests that Mark Sanchez is a proven winner, while Tom Brady is a proven loser. One guy won two playoff games this year, the other won none. Sanchez won more games overall this year as well...in fact, they've won the same number of NFL games since 2007, including playoffs. If that's the production you care about, then stay consistent. To argue that Brady is more winning than Sanchez, you would have to either cite the pre-Sanchez past, or go to the stats. But if personal accountability is the disguise for mis-analysis, you would just conclude that Sanchez is a winner and that Brady should focus on trying to improve his plight in the future.

But because you have access to a bunch of information that suggests that I'm completely out of my mind to suggest Sanchez>Brady, you would just reject the argument of personal accountability on Brady's part. Which is exactly what I'm doing with McNabb-Campbell.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

This boldly emphasizes my point. You can prove anything you want with wins and losses, but ultimately, you are what you are. Having a really successful run from 2001-2004 cannot make McNabb larger than life. What he has become is an aging middle-of-pack passer. This should not be construed into something it isn't.

When you manipulate the sample enough, you can produce evidence that suggests that Mark Sanchez is a proven winner, while Tom Brady is a proven loser. One guy won two playoff games this year, the other won none. Sanchez won more games overall this year as well...in fact, they've won the same number of NFL games since 2007, including playoffs. If that's the production you care about, then stay consistent. To argue that Brady is more winning than Sanchez, you would have to either cite the pre-Sanchez past, or go to the stats. But if personal accountability is the disguise for mis-analysis, you would just conclude that Sanchez is a winner and that Brady should focus on trying to improve his plight in the future.

But because you have access to a bunch of information that suggests that I'm completely out of my mind to suggest Sanchez>Brady, you would just reject the argument of personal accountability on Brady's part. Which is exactly what I'm doing with McNabb-Campbell.

So you are using statistics to argue that Sanchez is better than Tom Brady... How is that hurting my argument?

If an aging middle of the pack QB is worth 11 wins, sign me up.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

So you are using statistics to argue that Sanchez is better than Tom Brady... How is that hurting my argument?

If an aging middle of the pack QB is worth 11 wins, sign me up.

You're not declaring your Eagles fandom here...right?

I'm specifically avoiding statistics that would suggest Brady might be better than Sanchez, much like you're avoiding the statistics that suggest that McNabb and Campbell are of similar (but not equal) value.

Suggesting that they are in the same tier is not necessarily asking one to accept them as equivalents, contrary to where I might have been leading people with my wordiness. It is specifically designed to reject the idea that one guy might have some winning quality that can't possibly be explained by having an excellent, unfailingly competent defense or a receiver or two that isn't allergic to the end zone.