McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Burden of proof is on you, dude. It's your claim that Reid's offense was so unbalanced that it make McNabb's job difficult, not mine. As a hypothesis, I think it's legit, but you might as well put "I think" before it because I don't have to agree with every distant assumption you make, just like you don't have to agree with the way I use completion percentage and sack rate to show value.

In the absence of personal expertise on what makes the Shanahan offense click, your entire argument is valueless. You critique me for appealing to my own expertise, but I'm very forthright in where I'm deriving my opinions. You just write stuff seemingly to make me read it.

Yes, you back off like a little coward once your "moral superiority" assumption against me went down the drain, now did it?

Then you seem unable to comprehend that every play's outcome can be broken down into two categories: Success or failure.

Running the ball effectively forces the opponent to call anti-pass plays with greater reservation, thus increasing the probability that when a pass play is called, the opponent will have an unsuitable defense to deal with it and a big play will occur.
Sure, you could have enough talent that you'll hit a big one, but the chance of that is still lower since the opponent can commit everything to just stopping the pass via blitz, double coverage, bracket coverage. Run the ball effectively, and the opponent has to commit their linebackers and quite possibly more just to stop the RB, which leaves means the CBs will be stuck in man or something more often, which in turn can be exploited by running a passing play out of the same formation. The opponent now has to guess, and one wrong guess can mean the difference in the game.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Yes, you back off like a little coward once your "moral superiority" assumption against me went down the drain, now did it?

Then you seem unable to comprehend that every play's outcome can be broken down into two categories: Success or failure.

Running the ball effectively forces the opponent to call anti-pass plays with greater reservation, thus increasing the probability that when a pass play is called, the opponent will have an unsuitable defense to deal with it and a big play will occur.
Sure, you could have enough talent that you'll hit a big one, but the chance of that is still lower since the opponent can commit everything to just stopping the pass via blitz, double coverage, bracket coverage. Run the ball effectively, and the opponent has to commit their linebackers and quite possibly more just to stop the RB, which leaves means the CBs will be stuck in man or something more often, which in turn can be exploited by running a passing play out of the same formation. The opponent now has to guess, and one wrong guess can mean the difference in the game.

Okay, well stated. Do you have any actual evidence for these claims, or will a simple "I still think you're overrating the effect of a generic running game commitment on passing efficiency" suffice?

I'm well versed in game-theory, so you can save the lecture. There's obviously some effect of run-pass balance on play efficiency, but I don't think there's a major effect to be found there. Just my opinion.

Also, how many Brownie Points do I get for breaking your composure with just a little bit of logical reasoning? Some? I'll settle for some.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Okay, well stated. Do you have any actual evidence for these claims, or will a simple "I still think you're overrating the effect of a generic running game commitment on passing efficiency" suffice?

I'm well versed in game-theory, so you can save the lecture. There's obviously some effect of run-pass balance on play efficiency, but I don't think there's a major effect to be found there. Just my opinion.

Also, how many Brownie Points do I get for breaking your composure with just a little bit of logical reasoning? Some? I'll settle for some.

No more 8-in-the-box for Adrian Peterson.

Just for the record, you assuming that, to paraphrase, I thought Campbell was the ONLY QB that couldn't do it is what ticked me off. I was all smiles until you asserted that reckless assumption, and it seems that it deserves multiple mentions because you seem to have promptly forgot about it. If you like to tread closely to ad hominem land, be my guest, just don't go pat yourself on the back for being awesomely rational when you aren't so invulnerable.
You deserve no points for your faux "logicalness" and trying to assert a logically valid, but unsound-- I'm assuming you know what soundness and validity are, as you should if you're going to assert that you were logical in the first place--, syllogism regarding sacks and the slowness of QB feet, which only goes to further show your inflated opinion of yourself. I'm know about the material conditional, and there is at least one example of a mobile QB getting frequently sacked.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

No more 8-in-the-box for Adrian Peterson.

Just for the record, you assuming that, to paraphrase, I thought Campbell was the ONLY QB that couldn't do it is what ticked me off. I was all smiles until you asserted that reckless assumption, and it seems that it deserves multiple mentions because you seem to have promptly forgot about it. If you like to tread closely to ad hominem land, be my guest, just don't go pat yourself on the back for being awesomely rational when you aren't so invulnerable.
You deserve no points for your faux "logicalness" and trying to assert a logically valid, but unsound-- I'm assuming you know what soundness and validity are, as you should if you're going to assert that you were logical in the first place--, syllogism regarding sacks and the slowness of QB feet, which only goes to further show your inflated opinion of yourself. I'm know about the material conditional, and there is at least one example of a mobile QB getting frequently sacked.

Your right, Peterson was a monster this year w/Favre.

You asserted that Gradkowski was greater than Campbell with the evidence of him moving around in the pocket kind of well for a half. Do you not understand how many days you set back rational discussion by doing this? You didn't even back down from this when pointed out, which changes the dynamic that I have to address.

Basically, the anyone but Campbell comment was a tongue in cheek generalization which shouldn't have ticked you off, if only because you were trying to go as far as you could to show that people like Alex Smith and Bruce Gradkowski have more value. That raised red flags about your assessment right away, but it's your persistent assumption that logic and reasoning is in your corner that forces me to conclude that my position is superior. If you have an unpopular opinion based on niche evidence, just state your case and move on. I do this all the time.

If you want to continue to pick at the most myopic parts of some of the 200+ posts I've made in the last day or so, regardless of the context it was intended in, knock yourself out. I'll defend my opinions, but I will not bother to defend a choice of wording from one of my posts from last night, that doesn't have a lot of meaning in the long term.

You can't change a my position vs. your position debate to a me vs. you debate because I don't give two craps about you as a person. It's nothing personal, but I've been on the WP a long time, and with the exception of a select few 15-20 group that makes this place fun to keep coming back to, I simply draw a line between your argument, which I am clearly passionate about, and you, who couldn't mean less to me.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Basically, the anyone but Campbell comment was a tongue in cheek generalization which shouldn't have ticked you off, if only because you were trying to go as far as you could to show that people like Alex Smith and Bruce Gradkowski have more value. That raised red flags about your assessment right away, but it's your persistent assumption that logic and reasoning is in your corner that forces me to conclude that my position is superior. If you have an unpopular opinion based on niche evidence, just state your case and move on. I do this all the time.

It was more about ability rather than value, unless you mean those tiers, which simply omit a "These qbs are...(descriptive predicate)" opening clause,. I never said they crushed Campbell, just had one or two aspects/abilities that they're much better at.
Smith's one-trick pony ability to run the spread is his only hope of having success. Doubtful he'll ever make it, but if he can make it work, he can make it work. Campbell doesn't even have a specialty that he's good at [yet], even though it's not all his fault for all the turnover stunting him. Gradkowski edge is pocket presence and decision-making.

You can't change a my position vs. your position debate to a me vs. you debate because I don't give two craps about you as a person. It's nothing personal, but I've been on the WP a long time, and with the exception of a select few 15-20 group that makes this place fun to keep coming back to, I simply draw a line between your argument, which I am clearly passionate about, and you, who couldn't mean less to me.

Fine with me, just refrain from silliness like accusing people of blind faith when they're inferring from the evidence with regards to Shanahan's reliable track record with offense and his QBs or throwing in the aforementioned JC generalization in the middle of a post then.