Grade Jason Campbell

[illdefined]

oh and philosophy is all about theoretical and purely observational terms. the vast majority of your posts are much more akin to accounting.

[Redskin]

hey he didnt throw a pick

[railcon56]

OMG I'm so sick of hearing about Brunell.... It's like the THING that wouldn't leave....

[illdefined]

sigh. how 'bout responding to my posts directly Tripp, instead of taking potshots from other people's posts also questioning your arguments.

you accept fallacy in stats, just not yours. you accept objective observations unless they're made by someone other than you. you threaten to 'save' posts, but won't own up to your own posts predicting Campbell making loads of mistakes.

the gig's just up dude.

you're the only one on this board, the NFL, and the Redskins management holding on to your position (ok maybe Hess. but her argument is prolly based on how 'cute' Mark is). i encourage you to ask FO themselves if they believed their stats were undeniably right, and if benching your boy was wrong. i'm confident you won't like your answer, just like you don't like any of ours.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

sigh. how 'bout responding to my posts directly Tripp, instead of taking potshots from other people's posts also questioning your arguments.

the gig's just up dude.

I'm sorry, oh rightous one, that I dare respond to anyone before you. J/k, but what the heck is wrong with responding to others who also disagree w/me.

"the gig's just up dude"? Even when you aren't argueing, you aren't short on cliches, that's for sure.

you accept fallacy in stats, just not yours.

Uh, huh? Wasn't it me who all along saying QB rating was a bad stat when the easiest pro-Brunell arguement is that his QB Rating was a career high? My observations are consistent.

you accept objective observations unless they're made by someone other than you.

Uh, wrong again, not that I'm surprised. I accept all observations, dismissing only the obviously biased ones and ridiculously unsubstanciated ones. Oh, and ones based solely on cliches and TV created-terms. I called your 'bend but dont break D' an interesting theroy even though "bend but don't break" doesn't really mean anything.

you threaten to 'save' posts, but won't own up to your own posts predicting Campbell making loads of mistakes.

I threatened to save one of your posts jokingly because you said something post-Cowboys game about Brunell that you observered, that I had been observing ALL FREAKIN SEASON. I underestimated Campbell's performance. How in the hell have I not owned up to that? I even admitted that Gibbs made the change at the right time. My first post after the game was that I was impressed that he took his shots downfield without turning the ball over. I wish Saunders would have turned Brunell loose, but at this point, it's water under the bridge.

you're the only one on this board, the NFL, and the Redskins management holding on to your position (ok maybe Hess. but her argument is prolly based on how 'cute' Mark is). i encourage you to ask FO themselves if they believed their stats were undeniably right, and if benching your boy was wrong. i'm confident you won't like your answer, just like you don't like any of ours.

I'm also one of the few that is willing to question anything. That doesn't make me right, or even a better member, but it certainly allows for this kind of arguement.

FO does not claim that their stats are undenibly right, in fact they have a disclaimer that statistical evidence is a tool, and in most cases is actually not a conclusion. Statistical evidence should not override what you believe. Funny thing is, I said that on this here board a few weeks back, BEFORE I read that on FO.

They think really highly of Campbell, but they also don't project on a game to game level because the sample size is too small.

They did however do a midseason projection (when Brunell was still the QB) and found our offense improving over the last half of the season, and our D significantly improving.

But you in many cases choose to ignore this neutral style that I use in presenting arguements and paint me to be a hard-assed jerk who can't admit that I'm wrong.

That's great, but I've yet to claim (at least on the Brunell situation) that I'm even right. Go figure.

Regardless of whether my Brunell points are valid, you don't even understand who you are argueing with. Unbelieveable.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

FO does not claim that their stats are undenibly right, in fact they have a disclaimer that statistical evidence is a tool, and in most cases is actually not a conclusion. Statistical evidence should not override what you believe. Funny thing is, I said that on this here board a few weeks back, BEFORE I read that on FO.

so you admit QB rating is a bad stat, but you base all your statistical arguments on FO's stats, another imperfect formula, very much AS conclusions. all the time. thats the meat of all your posts, FO's stats.

"Statistical evidence should not override what you believe." despite your little disclaimer weeks ago, that's all your arguments have been about since. you contradict everything everyone here believes with FO's stats. except when Brunell finally assed it up in Philly, then your argument suddenly was based on "observations". real beauties too, like "the Redskins owe Mark Brunell a better send off than this and shouldnt be replaced because of everything he's done" and "you don't put in a new Quarterback when the team is doing bad". quite inconsistent with the rest of your stat filled posts this season. are you entitled to them, sure, does it clash with your empirical statistical style that you've grilled me and other posters with for weeks now? i'd definitely say so.

how about posting that little statistical disclaimer (both yours and FOs)whenever you lean heavily on them in your argument, or worse yet, dismiss other people's arguments.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But you in many cases choose to ignore this neutral style that I use in presenting arguements and paint me to be a hard-assed jerk who can't admit that I'm wrong.

There's nothing neutral about this statement:"L's are L's, and the best chance to get W's is with Brunell (still). "

I know you want to believe you're playing this argument right down the middle, but if you're not a Brunell fanboy(which I believe you are), you're really playing the part of devil's advocate, by arguing on the side of Brunell simply because no one else is. If that's what you're doing, then so be it, but if you continue to support your argument with numbers only, and completely ignore the sub par, gutless play that was being displayed every Sunday fron the quarterback position, you can expect plenty of people to take issue with it.

[MTK]

Man this thread is blowing my mind. Brunell is on the bench, why can't we just let that go???

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Man this thread is blowing my mind. Brunell is on the bench, why can't we just let that go???

It's definately a tired subject, but I'm going to partake.

[railcon56]

:vomit:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Man this thread is blowing my mind. Brunell is on the bench, why can't we just let that go???

Campbell's thread hijacked into this Brunnell arguement:vomit:

[The Zimmermans]

Campbell is my dad

[illdefined]

Brunell = new Ramsey.

[44_Riggins_44]

A-. impressive for his first game, hes the real deal