The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball

[Dirtbag59]

I freaking hate Tom Cable. He's a shit human being. Ironiccally thats why I don't want him to get fired. Obviously if he gets fired he still gets paid. I want him to have to deal with being a loosing coach for however long his contract is.

[tootergray34]

yeah dude, don't count out mcnabb. how many conference championships has shaub been too? I know the man is a flat out studhorse, but don't deny that winning is contagious...and mcnabb is a winner. and he makes people win around him cause he's an excellent leader...wihch is what wash has needed for ... dare i say decades?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by tootergray34

yeah dude, don't count out mcnabb. how many conference championships has shaub been too? I know the man is a flat out studhorse, but don't deny that winning is contagious...and mcnabb is a winner. and he makes people win around him cause he's an excellent leader...wihch is what wash has needed for ... dare i say decades?

Personally, I think it is a bit narrow minded to say who do you take between Schaub or McNabb. Honestly, right now the Texans are the better team, they have better weapons (AJ and a Foster), and a pretty good defense that compliments their talented offense. While McNabb shows he is still an elite QB (or a very good QB), obviously he wasn't able to completely carry the team.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by tootergray34

yeah dude, don't count out mcnabb. how many conference championships has shaub been too? I know the man is a flat out studhorse, but don't deny that winning is contagious...and mcnabb is a winner. and he makes people win around him cause he's an excellent leader...wihch is what wash has needed for ... dare i say decades?

I can safely deny that winning is contagious. You know what is contagious? This nasty cold I have. Can barely breathe.

[SirClintonPortis]

30gut, you've already insulted me by oversimplifying or completely misunderstanding my sentences, and I'll be damned if I let that continue. I'll play nice though, and copy and paste your sentences so as to not stoop to your level.

So, onto an analysis of the article itself. Hopefully, this will clarify some crap.

The point is that many NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks if they don't play well and replace them with a white quarterback, and let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.

After his block supporting points, he then infers:

This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.

Premise 1: NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks if they don't play well
Premise 2: They replace them with a white quarterback
Premise 3: They let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
Conclusion: This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.




And if that is visually challenging:
1. NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks if they don't play well
2. They replace them with a white quarterback
3. They let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
_________________________________________________
Therefore, This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.




So, let's examine premise 1.
First part: NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks
Declarative statement
Key verb: "seem".
Second part: if they don't play well
Makes the statement a conditional.
Third part: replace them with a white quarterback
Completes the main idea of then sentence.



So, WITHOUT LOSS OF MEANING, this can be written as:
1. If they [black qbs] don't play well, then NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks and they replace them with a white quarterback.
2. They let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
-------------------------------------------------------
Conc: This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.




Now, without any of your help, I'll try to tackle this article to achieve the same aim, but in a far more systematic manner so everything will be put out in the open.

Objection to premise 1:
Without deeper examination into the QBs play then just comparing a few stats, then all that can be said is that it just seems that way.
No deeper examination is provided. Hence, the statistical analysis is suspect.

Why is a deeper examination necessary? Because your support relies on stats, and the stats are INSUFFICIENT to describe exactly how and where they were so bad. Two players can both a 4 INTs games, but the aggregate "badness" is ALSO affected by how they play on all of their other plays, mainly their other pass attempts.

The IDEAL remedy is studying the TV broadcast, as the TV broadcast has the least amount(still has some) of data loss.
If stat analysis must be used, then it must be more complete or problem of inconclusiveness will not be remedied. Citing the play-by-play, YPA, etc are just a few things that can be cited.





Analysis of premise 2: It is just a declarative statement that leads to the conclusion.



Conclusion: This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.

Analysis of the conclusion: He infers that this is "an awful pattern". As anyone can tell, the apparent double standard is between bad performances and qbs being benched. According to him, white qbs are more likely to have poor day and not be benched than black qbs.

Things I find wanting in the conclusion:
Problem 1.
Throwing a bunch of INTs and/or losing a bunch of fumbles are an indicator that it is a bad day for the qb in the aggregate. Perceptually, the at least 50% of the "aggregate" badness is because of those turnovers, WHEN ONE IS LOOKING AT THE STATSHEET.

However, these three-five plays are insufficient reason to bench a quarterback. What needs to be known is the "trend" in the quaterback's play prior to his benching. That means giving some sort of info stuff like miscommunications, accuracy woes, misreading defense, wide receiver drops, etc.

None was to be found in the article.







Now to repeat myself again and again

Did you read my post or are you just being difficult.
Where did i say anything about wether the QBs play was conclusive?
Like i said in my previous post i don't want to quible about individual performances.
But it appears your intent on quibling over non-relevant issues.
Can you agree that net-net throwing 4 or more INTs would indicate a bad game?

Nice try.
You want me to agree with you about a ton of turnovers being a bad game and then say "Ha, see they both had bad games. The black qb is benched in bad games while white qb isn't".
So, these turnovers are supposed to be a large part of a QB's "aggregate" badness in game. This aggregate badness is a standard for benching QBs
It can be summarized in the statement "If a qb commits a lot of turnovers, then he should be benched".

Now, for the syllogism:
If a qb commits a lot of turnovers, then he should be benched.
White QB John Doe was not benched.
----------------
Therefore, he must have not committed a bunch of turnovers.

HOWEVER, he actually did commit a bunch of turnovers. This contradicts the syllogism. Something is wrong. It has to be racism.

O wait, could the first premise be a load of bull in the first place?
I would answer hell yes. There other aspects of QB play that make up their aggregate "good/bad-ness" on gameday. Some things are under his control, like being accurate, being poised under pressure. Some things are beyond his control, like wide receivers dropping his passes. Others are a mix of both, like accuracy. If he's stinking up the joint these other areas, which coaches would certainly pay attention to as they KNOW how to evaluate these things to some degree, then benching him seems plausible.

Now, if the guy really wasn't playing that badly and was benched, then yes, that CERTAINLY is cause for concern.

However, you did not consider whether it is a SUFFICIENT condition to being benched.

I do not believe "4 INTs being a bad game" and "4 INTs being a sufficient condition to being benched synonymous". Do I need to clarify at this point?

I do not believe 4 INTs is a sufficient condition to being benched. Other factors must be considered. Still following?

Those other factors are how the QB is performing. Namely, his other pass attempts. You do not believe this.

Like i said in my previous post i don't want to quible about individual performances.
But it appears your intent on quibling over non-relevant issues.

It's quite clear that you want to me to say something general on something that can't be generalized very well. I'm not biting. First prove to me that 4 INTs in themselves is a sufficient condition to being benched. In fact, I'll even put the statement in if...then form. If a QB throws 4 INTs in a game, then he must be benched regardless of race.

Nice, classy posting style.
Its in keeping with someone that can't make their point understood and stoops to patronization.
There's no need to complicate the issue here.
Given poor QB play are black QBs getting benched/yanked quicker then there non-black counter parts?

I believe you are deliberately trying to mis-characterize I say. Hence, extra verbosity and pauses. I'll gladly sacrifice politeness for clarity and the searing of premises into a person's mind.

For someone posting in such a patronizing manner one would expect your own arguements/inferences to be logical.
For a psuedo-intellectual like yourself you should be above such an obvious logical fallacy.

You talking about inductive or deductive reasoning here? I'll admit I should have added a "likely" to the sentence to make my statement "it is probable...".
Oh I see, I didn't account for CONFOUNDING VARIABLES? That's a flaw in my METHODOLOGY. And yes, by definition, I'm a hypocrite. I'm 2 for 2 here. But at least I try to find the most probable argument.

With all that said, the author's inference sure is quite a jump given all the CONFOUNDING variables that go into a benching deicision.




I doubt you can prove me to be a pesudo-intellectual. The "explain the opponent's argument, analyze it, and post your objections" has been standard for a long time.
A pseudo-intellectual tries complicate stuff and post sophist arguments. My vocab isn't fancy and all the sentences should not be difficult to read except where there are grammatical errors.

[30gut]

A pseudo-intellectual tries complicate stuff and post sophist arguments.

Um...then don't look at your previous post then.

I don't have the time nor the inclination nor,lol, can i find my sophmore year philosophy text book to quible with you about SFCS.

It appears all you want to do is quible and that's exactly what i wanted to avoid.
I'm not playing any word games nor was i trying to get you to agree to anything you don't.
I asked you simple direct questions to figure out how you saw the issue.
The 1st was this:
And you went sideways on me:

Originally Posted by My 1st question

Can you agree that net-net throwing 4 or more INTs would indicate a bad game?

Originally Posted by Your response

Nice try.
You want me to agree with you about a ton of turnovers being a bad game and then say "Ha, see they both had bad games. The black qb is benched in bad games while white qb isn't".

Nice try? "Ha"?
I asked a simple question and you are trying to view it as some sort of word game trap?

If you don't agree its cool.
But, to be clear YOU read something into the question that simply wasn't there.

Originally Posted by My 2nd question

Given poor QB play are black QBs getting benched/yanked quicker then there non-black counter parts?

Originally Posted by You

I believe you are deliberately trying to mis-characterize I say. Hence, extra verbosity and pauses. I'll gladly sacrifice politeness for clarity and the searing of premises into a person's mind.

Again huh?
I gather, lol, your response to this is also no?
Cool.

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

30gut, you've already insulted me by oversimplifying or completely misunderstanding my sentences, and I'll be damned if I let that continue. I'll play nice though, and copy and paste your sentences so as to not stoop to your level.

Do you always post like this or are you upset?
Right, right i've been insulting you?
Well by that same token you're insulting me by overcomplicating my posts and you're wasting my time with a lesson in philosophy. (Which is actually quite funny b/c after you rightly call yourself a hypocrite for your own logical fallacious argument you then correct it to make it logical which we both know doesn't make it true. And since you didn't even watch the games you have no idea how Jackson actually played.)

You seem bent on turning this discussion into something its not.
Its like you are having a pre-arranged argument with yourself and trying to tie me in.
It would be alot simpler to just read my post without your pre-arranged argument in mind.

Originally Posted by 30gut

I don't want to quible with you but if a QB throws 3-4-5 picks he's not playing well.
I don't think it needs much more analysis.
I'm not saying they got pulled because they're black and it was a willful decision based on race.
No.
What i'm saying is that if you objectively look at the scenarios net-net it would appear that if 2 QBs are having bad games that a black QB is more likely to get pulled.

I'm not trying to add anything more to it then that; i'm just looking at the raw data.

You're so bent on having an argument that you glossed right over it.
My statement does not preclude that there could be a plethora of reasons related to each situation that may rightly or wrongly explain the decisions.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Um...then don't look at your previous post then.

I don't have the time nor the inclination nor,lol, can i find my sophmore year philosophy text book to quible with you about SFCS.

It appears all you want to do is quible and that's exactly what i wanted to avoid.
I'm not playing any word games nor was i trying to get you to agree to anything you don't.
I asked you simple direct questions to figure out how you saw the issue.
The 1st was this:
And you went sideways on me:


Nice try? "Ha"?
I asked a simple question and you are trying to view it as some sort of word game trap?

If you don't agree its cool.
But, to be clear YOU read something into the question that simply wasn't there.



Again huh?
I gather, lol, your response to this is also no?
Cool.


Do you always post like this or are you upset?
Right, right i've been insulting you?
Well by that same token you're insulting me by overcomplicating my posts and you're wasting my time with a lesson in philosophy. (Which is actually quite funny b/c after you rightly call yourself a hypocrite for your own logical fallacious argument you then correct it to make it logical which we both know doesn't make it true. And since you didn't even watch the games you have no idea how Jackson actually played.)

You seem bent on turning this discussion into something its not.
Its like you are having a pre-arranged argument with yourself and trying to tie me in.
It would be alot simpler to just read my post without your pre-arranged argument in mind.


You're so bent on having an argument that you glossed right over it.
My statement does not preclude that there could be a plethora of reasons related to each situation that may rightly or wrongly explain the decisions.

------------------------------------------------
"Got that?" is a rude form of "do you understand?"
That does not make any of my other statments statements false.
Pseudo-intellecutals make false statements.
"Got that" is a question that neither be characterized as true or false.

So, your standards behind labeling me as a pseudo-intellectual apparently needs some work.
You already know that ad hominem fallacy though, so I have to conclude that your emotions tell the truth.

-----------------------------------------------------
The article writer is ambiguous on his use of quick. He APPARENTLY uses "quicker" in the sense of 'time has passed before benching'(2 weeks before benching) in the main article, not a "faster rate"(3 black/wk vs 2 whites/wk) as his title implies.

Sure, if he means that from this offseason, black qbs are being benched "quicker" by white head coaches, while other different white head coaches allow white qbs to stay on, then that would be a yes.


-------------------------------------------

Nice try? "Ha"?
I asked a simple question and you are trying to view it as some sort of word game trap?

If you don't agree its cool.
But, to be clear YOU read something into the question that simply wasn't there.

You oversimplified the definition of a "bad game" to just many(3 or more) INTs.
Even if I don't have access to tape, if the QB also led one or two scoring drives, then he could be said to have a so-so game or even a good game with a couple costly mistakes.
That's my "no" answer. Incidentally, Favre had such a game with the Jets.

Also, the article writer was the one who brought up Favre and his interceptions streak and why he hasn't been benched through his race paradigm.
----------------------

Of course, the article writer's point kind of died due to his supporting arguments dying. Now, he's saying that Hue Jackson shouldn't have done it because it divided the locker room even though Gradkowski played better.

And the Iggles are rumored to be entertaining trade offers for Kolb. Rumored, sure; but I can see the incentive to get value before Kolb embarrasses himself further.

[30gut]

So after all that bluster and condescension this?

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Sure, if he means that from this offseason, black qbs are being benched "quicker" by white head coaches, while other different white head coaches allow white qbs to stay on, then that would be a yes.

Did it finally dawn on you that you were arguing against points i wasn't making?

-BTW you're the one mentioning the race of the HC not the author.
Which renders your point about Hue Jackson being black as another strawman:

Of course, the article writer's point kind of died due to his supporting arguments dying. Now, he's saying that Hue Jackson shouldn't have done it because it divided the locker room even though Gradkowski played better.

SCP-
I try to post in conversational manner.
Like 2 guys sitting in a bar drinking a beer, shooting the breeze talking football.
I would like to keep my conversations in this forum at that level.
Even if we disagree, which will happen theres no reason we should repeat our past discourse.

HTTR!

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by 30gut

So after all that bluster and condescension this?


Did it finally dawn on you that you were arguing against points i wasn't making?

-BTW you're the one mentioning the race of the HC not the author.
Which renders your point about Hue Jackson being black as another strawman:

Yeah, I'll admit specifically where I'm wrong, but will continue to duke it out on points I still deem debatable. I bungled up on your questions and simply answered them, although I still will not back down from that pseudo-intellectual comment.
----------------
Moving on...

The author not very precise with his position to begin with, although that's forgivable because it's a blog post and not a hardcore paper meant to be read by academia.

However, he did mention that there appears to be an "awful trend" and he hoped it wouldn't continue. He may not have mentioned the race HC's race explicitly, but it's implied. The coaches were white guys. The "victim" QBs were black. The "entitled" QBs were white. If one assumes that he believes there was some "tribalism" going on in the coaches' mind, then based on that assumption, then one can definitely think that he believes a racist double standard is being applied by coaches.

I do not see what is really awful pattern about a black coach benching or asking for a benching of a black qb for a white qb, unless it's about black coaches having no guts to stand up to a white guy or something like that. However, there are no examples of such that I can think of at the moment, hence I don't think he really considered that line of thought when posting his blog post.

Even if it's assumed that he includes coaches of whatever color, it's still implies that there is race is affecting decisions made about who is qb. If it's a white coach doing the benching, it could be tribalism at work. If it's a black coach, then could be not standing up for your own race.

After Jackson talks, he does write a post about the situation in response to that. He says that Jackson made the right decision on a technical level but not "politically", and by that he meant locker room politics. Not a single mention of race or it being a part of an "awful trend". It was all about the move forming divisions in the locker room.

SCP-
I try to post in conversational manner.
Like 2 guys sitting in a bar drinking a beer, shooting the breeze talking football.
I would like to keep my conversations in this forum at that level.
Even if we disagree, which will happen theres no reason we should repeat are past discourse.

HTTR!

I'm aware that I go into "checking liner" mode often. You just met the very tamed down version of it. A few years back and it would have been uglier(and likely more embarrassing on my end).

That said, I'm one of those guys who also have nerd tendencies, hence, I might seem anal retentive to details and such.

In short, I guess you can call me a mean nerd.

[SirClintonPortis]

Also, Jackson's situation is rather interesting in that he wasn't given back the job the following week. He also reportedly made great strides from the previous year in training camp.
Campbell(after Kansas City) was. McNabb was. Vince Young was.

So, it is probable(inductive reasoning) that he really was playing poorly during his "bad" stretch, and not just in a couple aspects related to qb play.

[Ruhskins]

This is starting to look like an offseason thread.

[SolidSnake84]

Does anybody know yet if Cable has announced a starter going forward? People's twitters and stuff say that Bruce had a separate meeting with Cable and Al Davis....

[skinsfaninok]

Word is there is a beef between JC and Bruce LMAO...

[SolidSnake84]

Campbell is Out as Oakland's QB. Gradkowski is the starter going forward. Just saw it on the news.

This should be the end of JC's time as an NFL starter. He would make a good backup on a talented team where all he has to do is preserve the win, but his days of starting in the league should be over.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

Campbell is Out as Oakland's QB. Gradkowski is the starter going forward. Just saw it on the news.

This should be the end of JC's time as an NFL starter. He would make a good backup on a talented team where all he has to do is preserve the win, but his days of starting in the league should be over.

Damnit, Campbell got Ramsey'd! He was robbed, I tell ya. He never got a chance!

Hahaha. :vomit: