Campbell's numbers dont lie

[SolidSnake84]

I have been too hard on Jason myself. I have no complaints about his character or overall demeanor, however i hoped that this season he would finally put it all together.

I think the environment has damaged him, similar to David Carr or Patrick Ramsey. He doesn't play scared, but he seems overly cautious. At nearly 4 full seasons with him as our starter, i think we know what we have in him.

However, i still think that he is gone next season regardless. He is in the last year of his rookie deal, and i really can't see him being re-signed. I just can't. I think he, along with a few others, are gone in the roster purge this off-season.

Good luck to Jason though if he plays for another team. One guy wrote an article just a few days ago (it may have been jason whitlock), but he said that there is a 25% chance that Jason goes unsigned at the beginning of next season. I could believe it when nobody wanted to offer any good picks for him during the Cutler deal....

[Chico23231]

Bye JC...mediocre QB at best, stats prove that. Bye Bye JC!

[DBUCHANON101]

I would give JC more leeway if he were a 3rd round pick or so and he was a project QB but thats not the case, he is a 1st round pick who we gave up a 2nd round pick to jump up and select so for me i expect this guy to be the leader of the team and to take over games. Not a middle of the pack 50/50 guy who makes plays here and there. I know in the draft there are hits and misses at every position but if you take a guy in the 1st and you dont get a 1st round production from him its time to try again. I cant name another 1st round QB who has been on a team as long as JC and has yet to make the playoffs or a probowl.

[SC Skins Fan]

Don't we already have an 80 page thread on this topic?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

Don't we already have an 80 page thread on this topic?

You and me...we're on the same page here.

[irish]

Originally Posted by DBUCHANON101

I would give JC more leeway if he were a 3rd round pick or so and he was a project QB but thats not the case, he is a 1st round pick who we gave up a 2nd round pick to jump up and select so for me i expect this guy to be the leader of the team and to take over games. Not a middle of the pack 50/50 guy who makes plays here and there. I know in the draft there are hits and misses at every position but if you take a guy in the 1st and you dont get a 1st round production from him its time to try again. I cant name another 1st round QB who has been on a team as long as JC and has yet to make the playoffs or a probowl.

I think you have it backwards. I would give JC less leeway if he was a 3rd round pick because he wouldnt have cost the team so much to draft and moving on would be less costly.

I think because JC was a 1st rounder who the team gave up picks to get has to make you give him more leeway because he cost the organization so much to get. As a result of how much he cost to get you have to make extra sure he cant do it before you cut him loose.

[DBUCHANON101]

[QUOTE=irish;626586]I think you have it backwards. I would give JC less leeway if he was a 3rd round pick because he wouldnt have cost the team so much to draft and moving on would be less costly.

I think because JC was a 1st rounder who the team gave up picks to get has to make you give him more leeway because he cost the organization so much to get. As a result of how much he cost to get you have to make extra sure he cant do it before you cut him loose.[/QUOTE]

5 yrs isnt long enough?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by DBUCHANON101

5 yrs isnt long enough?

Well we can keep him as a back up QB, there's nothing wrong with that.

[irish]

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626593]

Originally Posted by irish

I think you have it backwards. I would give JC less leeway if he was a 3rd round pick because he wouldnt have cost the team so much to draft and moving on would be less costly.

I think because JC was a 1st rounder who the team gave up picks to get has to make you give him more leeway because he cost the organization so much to get. As a result of how much he cost to get you have to make extra sure he cant do it before you cut him loose.[/QUOTE]

5 yrs isnt long enough?

It sure is. JC doesnt have it and its time to move on.

[DBUCHANON101]

Stats are deceiving and they can be twisted to tell whatever story you want.
For instance lets take 2 QB's numbers and see how it goes.
QB "A" has 506 att 315 comp with a 62.3% and has 3,245yds / 6 ints
QB "B" has 474 att 288 comp with a 60.8% and has 3,692yds / 14 ints
Now by looking at this you will see that QB "B" had less att but he had more ints and about 25 more yds a game.It looks like QB "A" turned the ball over less therefore putting his team in a better position to win and had a higher comp% so he would seem to be more accurate if you go by the comp%. The only difference is that QB "B" had 28 TD's and QB "A" had 13 TD's and QB "B" went 14-2 and won the SB while QB "A" went 8-8 and missed the playoffs.
These are the numbers of 2004 brady and the 2008 JC. So again stats dont tell the whole story. There are many variables that are either added or taken away that will prove or disprove whatever the provider is trying to accomplish. So lets just stick with the W's and the L's which in the end are all that really matter.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by DBUCHANON101

Stats are deceiving and they can be twisted to tell whatever story you want.
For instance lets take 2 QB's numbers and see how it goes.
QB "A" has 506 att 315 comp with a 62.3% and has 3,245yds / 6 ints
QB "B" has 474 att 288 comp with a 60.8% and has 3,692yds / 14 ints
Now by looking at this you will see that QB "B" had less att but he had more ints and about 25 more yds a game.It looks like QB "A" turned the ball over less therefore putting his team in a better position to win and had a higher comp% so he would seem to be more accurate if you go by the comp%. The only difference is that QB "B" had 28 TD's and QB "A" had 13 TD's and QB "B" went 14-2 and won the SB while QB "A" went 8-8 and missed the playoffs.
These are the numbers of 2004 brady and the 2008 JC. So again stats dont tell the whole story. There are many variables that are either added or taken away that will prove or disprove whatever the provider is trying to accomplish. So lets just stick with the W's and the L's which in the end are all that really matter.

You do know that Jason Campbell won't be the starter next year right? True the stats don't tell the whole story, but unfortunately for you we have a mediocre QB with decent stats. I don't understand why you (and others) insist in having this argument.

Criticizing Jason Campbell right now is truly beating a dead horse...we know he's not starting caliber and he won't be here next year. He still has good stats, which I guess is better than having a terrible QB with horrible stats (JaMarcus, Derek Anderson, etc., etc.). So just let it go, you won. Ok?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by DBUCHANON101

Stats are deceiving and they can be twisted to tell whatever story you want.
For instance lets take 2 QB's numbers and see how it goes.
QB "A" has 506 att 315 comp with a 62.3% and has 3,245yds / 6 ints
QB "B" has 474 att 288 comp with a 60.8% and has 3,692yds / 14 ints
Now by looking at this you will see that QB "B" had less att but he had more ints and about 25 more yds a game.It looks like QB "A" turned the ball over less therefore putting his team in a better position to win and had a higher comp% so he would seem to be more accurate if you go by the comp%. The only difference is that QB "B" had 28 TD's and QB "A" had 13 TD's and QB "B" went 14-2 and won the SB while QB "A" went 8-8 and missed the playoffs.
These are the numbers of 2004 brady and the 2008 JC. So again stats dont tell the whole story. There are many variables that are either added or taken away that will prove or disprove whatever the provider is trying to accomplish. So lets just stick with the W's and the L's which in the end are all that really matter.

You do realize, that if you had left the TD line in the initial stats, that qb B would have been seen as the better choice for the qb right. Comparable TD/INT rate(about 50%), but more production, higher yards/attempt. Stats don't tell the whole story but deceptive use, or less than full disclosure, often is why they don't.

[DBUCHANON101]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You do realize, that if you had left the TD line in the initial stats, that qb B would have been seen as the better choice for the qb right. Comparable TD/INT rate(about 50%), but more production, higher yards/attempt. Stats don't tell the whole story but deceptive use, or less than full disclosure, often is why they don't.

That was the point for the ppl who put up Brady's stats and say that JC is in the same ballpark due to their similiar Comp% and yards.They leave out the TD's and W's so the stats that they provided would make the 2 seem even when like we both said can make whatever point the provider wants to make.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by DBUCHANON101

That was the point for the ppl who put up Brady's stats and say that JC is in the same ballpark due to their similiar Comp% and yards.They leave out the TD's and W's so the stats that they provided would make the 2 seem even when like we both said can make whatever point the provider wants to make.

Don't blame the tool being used, blame the person who is doing the twisting.

If you use statistics irresponsibly to try to support a poor point rather than using them as evidence to arrive at the proper conclusion, they are worthless.

The difference between Brady, 03 and Brady, 04 can be seen in the conventional stats at PFR, but is only really, really obvious once you look deeper.

This is the Football Outsiders' QB chart for 2003, and this is it for 2004. On the 2003 list, Brady shows up around names like Kitna, McNabb, Brad Johnson, and Testeverde, and below the luminary trancendental passer Aaron Brooks. But in 2004, in the same offense with the same quality of weaponry, he reached levels near Manning, Trent Green, Culpepper, and Favre.

The bottom line is that in 2003, Tom Brady won a super bowl without outperforming Jason Campbell (2008 version) in any meaningful way. If you had cut off the analysis right there, you couldn't make an argument that Brady was better based on anything but a hunch that he would improve.

Once you extend Brady's career past three years as a starter, you can see he turned into one of the best passers of all time. You can see it in the meticulous study he puts into every game he plays, the thing that separates him from the Jay Cutlers and Daunte Culpeppers of the world. Brady has since become a great player.

I don't know anyone who thinks that if you kept Jason Campbell in the same offense he's in now another year, he'd wind up being a top five quarterback next year. No one, myself included, has the balls to predict that. It's happened before, but players who have a fifth year swoon the way Campbell has usually end up as journeymen. For those who aren't forced out the door, you usually end up with a whole bunch of seasons that look like Campbell's 08. And you can win with that, but again, you'll have to actually put some real talent on the offense, and not expect Campbell to eventually figure out how to turn water into wine. That's not happening anytime soon.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by DBUCHANON101

Stats are deceiving and they can be twisted to tell whatever story you want...So lets just stick with the W's and the L's which in the end are all that really matter.

You do realize you are totally contradicting yourself right? Wins and losses is just another stat line.