Grade Jason Campbell

All you Brunell lovers need to stop! Campbell played well Sunday, all things being considered. He threw the deep ball! B Lloyd just dropped it. He put the ball where it needed to be. He has a cannon for a right arm! No picks thrown, and he was going down field! I say, bravo to the young QB! I can't wait 'til the next game. I'm anxious to see him improve so all you Brunell lovers can shut the hell up! Just face it, Jason Campbell is our future, and the future is now!

hey he didnt throw a pick

Tripp, seriously dude. It's OKAY to be wrong sometimes.

Your supposed to use stats as evidence to back up observed behavior... not to back up pre-determined biased "theories" that simply don't exist...

You're manipulating evidence to suit your argument... not changing your argument to suit your evidence...

I love the passion and effort you put into posting, and I love hearing your opinion. I just think your taking this Brunell issue a little too personal and it's clouding your characterstically objective opinion.

All Love-

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

Also, Campbell's QB rating against TB was better than Brunell's 2006 QB rating.Yay! An actual arguement! This makes GTripp happy.

I said they had similar games. The fallacy in QB rating is that it is reliant on TD passes. (It's why I've said time, and time again it's a bad stat) Jason Campbell ran an offense that scored 17 points on 2 TDs (and the D forced 2 turnovers, which is something that they haven't done this season, though I'm not sure it helped us score more points), and Brunell average's one TD a season. My steadfast belief is that since Brunell's offense averages 2 TD's a game, he shouldn't be penalized when Portis runs it in. But it does create a discrepancy in QB Rating.

But yeah, that's not to take away from Campbell's lofty QB rating from Sunday. Just to show how easily a QB rating of 93 and one of 85 can be showing the same thing.

Tripp, seriously dude. It's OKAY to be wrong sometimes.

Your supposed to use stats as evidence to back up observed behavior... not to back up pre-determined biased "theories" that simply don't exist...

You're manipulating evidence to suit your argument... not changing your argument to suit your evidence...

I love the passion and effort you put into posting, and I love hearing your opinion. I just think your taking this Brunell issue a little too personal and it's clouding your characterstically objective opinion.

All Love-I see what you are saying.

I disagree that I'm being biased at all in this arguement. I mean, I've changed my positions as the evidence warrented I do so. I was opposed to the change pre Sunday, and now after watching Campbell play, I support it. That's not biased, that's objective.

I think a good point would be that maybe I'm spending too much time argueing something insignificant. I'm losing interest, not because anyone has even brought out a counter point to make me remotely consider that my position on Brunell's performance is wrong, but because in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter who's QBing this team, we are still going to struggle with this D. I hold that position, and for someone who does, I certainly do spend a lot of my time argueing an insignifcant point.

But, I'm not sure I feel right letting it go.

Also I really am not manipulating any evidence whatsoever. I tend to only present my side, if that's what you are saying. That doesn't mean I'm ignoring the other evidence, I've probably considered it before stating my position.

If I was wrong, I'd be the first one to admit it.

First, you admit that 1 game is not a good enough sample to assess the offense's performance under Campbell. Then, you ask us to use statistical evidence or logical arguments to say how we are a better team than we were 5 weeks ago. Sounds like you are laying the groundrules such that no one (but you) can possibly be right.I'm not trying to set it up that way, but I would be surprised if someone could successfully argue that we are better now.

But yeah, we will get a more accurate sample as the season goes wrong. However, the point was to say that we are better right now than we were 5 weeks ago and back it up. That's not set up unfair. If it can't be done, it can't be done. I MIGHT be right, ya know.

If you care, my official position is that I expect Campbell to improve and by the last two weeks, play as well as if not better than Brunell was in spite of the fact that he has no Portis (and Brunell struggled without his running game).

Here's something I'll admit: Last week when I argued that we shouldn't make the change, I seemed (in hindsight) to be oblivious to the fact that Portis was out for at least 4 weeks (before he was IRed), and Brunell has struggled this year without his running game. No one pointed that out, but it required no personal attacks or stat crunching (taking notes, illdefined?), and I would have probably gave the person who brought it up a quick "good point", and moved on.

But now with the division leader at 4 losses, and McNabb out for the year, can you at least see why I thought giving us the best chance to win was far more important than getting JC some expierence? We win that game, we are 2 games back. Now three games back, with winning out putting us at 9-7, it's still unrealistic that neither the Cowboys or Giants would win 4 out of their final 6. So it's pretty much over.

But it wasn't Jason Campbell who lost the game (in the same spirit that it wasn't Brunell that lost the others), I just want the guy in who gave us the best chance to win. Looking at yards/attempt, I would say that's Brunell, but it's too close to call by any other metric. And that's a complement to the job Campbell did Sunday.

should i dig up all your posts you dared me to save? you say you mix up your arguments, but your mixing depends on the outcome of the last game and who was QBing.

when Brunell does statistically well, despite everyone's observations - he did well in your eyes. if he didn't do well statistically, but still in line with everyone's expectations, it was 'bad luck'. subjective to say the least. even more so than remarks about the team's emotional state. meanwhile, you insist to see stats to back up OUR arguments and when we tell you exactly how your stats can be easily skewed - you dismiss us as being "subjective". at best, i'd call that being more than just a little inconsistent.Luck is everything that can't be controlled by your team. So if Nick Novak or John Hall misses a game winning field goal from 30 yards out, that's not bad luck, that's having a weak kicking game. But if John Kasay for example were to hit from 65 yards out to win vs. us, that's bad luck in the statistical sense. You can't make kickers miss kicks, you can't (in most cases) make the other team commit penalties, you can't expect to recover a fumble, you can't help it when team's come out and play their best game of the season against you (this can be measured). Anything your team can not control that affects the outcome of the game I would deem luck. Before you bring it up, I am not trying to dismiss bad play as luck. It's a big part of football, more than anyone seems to want to admit. But if we had caught Tennessee or Minnesota on any other day (and I really do mean ANY other day), this would be an entirely different season. That's horrible luck.

If a "spark" is hope, then it certainly CAN be measured (assuming it' affects the game). The stats won't show how much of a player's production is emotional motivation (which is why you don't know if a "spark" actually exists), and how much is talent, but does it really matter? Randy Moss is a superbly talented player. His stats (sabremetric and conventional) are awful this year, obviously because he is unmotivated. But should Moss be considered a better than what he's done simply because he's unmotivated? I should hope not.

You can't seperate emotion from talent in statistics...but why would you want to?

Do you disagree?

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.

You can't seperate emotion from talent in statistics...but why would you want to?

Do you disagree?

ok finally a direct response. well, you illustrated perfectly why a talented player like Randy Moss would most likely play a lot better motivated in a different environment. glad you finally recognize emotion as a HUGE part of the game.

Gibbs tried to change the environment HERE and motivate the entire team with the QB change, i think thats obvious. Jason Campbell has proven himself to be smart, talented and controlled - i really don't think Tampa was an isolated incident - the only debate left really is if waiting this long in the season and for Portis to get hurt wasn't too LATE to try and change the environment here. Jason Campbell's first close NFL loss should've been a lot sooner - its worth a lot more to us than Brunell's Nth loss with this team.