Grade Jason Campbell

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.

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.For the record, I never ever said (or thought) that emotion wasn't a direct part of the game. I said ALL ALONG that irregardless of emotion, production is what matters. I've played, so I understand the game from the emotional perspective. I think it was canthetuna who said that he doesn't care about stats, he cares about results. Boy that one had me rolling on the floor in hilarity.

I disagree that Gibbs made the QB change to give the team an emotional boost. If he did, it didn't work. I think he also thought that Brunell took this team as far as it could go, then he IRed Portis (he could have been inactivated just as easily) and replaced Brunell in the same week to play for the future.

I think giving the reins to Campbell preseason looks like a good decision in retrospect, but going foward, I think Gibbs made the decision at the right time.

L's are L's, and the best chance to get W's is with Brunell (still). However, all things considered, Gibbs made the decision at the right time.

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.

L's are L's, and the best chance to get W's is with Brunell (still). However, all things considered, Gibbs made the decision at the right time.

um ok, you want to reconcile those two statements for us? if Brunell (still) gives us the best chance to win, why did Gibbs bench him last week when we were mathmatically still in it? enlighten us.

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

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.

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.

You're right GTripp, it cannot be done. As you correctly note, the "sample size" is not big enough to state with any precision how "good" our offense is right now. But that also means that you CANNOT state with any precision how good our offense is right now (better or worse than under Brunell).

Please stop asking people to reference just stats or "case studies" in support of their arguments. Aren't you the one who said Brunell's performance in Philly was attributable to it being a road game in the friggin rain? You also claim that playcalling has adversely affected Brunell, and the offense more generally. So, if your arguments are, in part, based on things other than stats, you shouldn't complain when others do too. Stats and "case studies" are nice and all, but they are not the end all be all.

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.

:vomit: 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:

Campbell is my dad