Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;246502]Here is my question... does anyone think that with TO, Randy Moss, Jerry Rice in his prime, etc, that they would have put up better stats than Lloyd and Randle El in this offense?[/quote]Yes they would. Of course, the entire offense would have been very different so that everyones stats would be different. For better or worse, we would be doing things much differently.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=illdefined]all the receivers are REALLY going to try and get separation now, because they know Campbell has the arm to really get it to them. even out of the pocket. the whole character of this team has changed. watch and see.[/QUOTE]If I can go back to this tired point for one second. Great, thanks.

Wasn't it you who said yesterday that Brunell's stats were so great because of "supreme efforts from great players"?

If so, how supreme are the efforts going to be now that Campbell is in? Can they get to a level of such supremity that we will never lose again? If so what do we have to do to bring out this sort of effort in them?

What we could do is get some high school scrub to play QB and then Randle El and Lloyd will try so damn hard that no one this side of the Atlantic could tackle them!

Of course I'm being ridiculous...but at least I'm not contradicting myself.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;246490]His versatility has certainly been a breath of fresh air, and his running and even throwing has propelled our still top 10 efficency rating (we dropped 3 spots after the Phili game if anyone cares). Even though it's narrow minded to look only at Randle El's receiving, he's been not so great so far. Between drops and not getting first downs that are right there...he's left more to be desired in that aspect of his game.

Worse than replacement doesn't mean that he CAN'T (or isn't) get the job done. It means he's not doing a job quite as well as some guy on the waiver wire (who doesn't completely suck) could.[/quote]

Wow... it's funny how some people are able to point out Randle El's flaws, in spite of the fact that he gets about four offensive touches a game, and yet Brunell, who touches the ball on every offensive play, can do no wrong...

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;246530]Of course I'm being ridiculous...but at least I'm
not contradicting myself.[/quote]

No, you're just blaming everyone but Brunell. Shocker...

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=Southpaw;246532]Wow... it's funny how some people are able to point out Randle El's flaws, in spite of the fact that he gets about four offensive touches a game, and yet Brunell, who touches the ball on every offensive play, can do no wrong...[/quote]Wha? I'm just using the DPAR metric to show how Brunell has been much better than average this season, and Randle El hasn't been replacement level. No one said anything about "doing no wrong".

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=Southpaw;246534]No, you're just blaming everyone but Brunell. Shocker...[/quote]Actually, the only place I put the blame was on our 30TH RANKED DEFENSE! And our OLine for getting really untimely penalties.

Randle El and Lloyd don't often affect the outcome of the game because they are recievers and don't touch the ball that often. They don't win and lose games for us unless they break a punt return or make a critical fumble.

Our D has lost 6 games for us.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;246530]If I can go back to this tired point for one second. Great, thanks.

Wasn't it you who said yesterday that Brunell's stats were so great because of "supreme efforts from great players"?

If so, how supreme are the efforts going to be now that Campbell is in? Can they get to a level of such supremity that we will never lose again? If so what do we have to do to bring out this sort of effort in them?

What we could do is get some high school scrub to play QB and then Randle El and Lloyd will try so damn hard that no one this side of the Atlantic could tackle them!

Of course I'm being ridiculous...but at least I'm not contradicting myself.[/QUOTE]

i said that? nah i don't think so. i surmised the WR's were starting to give up hope on no.8. i said no.8's stats were great because of BETTS. get your detractors straight.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;246515]Fair enough. I pulled some blurbs from FO to explain replacement level:

The last sententce says, quite obviously, that any hope or morale lost this season was lost due to losing, and losing alone. Morale doesn't have to be measured because it's a simple concept. You win, people are happy. You lose, people aren't.[/QUOTE]

thanks for the explanation, now all you have to do is make sure you let Gibbs and Saunders know.

course people aren't happy when they lose, and WRs are people too. in fact all players are people, including the O-Line having to maintain infinite pass protection to see the ball fly over their heads, and the defense trying to win the game all by themselves, and running backs trying to run into stacked wide zones set up by the QB's throwing tendencies. QB play affects alot more than just whatever stat you're clinging to.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;246536]Our D has lost 6 games for us.[/quote]

The only games that the defense is directly responsible for losing was the opener against the Vikings, and the Titans game. We'll throw in the Colts game too, but Peyton Manning and the best offensive team in the league are going to score points no matter what. Let's look at the three divisional losses.

Week 2 @ Dallas 10-27 - Three offensive points. Seven special teams points. Brunell's rating 61.6. Yeah. the sure offense did it's part that day...

Week 5 @ New York 3-19 - Three offensive points. Defense only gave up 19. Brunell's rating 68.2. See above.

Week 10 @ Philly 3-27 - Defense gave up a couple big plays, but again... three offensive points(notice a pattern?). Brunell's rating [B]49.4[/B].

So by you're logic, the defense should have given up less than 10 points to the Cowboys, and less than THREE points to the Giants and Eagles. Those losses have nothing to do with the fact that Brunell played like shit, right? But please, keep arguing how "above average" Brunell's season has been.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

The factor that everyone ignores when comparing defense to offense is morale. When the defense forces a three and out....which is rare this season i will admit, followed by a three and out by our offense, what do you think happens.................the defense is not only tired, but loses morale and motivation knowing the offense isnt producing. You cannot look at rankings, because with all the rankings taken into account the skins D ranks dead last in the league, 30th yards given up and last in forced turnovers and sacks (pretty bad). There is no way that you could truly think that the skins actually have the worst defense in the league. The offense is the main reason the defense is ranked so low, with that many possessoins for the other team, the yards are gonna add up, however, we have been getting some crucial stops at the end of games, with our offense following it up with a three and out. I believe we have a slightly below average defense, they just need the morale boost. Hopefully campbell is that.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=Southpaw;246552]The only games that the defense is directly responsible for losing was the opener against the Vikings, and the Titans game. We'll throw in the Colts game too, but Peyton Manning and the best offensive team in the league are going to score points no matter what. Let's look at the three divisional losses.

Week 2 @ Dallas 10-27 - Three offensive points. Seven special teams points. Brunell's rating 61.6. Yeah. the sure offense did it's part that day...

Week 5 @ New York 3-19 - Three offensive points. Defense only gave up 19. Brunell's rating 68.2. See above.

Week 10 @ Philly 3-27 - Defense gave up a couple big plays, but again... three offensive points(notice a pattern?). Brunell's rating [B]49.4[/B].

So by you're logic, the defense should have given up less than 10 points to the Cowboys, and less than THREE points to the Giants and Eagles. Those losses have nothing to do with the fact that Brunell played like shit, right? But please, keep arguing how "above average" Brunell's season has been.[/quote]If you watched the Giants game, you would know that our offense didn't ever have the football because the Giants did nothing but convert third downs, control the clock and get field goals. 3 points yeah, in something like 6 possessions. The Giants would have scored much more than 19 but ran out of time. Anyone who watched would tell you that was our worst defensive game so far.

The other two games were total team losses. The offense played bad, and the D played even worse. Your logic that the D would have to give less then three points in those games for us to win is an incredibly jaded view because if they did they would be UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY WINNING THE GAME FOR US. They do have to keep us competitive, which they haven't done, evidenced by our 30th ranking in the league.

Notice that all three divisional losses are on the road. Theres a school of thought in NFL circle that says regardless of record and talent, when it comes to division games, the home team should always be favored. This is because the teams know each other so well that most of it comes down to who can gameplan the best, and the home team has the one advantage. [U][B]This is completely ignoring the fact that the Giants and Eagles are two of the league's three best teams (by DVOA).[/B][/U]

Your carefully selected three game sample size (out of 9 I might add), is stirring but really paints the picture that you want to see. Doesn't look on the season as a whole.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;246557]The factor that everyone ignores when comparing defense to offense is morale. When the defense forces a three and out....which is rare this season i will admit, followed by a three and out by our offense, what do you think happens.................the defense is not only tired, but loses morale and motivation knowing the offense isnt producing. [B]You cannot look at rankings, because with all the rankings taken into account the skins D ranks dead last in the league, 30th yards given up and last in forced turnovers and sacks (pretty bad). [U][I]There is no way that you could truly think that the skins actually have the worst defense in the league.[/I][/U][/B] The offense is the main reason the defense is ranked so low, with that many possessoins for the other team, the yards are gonna add up, however, we have been getting some crucial stops at the end of games, with our offense following it up with a three and out. I believe we have a slightly below average defense, they just need the morale boost. Hopefully campbell is that.[/quote]Oww. Owwwww. Owwwww.

So you are saying that all the evidence points to us having the leagues worst D, but that couldn't be...because we're the Washington Redskins. Therefore is has to be the offense by process of elimination? Is that so? Damn...I was way off.

The Defense is the main reason they are ranked so low. Offenses against us have horrible average starting field position. But we give up so many points against. First of all, is that not the mark of a terrible defense? Second of all, would that not be more demoralizing to the offense than the offense is to the defense?

Why would Campbell boost the morale of the team any more than the loss of Portis would lower it? Portis is the lifeblood of the offense.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

Our D lost his season for us, period.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=hesscl34;246582]Our D lost [B]his[/B] season for us, period.[/QUOTE]

SUCH a fruedian slip.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;246557]The factor that everyone ignores when comparing defense to offense is morale. When the defense forces a three and out....which is rare this season i will admit, followed by a three and out by our offense, what do you think happens.................the defense is not only tired, but loses morale and motivation knowing the offense isnt producing. You cannot look at rankings, because with all the rankings taken into account the skins D ranks dead last in the league, 30th yards given up and last in forced turnovers and sacks (pretty bad). There is no way that you could truly think that the skins actually have the worst defense in the league. T[U]he offense is the main reason the defense is ranked so low[/U], with that many possessoins for the other team, the yards are gonna add up, however, we have been getting some crucial stops at the end of games, with our offense following it up with a three and out. I believe we have a slightly below average defense, they just need the morale boost. Hopefully campbell is that.[/quote]

That's some flawed reasoning there my friend.

I don't know what games you've been watching... but teams are able to score early, sustain drives, control the clock, and get the big plays they need.

You prove this yourself, "the skins D ranks dead last in the league, 30th yards given up and last in forced turnovers and sacks (pretty bad)". The Defense IS really that bad. That has nothing to do with our offense.

Brunell may not have been the best QB, but he, and his offense, can by no means can be used for an excuse as to our lack of Defensive play.

Lets put that argument to rest.....please!

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=hesscl34;246582]Our D lost his season for us, period.[/quote]It's not ONLY the defense, but its very mainly the defense.

To build on hess' point though, the offense has YET to put the D in a bad situation. They don't score a lot of points, but look at the field position against. Why oh why can't we stop anyone. Either its a big play or a methodical drive. We never force punts, we never get turnovers. Every once in a while, the opponent misses a FG, giving us good field position. Otherwise, we get pinned inside our 20.

Statistically when starting from the 20, you are going to average 0 "pythageorean points". Meaning a league average offense has just as good of a chance of creating points for the defense (through a turnover or giving godly field position at the 40 or better), as they do of scoring them. Inside the 20, you would be negative, and if you started on the opposing 1, it would be very close to 6. But yeah, field position usually determines what you are going to do points wise.

And our D is killing us.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;246576]Why would Campbell boost the morale of the team any more than the loss of Portis would lower it? Portis is the lifeblood of the offense.[/QUOTE]

yet Portis was in the midst of a career low season, with the same starters as last year, all healthy, but with upgrades at the WR position...so why would that be? what's different? the key player struggling with the new offense. why keep no.8 trying to master it this late in the season?

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=illdefined;246592]yet Portis was in the midst of a career low season, with the same starters as last year, all healthy, but with upgrades at the WR position...so why would that be? what's different? the key player struggling with the new offense. why keep no.8 trying to master it this late in the season?[/quote]

Damn that new Saunders Offense!!!!!!! Fire him and let Gibbs have it all back - SMASH MOUTH FOOTBALL!

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;246570]Your carefully selected three game sample size (out of 9 I might add), is stirring but really paints the picture that you want to see. Doesn't look on the season as a whole.[/quote]

I picked the three divisional games because they were the most important. If you want to get technical, I blamed the defense for the Titans loss, even though Brunell's rating for that game was around 69. And how is it that when the defense performs exceptionally bad, it's entirely the defense's fault that Washington lost, but when Brunell looks like a frail old man and puts up three points in a game, it's a team loss?

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=RobH4413;246587]That's some flawed reasoning there my friend.

I don't know what games you've been watching... but teams are able to score early, sustain drives, control the clock, and get the big plays they need.

You prove this yourself, "the skins D ranks dead last in the league, 30th yards given up and last in forced turnovers and sacks (pretty bad)". The Defense IS really that bad. That has nothing to do with our offense.

Brunell may not have been the best QB, but he, and his offense, can by no means can be used for an excuse as to our lack of Defensive play.

Lets put that argument to rest.....please![/quote]Well, there needs to be two sides for there to be an arguement and I at least [I]feel[/I] like I have defended mine well. So if people who think we have really made a step towards improving our football team continue to push the issue, I feel obligated to defend. I think I owe to the community, because without the opposing viewpoint on the Brunell issue, then we aren't going to understand why we were beaten by the Bucs.

A loss to Tampa Bay erases any hope of a WC birth, and I feel as a fan like the team has given up.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=Southpaw;246532]Wow... it's funny how some people are able to point out Randle El's flaws, in spite of the fact that he gets about four offensive touches a game, and yet Brunell, who touches the ball on every offensive play, can do no wrong...[/quote]
As a pass catcher, Randel-el has shown nothing to indicate he isn't just mediocre at the position.

As a football player, he's shown incredible potential, and sustained glimpses of brilliance. He is an awesome person to have on your team. You cannot argue against that, its not even worth it.

But as a WR soley catching passes, he hasn't been anything special. He hasn't been given the greatest oppurtunity, but I think Lloyd has made a bigger impact in the passing game. When Lloyd is thrown too, he makes plays. Randel-el has found he can make plays, just usually not catching the ball.

I still think it's pre-mature to conclude anything from this, but it's something to observe nevertheless.

Unfortunatly, No-one should over-analyse much about our stagnant season thus far... It's too filled with variables.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;246595]Well, there needs to be two sides for there to be an arguement and I at least [I]feel[/I] like I have defended mine well. So if people who think we have really made a step towards improving our football team continue to push the issue, I feel obligated to defend. I think I owe to the community, because without the opposing viewpoint on the Brunell issue, then we aren't going to understand why we were beaten by the Bucs.

A loss to Tampa Bay erases any hope of a WC birth, and I feel as a fan like the team has given up.[/QUOTE]

well you 'expected' to lose to the Eagles as well, which makes me question: if you fully expected to lose, why not attempt something to try and change that result? (and why did you bother watching?)

it all comes down to this: physical abilities vs. experience. is Campbell an upgrade over No.8?

can i get a Poll?

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=illdefined;246598]well you 'expected' to lose to the Eagles as well, which makes me question: if you fully expected to lose, why not attempt something to try and change that result? (and why did you bother watching?)

it all comes down to this: physical abilities vs. experience. is Campbell an upgrade over No.8?

can i get a Poll?[/quote]
You won't need a poll. You'll find out in 7 games.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=Southpaw;246594]I picked the three divisional games because they were the most important. If you want to get technical, I blamed the defense for the Titans loss, even though Brunell's rating for that game was around 69. And how is it that when the defense performs exceptionally bad, it's entirely the defense's fault that Washington lost, [B]but when Brunell looks like a frail old man and puts up three points in a game, it's a team loss?[/B][/quote]Because the defense played bad then too. Brunell has pretty much gone as the rest of the offense has. Inconsistent at times, but if you really analyze things (look past just points, and into [U]why[/U] points were scored), not bad overall.

The defense has been quite consistent this year.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;246590]It's not ONLY the defense, but its very mainly the defense.

To build on hess' point though, the offense has YET to put the D in a bad situation. <snip>.[/quote]

3 and out by the Offense is a good thing then?

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=RobH4413;246602]You won't need a poll. You'll find out in 7 games.[/QUOTE]

of course. but we're all convinced now, and thats the fun isn't it?

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;246603]Because the defense played bad then too. Brunell has pretty much gone as the rest of the offense has. Inconsistent at times, but if you really analyze things (look past just points, and into [U]why[/U] points were scored), not bad overall.

The defense has been quite consistent this year.[/quote]
I've said this before...

Brunell is as good as his team. He cannot lead a team like a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. He cannot make something from nothing. 2005 for example, with healthy players and a solid defense... He leads the team on a huge 10-6 season. When does the criticism start to reign down on him?

When he's in the play-off game, with no receivers. No timing, nothing. He looked miserable.

Same can be applied to this year, however he has one more year added on him. He looked good against JAX, and played some pretty solid games. But when your "X factor" running-back is hurt... theres not much you can do.

I think Campbell is probably going to be more successful in this offense, once he gets that crucial element of timing down. Don't expect a 400YD performance on sunday. It'll be humbling, but not humiliating.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=illdefined;246598]well you 'expected' to lose to the Eagles as well, which makes me question: if you fully expected to lose, why not attempt something to try and change that result? (and why did you bother watching?)

it all comes down to this: physical abilities vs. experience. is Campbell an upgrade over No.8?

can i get a Poll?[/quote]It's a divisional game, and stranger things have happened. If we had won, it would have been a lucky win, but I know as a confirmed Eagle hater (if theres any bias from me, its certainly anti eagle. I hate them more than Dallas), that if we had somehow managed to pull off the victory, it would have been the sweetest moment of 2006 for me. So I watched in desperate hope.

I agree, why NOT do something drastic and unexpected on defense to try to get at least back to average? Makes no sense to me either.

At the end of the year, we will have objective (key:non-biased) statistical analysis to see who played better. We won't know until then, so a poll is sort of pointless at this point in time.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;246604]3 and out by the Offense is a good thing then?[/quote]How often does that happen? Less than league average I'd bet. One thing we've improved on from last year is the number of three and outs have dropped significantly.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=illdefined;246606]of course. but we're all convinced now, and thats the fun isn't it?[/quote]
Of course, I like the idea...

It's really hard to form an educated guess on that one though. A QB that's never played in the NFL could be amazing, but could be horrible. Statistically I don't think he'll perform better than Brunell, and a portis-less backfield almost guarantees disaster..

That being said, If he does perform well... and our offense does improve. That will say alot about JC.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;246609]
I agree, why NOT do something drastic and unexpected on defense to try to get at least back to average? Makes no sense to me either.

At the end of the year, we will have objective (key:non-biased) statistical analysis to see who played better. We won't know until then, so a poll is sort of pointless at this point in time.[/QUOTE]

all polls are 'useless' come on.

anyway it's obviously a philosophy difference. you guys are expecting the defense to go from Terrible to last year's Awesome.

while we're expecting our offense to go from "Decent" (an average of "sub-par" for us and "good" by your terms) to better-than-last year's Awesome. that was the point of getting ARE and Lloyd afterall.

which side of team is closest to Winning The Game For Us? on defense it would take changing a LOT of players. on offense, it was changing the one who got :benched:

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=illdefined;246614]all polls are 'useless' come on.

anyway it's obviously a philosophy difference. you guys are expecting the defense to go from Terrible to last year's Awesome.

while we're expecting our offense to go from "Decent" (an average of "sub-par" for us and "good" by your terms) to better-than-last year's Awesome. that was the point of getting ARE and Lloyd afterall.

which team has closest to travel to reach Winning The Game For Us? on defense it's a LOT of players. on offense, it was the one who got :benched:[/quote]
I agree the bigger team issue right now is defense.

Not sure what your trying to say about philosophy difference...

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=RobH4413;246620]I agree the bigger team issue right now is defense.

Not sure what your trying to say about philosophy difference...[/QUOTE]

just that trying to fix the entire defense will be a lot harder than attempt to upgrade the offense by changing one key player.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

GTripp,

According to that site's DPAR rankings, Brunell is better than:

Tom Brady
Eli Manning
Carson Palmer
Rex Grossman
Chad Pennington
Tony Romo
Matt Hasselbeck
Michael Vick

There goes that site's credibility. Please stop citing DPAR, DVOR, or anything from that site.

I've got a stat - 99.999999% of all stats cited on internet sites run by yahoos are B.S.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

He's better than Grossman. That's all I can say.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;246669]GTripp,

According to that site's DPAR rankings, Brunell is better than:

Tom Brady
Eli Manning
Carson Palmer
Rex Grossman
Chad Pennington
Tony Romo
Matt Hasselbeck
Michael Vick

There goes that site's credibility. Please stop citing DPAR, DVOR, or anything from that site because, if your relying on those stats, you've got no real basis for your contentions.[/quote]I'm dissapointed.

It's not like I want you to come out and admit to me that Mark Brunell>Tom Brady. He's not. But if you are going to completely discredit a source, because either you don't understand what they are doing, or it goes against some preconceived notion that you have...thats rediculous.

They aren't perfect, but it's better than say, QB Rating (another stat in which Mark Brunell ranks ahead of Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Rex Grossman, Chad Pennington, Vick and Hasselbeck), because it tries to eliminate the factors a QB can't control.

And I don't even see what you are trying to say. Why CAN'T Brunell be better than those guys. Did he do something against the QB code? Not to say that he is better, but listing names doesn't make a guy better than Brunell.

I'm confused. Maybe I should discredit all stats while I'm at it. We can't have us being led to conclusions that disagree with common opinion now can we.

Actually, they have really good credibility...but I can't help but wonder if you are saying this just to try to win the arguement?

Either way, from a moderator on the warpath, I have come to expect a more open mind.

Whatever.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

Really, I think it all comes down to wins and losses. We can look at a Donovan McNabb and see, "Wow, he's the top passing QB in the league." But then you have to look at the percentage of times the Eagles pass versus when they run.

You can look at a Mark Brunell and see that while his passer rating is stellar, his touchdowns are not. You can also look at his average yards per pass.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;246677]
They aren't perfect, but it's better than say, QB Rating (another stat in which Mark Brunell ranks ahead of Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Rex Grossman, Chad Pennington, Vick and Hasselbeck), because it tries to eliminate the factors a QB can't control.

And I don't even see what you are trying to say. Why CAN'T Brunell be better than those guys. Did he do something against the QB code? Not to say that he is better, but listing names doesn't make a guy better than Brunell. [/QUOTE]

You ask why can't Brunell be better than Brady, Manning, Grossman, Palmer, Pennington, Romo, Vick, and Hasselbeck? I can't believe you are actually asking that. I pray that you are not implying that he is better than them.

Either you are: (1) arguing that Brunell is better than those QBs; or (2) you concede that there is something wrong with those stats. So which is it?

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;246682]Really, I think it all comes down to wins and losses. We can look at a Donovan McNabb and see, "Wow, he's the top passing QB in the league." But then you have to look at the percentage of times the Eagles pass versus when they run.

You can look at a Mark Brunell and see that while his passer rating is stellar, his touchdowns are not. You can also look at his average yards per pass.[/quote]Very true. In today's day and age if you say "x player is good" there's probably something to prove him wrong. That's why I like to break it down play by play, and that's the key to FO's work, which is why I trust them. Every play is considered. Not the game totals. Few of us have the time for that, but isn't that the way it should be?

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;246687]You ask why can't Brunell be better than Brady, Manning, Grossman, Palmer, Pennington, Romo, Vick, and Hasselbeck? I can't believe you are actually asking that. I pray that you are not implying that he is better than them.

Either you are: (1) arguing that Brunell is better than those QBs; or (2) you concede that there is something wrong with those stats. So which is it?[/quote]Neither. I think he's better than Grossman and Vick...and Romo its far far too early to tell.

I will say this, those stats are based on one season. So is Brunell better than any of those remaining guys? Not even close. Has he done his job this season as well as them to this point? Most accounts say yes.

There are always extra reasoning that go along with statistics.

Anyway, Brunell is better in QB rating than most of those guys, so at what point do we discredit all evidence and bicker about nothing? I've said many times that QB rating is a flawed stat, but I'm serious now, when you say that Tom Brady is having a better season than Brunell, what are you basing that on? Record alone? Considering he's one of 53 guys on the Pats, that's pretty weak. Or are you basing it on what you hear from talking heads around the league, and what you accept without challenging.

Don't get me wrong, I also believe Brady is better than Brunell. But this season, Brady isn't as good as he normally is, and Brunell is better than his career average.