Quote:
Originally Posted by GMScud
Right. As opposed to all the right stuff that Beck/Donny/Rex have brought to town. The point is, letting Campbell go was an 0-fer decision, just like the other 3 guys.
You really think our record in the Shanny era would be worse than it currently is if JC had started every game? I don't.
|
You want to lose some money with a certainty. Or do you choose to take a riskier action that has a small chance of major compensation, but usually results in worse outcomes. In football, you have to take the latter option. The scheme demands the QB to be able to complete certain throws, and JC has not shown any consistency on many routes on the route tree.
Understand that utility(defined as "happiness" or "satisfaction" ) from wins do not carry over to the next season. Every time a new season starts, the team gets a fresh, clean slate to write on. The fans level of happiness will be dicataed by
discrete results: none if there are 7 or less wins, ambivalence with 8-8 or 9-7 if no playoffs, pretty happy if they make the playoffs, and outright exuberence if the win the Super Bowl. With Jason Campbell, it's practically a lock that he's a 7-9 or worse quarterback. I don't blame them from dumping him and trying to find some replacement. It is not ok they didn't find a good replacement, but they were correct in their assessment that Campbell had to go.
__________________
Analysis using datasets (aka stats) is an attempt at reverse-engineering a player's "goodness".
Virtuosity remembered, douchebaggery forgotten.
The ideal character profile shoved down modern Western men and women's throats is
Don Juan.