Grade Jason Campbell

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

is "luck" cliche? because thats the only way you've been explaining away Brunell's game in Philly. isn't much more likely that his age and the conditions had finally gotten to him? at least that's tied to a factual number. 36.

you also insisted Campbell "wouldn't be pretty" at all in Tampa, and fully expected 3 INTs in spite of your own 'projected stats'. you stick die hard to stats only when it suits you, and then subjective facets of the game when they don't follow your point. things you villify everyone else here for doing. which is it gonna be?

No, luck is not cliche. Luck is basically saying that based on the talent and the conditions (measurable or at the least, observable), a certain amount of the bounces the ball takes or whatnot could favor one team or another, and did. In Phili, the team was dominated (by the defense and the conditions) from the Oline to the recievers to the running game to the QB. If it was Campbell, we still would have been dominated.

I thought Campbell would struggle against Tampa Bay, and he didn't. So he exceeded my expectations for THAT game. You can't project stats for a single game...simply too much of it is left to chance. Surely you must realize this simple concept.

I'm sorry you believe I stick die hard to stats only when they help me. It's not true, and will surely hurt you if you argue as if I'm blindly biased. I mix subjective things with my statistical arguements to better understand the NFL. If you have a better way to do it, I'm all ears.

I rarely villify anyone. If asking them to explain terms that don't exist is villifing them, then I believe all good philosophers are as hypocritical as you percieve me to be.