Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?

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

Whatever.

First, I've had a very open mind. Like TAFKAS, I have consistently said that Brunell isn't as bad as people think. I have also said that he's not nearly as good as you claim. You may or may not recall that I started a thread praising Brunell after the Dallas game, but I did. I have also taken issue with people who have claimed that Brunell is worse than Andrew Walter, etc. So, ironically enough, I cannot understand why you claim that I do not have an open mind.

Second, I have repeatedly said that you are entitled to your opinion and that I respect that you try to back up your arguments. I also, however, have repeatedly said that I disagree with you. Those two notions are not irreconciliable.

Third, I do take serious issue with the kinds of stats you have cited. You said that they are respected, but I have yet to be proven that. Who else cites those stats? They come from some obscure website. Moreover, I disagree with their rankings of QBs based on some obscure formula. Even you seem to disagree with some of the rankings. So, I have no idea how you can challenge my refusal to accept such stats when you do not completely accept them either.

Fourth, it seems to me that you are intensely annoyed with people who bash Brunell and are, therefore, totally determined to defend Brunell at every turn. I understand and agree with your contention that he's not as bad as people make him out to be. But I disagree with how you appear to refuse to concede that anything is wrong with Brunell.

Finally, I've repeatedly stated that you are a valued member of thewarpath. So, please don't take my disagreements with you personally.

don't bother arguing with Tripp about the validity of stats, they're only the last word on a QB's worth as long as they don't have to "play in the rain", "have a shitty game", "play away", "play a division rival" or have "bad luck" - the reasons he gave for the poor Philly performance. as if getting back to pre-philly performance would win us any more games.

it's the defense stupid. it's the defense that made Portis, Moss, Cooley, Lloyd, Randle El and Sellers have bad seasons, and apparently Betts the next Marshall Faulk.

If we're comparing Brunell to the elite players in the league, the most telling stats are yards per pass and TDs. Brunell was twenty-sixth in TDs, even though his accuracy rating was extremely high. His yards per pass were also around the middle of the pack as well.

and remember the yards per pass have a little something to do with having two of the best kick returners in the league as receivers collecting YAC, and another kick returner, Betts, racking up huge garbage yards before the first down markers and late in the game against prevent defenses. if you need proof just see how many Betts passes have been TDs.

Ah, true. I did forget to add garbage time TDs when defenses were set up in prevent.

I supplement statistically analyses with my eyes, and I've seen enough games of all of those QBs to know that Brunell has not been doing a good job and I think the overwhelming majority of other eyes concur.

Ditto. I'm even a person that puts a lot of stock in statistics, but the moment a wannabe professor that probably has no other understanding of the game of football other than the numbers, tells me that Mark Brunell is doing his job better than Carson Palmer and Tom Brady, is the moment I tell him he's retarded.

Instead of throwing around numbers, how about you use your eyes, and watch the performance on the field. A six yard completion on 3rd and 9 looks really nice for the passing statistics, but it does absolutely dick as far as actually winning the game. Throwing the ball away on third and long may prevent an interception, but again, give up plays don't put points on the board.

You know what happens when you put too much stock into statistics? You end up losing a close game to the Redskins, because some stupid card told you it was statistically smart to go for a two point conversion, instead of kicking the extra point in the first quarter of the game.

I should change the thread title to "Does Campbell End the 'GTripp' Excuse"

ouch, i picked right on the next 'whipping boy' after No.8, I said GTripp. what do i win?

Brunell is not like a fine wine

Yeah, he is. Look up 'corked'.

SGG has had an extremely open mind with you. He does with everyone in fact.

Look, I agree with you that Brunell isn't doing as poorly as most think. And I think it's misleading to say he doesn't spread the ball around. Now while I think long-term JC will be a great QB I don't expect a sudden explosion of points right away. However, I hope I'm dead wrong. I hope Campbell is a huge difference and we start getting convincing Ws. I think a lot of other Brunell supporters feel the same way, because above all they are Redskins fans.

But I think it's becoming increasingly clear that wins don't seem to matter to you. It's like you're personally offended by the change at QB and want nothing more than to be proven right. it's like you're hoping Campbell plays poorly and we lose so you can come back with more DPAR, DVOA, DVDA, DUMB stats to say "I told you so"I don't know why you'd say that wins don't matter to me. I think you have me completely wrong. I'm trying to bring up intelligent discussion about the QB conundrum. Food for thought if you will.

SGG has been cool about the whole QB debate, maybe a tad reactionary (every game his position on Brunell seemed to change), but nothing if not fair. So I've said this to him already, but I was calling out him for making a close minded (and out of character) post, NOT for being a close minded person. He, in general, is one of the more open minded members on this fourm, and to clarify, I think he's a great moderator.

Why would you say that I hope Campbell plays poorly? I'll defend him too if he gets unjustly attacked. I'm on record saying that. I believe, due to readings i've made, that Jason Campbell will grow to be a great NFL QB. But grow is the key term.

The point of metrics like DVOA and DPAR is not to say "I told you so." It's to try to assess performance based on eliminating factors that those players can't control. I don't know what is so horrible about that. I'm not the I told you so kind of person...never have been. When the team is losing, tensions are high. If we were as good as we were supposed to be, this would not be an issue. But is it a really horrible thing if we were to question things before accepting them as fact. I personally think not.

If anyone does, it could be difficult to get along with me over the rest of the season. I'll apoligize in advance right here.

If anyone has something to say to me, feel free to PM me, I'm here daily.

No hard feelings.

Ditto. I'm even a person that puts a lot of stock in statistics, but the moment a wannabe professor that probably has no other understanding of the game of football other than the numbers, tells me that Mark Brunell is doing his job better than Carson Palmer and Tom Brady, is the moment I tell him he's retarded.

Instead of throwing around numbers, how about you use your eyes, and watch the performance on the field. A six yard completion on 3rd and 9 looks really nice for the passing statistics, but it does absolutely dick as far as actually winning the game. Throwing the ball away on third and long may prevent an interception, but again, give up plays don't put points on the board.

You know what happens when you put too much stock into statistics? You end up losing a close game to the Redskins, because some stupid card told you it was statistically smart to go for a two point conversion, instead of kicking the extra point in the first quarter of the game.Statistics should never override common sense...but then again if you think common sense tells you to bench the league's 10th rated QB, you should probably check which side of the arguement you want to be on.

Look, I have no problem with your position on the issue, but you've never been one to debate me really. You like to look at issues on the surface and draw conclusions quickly and then be stubborn about them when they are questioned.

I disagree with that philosophy.