Grade Jason Campbell

I dont think we are better right now. But I think we will be better at the end of the season. 5 weeks ago this team had hope and alot less injuries.Yeah, I'd agree that our offense will improve. I've also seen a projection that our D will improve drastically (I fail to see it, but its the same system that said the Raiders and Chiefs would have top 10 Ds this year...and honestly, who saw that one). So from here on out, I believe we win more than we lose and finish up 4-2.

But right now after this Buc's loss, I don't think we are any better of a team than we were after the Titans loss. I'm sure SOMEONE thinks we are, and I would like to hear why.

Regardless of whether you think there should have been a change (I agree with the decision after watching Campbell play this week, he is ready), I want someone (anyone who holds the position) to tell me how we are a better team now then we were 5 weeks ago. Use evidence. Not cliches like "Spark". Either logical arguements or statistical evidence. If you use the vertical game angle, give a case study comparision (where in history has it been successful before).

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?

"spark" in this regard, is simply hope. not only were we losing, but we were losing the exact same way every time. bad defense, and a non-scoring offense. everyone on BOTH teams knew what to expect, and it was simply becoming rote on how'd we lose. Brunell's limitations as a QB were a secret to no one, including our own WRs.

the prospect of Jason Campbell gave everyone on this offense hope that the throw Brunell couldn't or wouldn't throw, could now be made. Al Saunders included, and he even said he'd change the offense to accomodate it. an ATTEMPT to fix something that regardless of your rather meaningless stats, was clearly not good enough, is a spark to this consistently beaten offense.

you can dismiss my terms all you want, i've heard "luck" on tv as well, and i've also heard "momentum". do you think that exists? even though FO doesn't keep track of it, do you think things like emotion, frustration, and momentum matter in a football game? you obviously think luck does, so why not hope?

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.

"spark" in this regard, is simply hope. not only were we losing, but we were losing the exact same way every time. bad defense, and a non-scoring offense. everyone on BOTH teams knew what to expect, and it was simply becoming rote on how'd we lose. Brunell's limitations as a QB were a secret to no one, including our own WRs.And how has this changed with Campbell? If he didn't provide this spark, thats one thing. But if he did, how did no one around him played any better?

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.

should i dig up all your posts you dared me to save? you say you mix up your arguments, but your mixing depends on the outcome of the last game and who was QBing.

when Brunell does statistically well, despite everyone's observations - he did well in your eyes. if he didn't do well statistically, but still in line with everyone's expectations, it was 'bad luck'. subjective to say the least. even more so than remarks about the team's emotional state. meanwhile, you insist to see stats to back up OUR arguments and when we tell you exactly how your stats can be easily skewed - you dismiss us as being "subjective". at best, i'd call that being more than just a little inconsistent.

And how has this changed with Campbell? If he didn't provide this spark, thats one thing. But if he did, how did no one around him played any better?

now you're just being circular. i've already stated Cooley, Thrash (Yoder too) stayed involved in those broken plays in new hopes that Campbell would make the tough throw after the play was busted. tough throws Brunell hasn't made all season.

oh and philosophy is all about theoretical and purely observational terms. the vast majority of your posts are much more akin to accounting.

Regardless of whether you think there should have been a change (I agree with the decision after watching Campbell play this week, he is ready), I want someone (anyone who holds the position) to tell me how we are a better team now then we were 5 weeks ago. Use evidence. Not cliches like "Spark". Either logical arguements or statistical evidence.

First, you admit that 1 game is not a good enough sample to assess the offense's performance under Campbell. Then, you ask us to use statistical evidence or logical arguments to say how we are a better team than we were 5 weeks ago. Sounds like you are laying the groundrules such that no one (but you) can possibly be right.

I'm going to make this statement: "Campbell played nearly as well as you would expect Brunell to have played had he gotten the start instead of Campbell." This statement is heavily evidenced.

I have no idea how you can make that statement. How is it heavily evidenced? Are you referring to Brunell's stats this season? Those stats wouldn't have accurately predicted Brunell's stats against Philly, or the Cowboys, or the Giants.

Also, Campbell's QB rating against TB was better than Brunell's 2006 QB rating.