Campbell's numbers dont lie

This nonstop hatred for him is what keeps me up for tracking this all year long. He could throw 4 TDs and people would still manufacture excuses as to why he's not to be given credit


By the same token he could have misleadingly high stats for reasons that are painfully obvious and people would still manufacture Pro-Campbell arguments based on those stats and ignoring what is clearly visible during the games.

Facing 6 of the worst teams in the league in the first 7 games, taking 3 or 4 sacks per game without throwing the ball away when he could have, and his suddenly elevated 2nd half "too little too late" performances when the game was out of hand.

If you watch JC's fundamentals all the stats in the world wont convince you that he's the franchise QB the skins need... Not even the fantasy of 4 TD's would.

The only thing being manufactured in this thread is a pro Campbell argument based on a very ludicrous interpretation of stats in a vacuum. That is to say stats with no context such as Wins and losses, situations, or for strength of the competition they were compiled against.

JC has had one good game this season, in which he looked like an above average NFL QB, and that was in a game where the run took all the preasure off him. It could be argued that Jason Cambell has faced 3 good defenses all season, and two of those defenses are currently highly suspect and have serious issues that have lead to them being badly gouged lately (Denver's run and the Giants Pass defenses).

Sidney Rice is leading the league in recieving yards. Who the hell is he. I have said for years that a quarterback is the most important factor in recieving yards. Where ever Bret Farve goes he makes superstar recievers. Just check out this year as opposed to last year.
Sidney Rice (http://www.nfl.com/players/sidneyrice/profile?id=RIC161100)

Actually Sidney Rice is 4th in receiving yards, and he was a first round draft pick I believe, so it's not shocking that he's producing in his third year. But yeah, having Favre certainly helps.

in qbs there are the "win" factor. The ability to be just arrogant enough to believe that you can take your team down the field despite double coverage, being behind, bad weather or blocking, amd just win it. I just dont see that in JC

in qbs there are the "win" factor. The ability to be just arrogant enough to believe that you can take your team down the field despite double coverage, being behind, bad weather or blocking, amd just win it. I just dont see that in JC


There's also the accuracy issue. You don't see those types of QB's throwing the ball behind their receiver's very often, you don't see them over throwing them very often like JC does. I like JC and think he might be better with a better O-line but facts are facts. Watch the games, he simply throws too high and the receivers have to try and go up and get it. He throws constantly behind receivers and it's blatently obvious with Cooley.

The Favre's, Brees's, River's, Mannings (both) don't throw behind their receivers very often they usually lead them with a pass.

Actually Sidney Rice is 4th in receiving yards, and he was a first round draft pick I believe, so it's not shocking that he's producing in his third year. But yeah, having Favre certainly helps.
he was a second

Say what you want about brett favre being a great quarterback...how many int's has he thrown, i actually don't think he should get into the hal of fame because as many touchdowns hes thrown and games hes won, the worst mistake of a quarterback is to throw an inerception and favre has made more worst mistakes than anyone else who has ever played in the NFL...

Say what you want about brett favre being a great quarterback...how many int's has he thrown, i actually don't think he should get into the hal of fame because as many touchdowns hes thrown and games hes won, the worst mistake of a quarterback is to throw an inerception and favre has made more worst mistakes than anyone else who has ever played in the NFL...

He is a 3 time mvp...

plus the benefit of throwing a td far outweighs the loss of throwing an int. A td is a definate score, an int just makes it possible for the other team to score quicker

He is a 3 time mvp...

plus the benefit of throwing a td far outweighs the loss of throwing an int. A td is a definate score, an int just makes it possible for the other team to score quickerThis isn't at all true. It's actually quite the opposite. A lot of really smart people think the absolute value of an INT is somewhere between two and three times the absolute value of a TD pass.

I'm not agreeing with the poster that suggests that Brett Favre should not be in the hall of fame because he has a strong interception tendency. That's not right either. Brett Favre can make up for an interception tendency by being a high-efficiency passer. Lots of completions, lots of touchdowns, few sacks and fumbles. This efficiency seperates Favre from the Donovan McNabb's, Kerry Collins', Daunte Culpeppers of the world, lower-efficiency players who absolutely need to be throwing three times as many TDs as INTs to be worth a roster spot.

Favre's unquestionably a first-ballot hall of famer, but I think he's come to be overrated in recent seasons because people see a player exceeding his relative expectations and then jump to the level of, "he hasn't lost anything". Favre hasn't been a truly MVP-type player since 2001 or 2002 though. The fact that he's had pro-bowl type seasons in recent years has kind of skewed the public opinion of him.

This isn't at all true. It's actually quite the opposite. A lot of really smart people think the absolute value of an INT is somewhere between two and three times the absolute value of a TD pass.

...

Can you explain this proposition to us less then smart people. I get that it ends a drive but, unless it is run back for a TD, it seems to me that an absolute value of a TD pass = 6, the most an INT can equal is 6 but often times it is 3 or even 0. So in my basic understanding, the absolute value of a TD pass= 6, and the absolute value of an INT <6.
Another way I could say it, is if you took the avg points awarded for all the TD passes ever thrown in the history of football, it would be 6 points to the scoring team. However, if you took the points awarded off of all the interceptions ever thrown in the history of football, it could not even be close to 6 points to the scoring team, I could even see it being close to 2, because of all the times 0 points are scored off of an INT.

Not being a smart alec, just don't see how an INT is worth 2 or 3 times a TD pass.

Can you explain this proposition to us less then smart people. I get that it ends a drive but, unless it is run back for a TD, it seems to me that an absolute value of a TD pass = 6, the most an INT can equal is 6 but often times it is 3 or even 0. So in my basic understanding, the absolute value of a TD pass= 6, and the absolute value of an INT <6.
Another way I could say it, is if you took the avg points awarded for all the TD passes ever thrown in the history of football, it would be 6 points to the scoring team. However, if you took the points awarded off of all the interceptions ever thrown in the history of football, it could not even be close to 6 points to the scoring team, I could even see it being close to 2, because of all the times 0 points are scored off of an INT.

Not being a smart alec, just don't see how an INT is worth 2 or 3 times a TD pass.

Well said. I was about ot ask the same thing. Perhaps QBs who throw alot of INTs typically have significantly lower completion rates than other QBs, but thats a different point. Or maybe it has something to do with "momentum" shifting and changing the way the teams perform. However, I look at it the same way you do: A TD is a garaunteed 6 points. An Int isnt. I'd much rather have a QB that threw 3 INTs and 3 TDs per game than one who didn't throw either.