Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat
Campbell was NOT playing at a pro-bowl level early on in the season. All that talk was ridiculous at the time, especially him being talked about as MVP of the league, let alone the team. All campbell did in the first few games was just not throw interceptions... something which was primarily a result Zorn not letting him throw much and really giving him an elementary form of the offense to run. Obviously, when Zorn opened things up some, Campbell was asked to do more... and we all know how the last 8 games went. We did so well in the first half of the season because Campbell wasnt doing much and we were relying on Clinton Portis. As the season wore on, our line declined and so did Clinton. Zorn tried to open things up, he put more on Campbells shoulders, and Campbell couldnt handle it.
|
Your hypothesis here is totally and completely factually incorrect at every corner.
But the funny thing is, it's totally necessary for the rest of the argument you've made in this thread to make sense.
You have to deny, deny, deny what has been accepted by fans and the media as common knowledge, but you can't provide one smidgen of evidence to the contrary. Only, you make a hypothesis that relies on the assumption that Campbell is everything that's wrong with the Skins offense to make sense (which obviously is why it makes sense to you. you believe that unconditionally). Except, that's exactly what you're trying to prove.
"I believe 'X'. Therefore, X is proven by the fact that 'Y', something else I believe, necessarily requires that X is true."
Circular logic? That's a basic logical fallacy is it not?