PFT:: Gradkowski, Campbell conundrum could spark a locker-room rift (MET)

[tr1]

Or those that can't accept he was a major part in it. Swings and roundabouts both ways, as pertinent as your point is.

Hail

Who here has said that he wasn't part of the debacle?

I'll wait.

The meme goes that he's an adequate NFL qb, who with the right personnel around him, will manage games and WIN them.

He had NO o-line while he was here (except during the 6-0 run at the beginning of '08...injuries fixed that), never had a true #1 WR or a #3 for that matter, and an often injured Portis.

And, lest some forget, he was a victim of some pretty long opposition time-consuming drives that our defenses just couldn't stop.

But, keep pretending that everyone here thought JC was pro-bowl material...:rotflmao:

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Conversely, I'll wait until your reading comprehension catches up with your (lack of) wit.

Seemingly, from various response, I may be waiting a while, I'ma pull up a chair.

Hail.

[tr1]

Conversely, I'll wait until your reading comprehension catches up with your (lack of) wit.

Seemingly, from various response, I may be waiting a while, I'ma pull up a chair.

Hail.

This is just an awesome reply...do you mind if I frame it?

[HailGreen28]

You know, seeing how we've all made up our minds, I don't see the point in this thread anymore. I'll still keep replying, but really wish we could have a moratorium on Candle threads the rest of this season. Let this subject drag on in the offseason when it's slow here anyways, and we can look back at this season with hindsight.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

You know, seeing how we've all made up our minds, I don't see the point in this thread anymore. I'll still keep replying, but really wish we could have a moratorium on Candle threads the rest of this season. Let this subject drag on in the offseason when it's slow here anyways, and we can look back at this season with hindsight.

Campbell: 11/14, 204 yds, 2 TDs at the half. Raiders up 17-7 lol ...

Sorry, just ****in' with ya a bit lol...I agree with your post, actually.

[HailGreen28]

Campbell: 11/14, 204 yds, 2 TDs at the half. Raiders up 17-7 lol ...

Sorry, just ****in' with ya a bit lol...I agree with your post, actually.

Right back at ya. Enjoy the game, may be the once or twice this season he actually looks good on his own, like he'd do with us.

It's kinda my point we could just copy and paste answers from the last couple years. Maybe we should just set up a soundboard where both sides can just pick the response they want? To save everybody effort? LOL

Hail!

[Passizle]

Or those that can't accept he was a major part in it. Swings and roundabouts both ways, as pertinent as your point is.

Hail

Seeing little difference the QB change made.... I would think you smarter than to contiue to think he was a "major" part of it. That would infer that the rest of the teams issue we continue to see are a minor part... which would in turn infer that DM is a major part of our continued problems. What do you think now? Is DM a major factor for our continued lack of success?

[luke1867]

Right back at ya. Enjoy the game, may be the once or twice this season he actually looks good on his own, like he'd do with us.

It's kinda my point we could just copy and paste answers from the last couple years. Maybe we should just set up a soundboard where both sides can just pick the response they want? To save everybody effort? LOL

Hail!

He had a perfect 158.3 Qb rating at the end of the half. That's called superior performance and no, it's not the same like last year. He has been real stellar the last 2 games including the other wins for the Raiders.

[Mahons21]

Campbell had him self a hell of a game. But the hypocrisy in this thread is hysterical. Last week when Campbell has a poor game statistically, numbers don't mean anything, this week Campbell has a good game statistically and the same people are citing numbers when discussing how well Campbell played.

Nothing better than some good old fashioned cherry-picked stats, keep up the good work boys.

[Passizle]

Paging HailGreen!

Looks like we had that elusive run game yesterday? Whats McNabbs exuse for yesterdays performance?

---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 12:59 PM ----------

Campbell had him self a hell of a game. But the hypocrisy in this thread is hysterical. Last week when Campbell has a poor game statistically, numbers don't mean anything, this week Campbell has a good game statistically and the same people are citing numbers when discussing how well Campbell played.

Nothing better than some good old fashioned cherry-picked stats, keep up the good work boys.

Not cherrypickes Mahons. JC performed well in both games. Problem was that last week, you guys would not accept the performance as "good" without the supporting numbers. This week he had them... so they have been posted on the board.

[Mahons21]

Not cherrypickes Mahons. JC performed well in both games.

Citing "1st half stats" after a game has been completed is most certainly cherry-picking Passizle. Come on now you know that.

Problem was that last week, you guys would not accept the performance as "good" without the supporting numbers. This week he had them... so they have been posted on the board.

But no one has said that he didn't play well this week, so when posting these stats what exactly are people trying to prove? That JC had a good game? He did. Haven't seen anyone argue against that..

And it's just ironic, that some of these same people, were arguing last week that stats don't matter and you had to watch JC play.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Campbell had him self a hell of a game. But the hypocrisy in this thread is hysterical. Last week when Campbell has a poor game statistically, numbers don't mean anything, this week Campbell has a good game statistically and the same people are citing numbers when discussing how well Campbell played.

Nothing better than some good old fashioned cherry-picked stats, keep up the good work boys.

Since I'm pretty much the only person to mention Campbell's stats in this thread for this past game, I guess you're talking about me lol...

I didn't "cite numbers" for this game for any other reason than a joking response to the post saying we should just shelve the analysis of JC until the season is over...and I, for one, never said JC's numbers against the Chargers were "poor", quite the opposite in fact. But you missed (or misrepresented) the actual point being made back then...

And the point was, IF all you did was look at the stats from the Chargers game you would never know just how well Campbell played...THAT'S why so many people claimed that his stats did not adequately reflect his performance in that game...not that stats NEVER reflect a QB's performance. Saying that would be the only way you could claim hypocrisy now...but nobody ever said that ...so there's no hypocrisy here.

And the halftime stats weren't "cherry-picked", as it was halftime at the time I posted those stats lol :rotflmao:...Besides, JC's overall stats were still damn impressive, so there's no reason TO "cherry-pick" stats:

21/30

70.0% completion rate

324 yds

10.8 ypa (!!)

2 TDs

0 INTs

127.6 QB rating

Why in hell would anyone wanting to praise JC feel the need to cherry-pick ANYTHING about those stats? lol ...Do you even know what "cherry-picking" means?

[Passizle]

Citing "1st half stats" after a game has been completed is most certainly cherry-picking Passizle. Come on now you know that.

But no one has said that he didn't play well this week, so when posting these stats what exactly are people trying to prove? That JC had a good game? He did. Haven't seen anyone argue against that..

And it's just ironic, that some of these same people, were arguing last week that stats don't matter and you had to watch JC play.

Are you really this obtuse, or just playing at it, so as to not "feel" wrong about the subject.

Quick refresher for you... last week when people potsed how well JC was playing, certain people discredited him by saying his stats were not great, therefore he did not play that great, so it must have been a terrific running game that carried the team, and JC just hung around for ride. I believe you were part of that group (forgive if I am mistaken). When posters were attempting to explain how the numbers were misleading, we were flippanly dismissed as having an agneda by those posters. Why would you find it surprising to see posters here... this week (that actually watched the game) posting numbers, while JC had another good performance. They are just doing so to try once again show that the kid aint all that bad and this time having the stats to prove it.

What is even more puzzling (actually its not really) is that most of the people that antagonize JC have not shown up because he had a decent game and the numbers are there to show it. Mark my words that once he stink up the filed again (it will happen eventually) the ****roaches will come out from under the fridge to poke fun at the kid again, call him racist... a loser... and whatever other moronic position they will take about it.

[Mahons21]

Are you really this obtuse, or just playing at it, so as to not "feel" wrong about the subject.

Always a pleasure with you Passizle.

Quick refresher for you... last week when people potsed how well JC was playing, certain people discredited him by saying his stats were not great, therefore he did not play that great, so it must have been a terrific running game that carried the team, and JC just hung around for ride. I believe you were part of that group (forgive if I am mistaken).

I argued that he didn't open up the rushing attack, and that when compared to the good QB's around the league he didn't have a good game. Because in my opinion these QBs set the standard for what a good game is.

When posters were attempting to explain how the numbers were misleading, we were flippanly dismissed as having an agneda by those posters. Why would you find it surprising to see posters here... this week (that actually watched the game) posting numbers, while JC had another good performance.

I never said the numbers weren't misleading or dismissed them. Campbell played better than his numbers.

T

hey are just doing so to try once again show that the kid aint all that bad and this time having the stats to prove it.

OK. But that's having your cake and eating it to. One week Campbell plays better than his #'s, and this week he arguably plays worst. 68 yd screen for a TD anyone? That might have been a bit of a boost.

I just find it funny that people who discredited statistics a week ago, because it didn't put the whole game in context, are now citing statistics and not putting them in context.

In addition there not even arguing against someone saying he played poorly, they're just posting stats.

What is even more puzzling (actually its not really) is that most of the people that antagonize JC have not shown up because he had a decent game and the numbers are there to show it. Mark my words that once he stink up the filed again (it will happen eventually) the ****roaches will come out from under the fridge to poke fun at the kid again, call him racist... a loser... and whatever other moronic position they will take about it.

I'll expect to see you here next time the Raiders rushing game is shut down too then.

First thing I said since his game was "Campbell had him self a hell of a game"

[Passizle]

Always a pleasure with you Passizle.

Well, maybe we are not understanding eachother then... IDK...

I argued that he didn't open up the rushing attack, and that when compared to the good QB's around the league he didn't have a good game. Because in my opinion these QBs set the standard for what a good game is.

So... then anything less then "elite" is "not good"?

I never said the numbers weren't misleading or dismissed them. Campbell played better than his numbers.

Then what do you call this?

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?333744-PFT-Gradkowski-Campbell-conundrum-could-spark-a-locker-room-rift-(MET)&p=8017886&viewfull=1#post8017886

OK. But that's having your cake and eating it to. One week Campbell plays better than his #'s, and this week he arguably plays worst. 68 yd screen for a TD anyone? That might have been a bit of a boost.

That 68 yard TD was a perfect pass, in stride that many said he could not do (PS. That was not a screen as evidenced by the lack of any blcokers out in front.). Had the pass been to high, low, long or short and DM does not score. Yes. The YAC boosted his numbers, but he was the part of the reason for the YAC on that particular play.

I just find it funny that people who discredited statistics a week ago, because it didn't put the whole game in context, are now citing statistics and not putting them in context.

No one discredited the stats sans the regular guys who bash JC. When the stats were brought up, they were labeled as not good enough to be considered a good performance.

In addition there not even arguing against someone saying he played poorly, they're just posting stats.

I dont understand what you are trying to get at here... ?

I'll expect to see you here next time the Raiders rushing game is shut down too then.

I will be. And I will talk about the bad game. Dont confuse me with some unwaivering JC supporter. I was hard on him in the beginning of the season when he looked like trash.

First thing I said since his game was "Campbell had him self a hell of a game"

DOnt know what you are getting at here either. I never claimed you said anything.

[Mahons21]

So... then anything less then "elite" is "not good"?

No I just rate QB's on the same scale. A good game is a good game. Jason Campbell doesn't get to be rated on some easier scale because his prior performance isn't as good as an elite QB's.

Then what do you call this?

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?333744-PFT-Gradkowski-Campbell-conundrum-could-spark-a-locker-room-rift-(MET)&p=8017886&viewfull=1#post8017886

Please point to an exact quote or post. I didn't read anything in there the contradicts what I said.

That 68 yard TD was a perfect pass, in stride that many said he could not do (PS. That was not a screen as evidenced by the lack of any blcokers out in front.). Had the pass been to high, low, long or short and DM does not score. Yes. The YAC boosted his numbers, but he was the part of the reason for the YAC on that particular play.

You're right it wasn't a screen. Pass was on target, but not 68 yard YAC on target, you really are stretching if you've crediting anyone but McFadden for the majority of that play. For any descent QB in this league, that's a routine throw, and one they should be mad if they miss.

No one discredited the stats sans the regular guys who bash JC. When the stats were brought up, they were labeled as not good enough to be considered a good performance.

This makes no sense. Sans means without. I assume you're trying to saying no one discredited the stats other than the regular guys who bash JC. But then you go on to say that the stats weren't good enough to be to considered a good performance.

So obviously the people who are using stats to support their point, aren't the ones discrediting the stats.

So what exactly is your point?

I will be. And I will talk about the bad game. Dont confuse me with some unwaivering JC supporter. I was hard on him in the beginning of the season when he looked like trash.

I didn't confuse you with anybody, I told you what I expected after the comment you made.

DOnt know what you are getting at here either. I never claimed you said anything.

Just making sure chief.

[Passizle]

I dont think its a stretch to give JC a fair amount of credit for the YAC on that play. If the pass had been off target, McFadden does not get to keep his stride, or speed. He only had one guy to beat after that pass. I think wher our opinions differ is that you compare every QB in the laegue to passes that Brady and Manning make pedestrian. If thats the case, then your opinion of McNabb should just like Campbells. It should also mean that you probably dont think there are too many good QB's out there right now. Maybe 6 or 7 tops.

[Mahons21]

I dont think its a stretch to give JC a fair amount of credit for the YAC on that play. If the pass had been off target, McFadden does not get to keep his stride, or speed. He only had one guy to beat after that pass.

That's because no one had a chance at catching him. Come on now.

I think wher our opinions differ is that you compare every QB in the laegue to passes that Brady and Manning make pedestrian. If thats the case, then your opinion of McNabb should just like Campbells.

I grade McNabb higher. I believe his big-play ability is underrated, and it can't be displayed with our current o-line.

I have more faith in McNabb shouldering a team than I do Campbell. Though I have seen Campbell shoulder the Redskins more than once.

It should also mean that you probably dont think there are too many good QB's out there right now. Maybe 6 or 7 tops.

My list of good Qbs in no particular order; Brady, Big Ben, Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers. Players on the cusp; E Manning, Ryan, Orton(after the way he's played this year), Schaub

[HailGreen28]

He had a perfect 158.3 Qb rating at the end of the half. That's called superior performance and no, it's not the same like last year. He has been real stellar the last 2 games including the other wins for the Raiders.

LOL. A first half of dump offs and incompletes. Where McFadden took one of Candle's weaksauce 2 yd passes and took it 60 yards to the house. (No exaggeration, really.) Again, the RBs are doing the work. Candle's performance was good, but to call it "superior" is laughable when he was allowed to just do what any mediocre QB could have done in his spot.

You might want to clean up your post on another thing too. Calling the "last 2 games" Candle played in "stellar" might be read as including the Raiders-Steelers game. I'd blame the Steelers D more than Candle for that one, but "stellar" is either silly or ignorant (not knowing, not necessarily stupid).

---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 06:11 PM ----------

Paging HailGreen!

Looks like we had that elusive run game yesterday? Whats McNabbs exuse for yesterdays performance?

---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 12:59 PM ----------

Not cherrypickes Mahons. JC performed well in both games. Problem was that last week, you guys would not accept the performance as "good" without the supporting numbers. This week he had them... so they have been posted on the board.

I've basically said this to you before. Call me when one of our guys takes a weak 2 yard dump-off or our guys rush for 200+ yds.

What excuses? McNabb passed for 22/35, 228 YDS, 2 TD. He did look like our old "Captain Checkdown" out there, but I think the run game helped it from being worse, even when we weren't rushing late because the Bucs were still having to account for it. That dovetails nicely into how Candle gets helped out more by the greater support he's getting from the Raider's run game. What part of this do you STILL not get?

Hail!

[darrelgreenie]

What some people call "dump offs" others call making the correct decision or others refer to it as efficiency or even beating the blitz

"checking" down is often the right answer

how come no one calls Brady Captain checkdown? Their passing game is predicated on "checkdowns"

[Mahons21]

What some people call "dump offs" others call making the correct decision or others refer to it as efficiency or even beating the blitz

"checking" down is often the right answer

how come no one calls Brady Captain checkdown? Their passing game is predicated on "checkdowns"

Not necessarily check-downs but quick reads. In my opinion when people refer to Campbell as captain checkdown, they aren't referring to the quick reads and short passing patterns, rather they're referring to the plays where Campbell holds on to the ball cycles through his reads, and checks it down.

While it may be the correct decision sometimes, the rate at which Campbell was doing so, alarmed some of us.

[Beans]

What some people call "dump offs" others call making the correct decision or others refer to it as efficiency or even beating the blitz

"checking" down is often the right answer

how come no one calls Brady Captain checkdown? Their passing game is predicated on "checkdowns"

Tons of people recognize Brady as Captain Checkdown.

[darrelgreenie]

Not necessarily check-downs but quick reads. In my opinion when people refer to Campbell as captain checkdown, they aren't referring to the quick reads and short passing patterns, rather they're referring to the plays where Campbell holds on to the ball cycles through his reads, and checks it down.

While it may be the correct decision sometimes, the rate at which Campbell was doing so, alarmed some of us.

You do remember that Levi Jones and an injured Stephon Heyer were are bookend OTs for the most of the season right?

Zorn rightly switched to a 3-step drop heavy passing offense after Samuels was hurt.

Zorn/Bingo's underrated play design and offense we a prime reason that Campbell was able to put up better numbers especially on 3rd down and in the RZ then McNabb.

[Mahons21]

You do remember that Levi Jones and an injured Stephon Heyer were are bookend OTs for the most of the season right?

Zorn rightly switched to a 3-step drop heavy passing offense after Samuels was hurt.

Like I said, it wasn't the designed short plays on 3 step drops that irritated me. It was that when he had the time to go through his progressions. On far too many of these plays he checked down, there were NFC playbook shows on it last year, that would show the receivers running open downfield. Much like there were for Kolb in games this year.

Zorn/Bingo's underrated play design and offense we a prime reason that Campbell was able to put up better numbers especially on 3rd down and in the RZ then McNabb.

I never said his playing calling didn't inhibit him, and I don't want to go down this road with you.

You said why doesn't anyone call Brady captain checkdown when all he does is throw short passes. The difference is Brady has designed 3-step drops and gets rid of the ball, I had no problem when Campbell did that. But when the PA, and bigger plays are called for, Brady takes his drop stands tall in the pocket and gets the ball down field. Campbell (on the few plays) he did have opportunity checked it down far too much for me. Maybe it was because Gibbs hammered play it safe football into his head, maybe it's because he wasn't comfortable in the system, maybe it was because he was so used to pressure he just assumed it would be there. It was probably some combination of all of them.

But I didn't like the rate at which our passing attack checked it down last year on plays designed to go further down field.

[tiger187126]

You do remember that Levi Jones and an injured Stephon Heyer were are bookend OTs for the most of the season right?

Zorn rightly switched to a 3-step drop heavy passing offense after Samuels was hurt.

Zorn/Bingo's underrated play design and offense we a prime reason that Campbell was able to put up better numbers especially on 3rd down and in the RZ then McNabb.

ignore mahons, he will say something then go back on it saying you merely misunderstood him. he won't look at valid arguments that go against what he says and try to refute them, he'll merely try to morph a valid argument into his own anamorphic blob of convoluted reasoning and just keep rolling with it as if he never said anything different.

maybe if he watches more playbook he can see mcnabb having people open downfield and not throwing it to them, but instead checking down. or taking sacks with checkdowns available to him.

but then again that's different and not at all alarming for a 13 year vet.