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

[TheLongshot]

I'd have to disagree.

With a rushing attack this week McNabb had 2 TDs, 0 INTs, 0 fumbles, 225 y, and a pr of 100.

Weeks prior his stats pale in comparison. NYG, 1 TD, 2 INTs, 3 fumbles (1 lost), almost 300 y

As pointed out earlier, stats don't say everything. Fact is, most of his yards came on those two TD drives. (One of which came at the end of the game where they were mostly protecting against the deep ball.) Given how we were playing in that first half, we should have had a HUGE lead, if only we got a solid effort from the passing game. While I don't put it all on McNabb (Playcalling was an issue, IMO), he certainly was part of the problem.

[Mahons21]

As pointed out earlier, stats don't say everything. Fact is, most of his yards came on those two TD drives. (One of which came at the end of the game where they were mostly protecting against the deep ball.) Given how we were playing in that first half, we should have had a HUGE lead, if only we got a solid effort from the passing game. While I don't put it all on McNabb (Playcalling was an issue, IMO), he certainly was part of the problem.

I can agree to that, I was just saying the rushing attack did help his performance. Still not to the level I would like to see him playing at, but it was an improvement.

I'd add that kicking was obviously a huge issue as well.

[Passizle]

^^^

Have to agree. McNabb did not look that great, althought the stats would suggest other wise. Just check the game thread and read through the namy pages complaining about McNabbs decision making.

FWIW, I think alot of peopl think I just want JC back. Thats not the case. I want those picks back because there has been no difference from the QB change. Seeing JC do well on another team is no surprise... its seems to be a right of passage for alot of ex-skins.

[darrelgreenie]

That said, he would not fit this offense and JC is what he is.......All that said, I do agree that JC is playing his best ball with the Raiders currently and I wish him the best of luck.

I think JC would be a great fit for this offense.

1) He would benefit more from the improved pass protection b/c last year he was used to much worse pass pro as opposed to McNabb who is used to much better pass pro

2) He would benefit more from having a deep threat like Armstrong and having Cooley and Davis b/c he didn't have a deep threat last year and he already had a rapport w/ Davis and would likely target Davis more

McNabb on the other hand is coming from a more talented team w/ great weapons to a team that lacks weapons compared to the Eagles.

3) Jason is still mobile while McNabb is clearly injured

4) Jason is used to picking up new offenses and would probably have an easier transition (Sherman Bingo Lewis was part of Shanahan's staff)

Imo the way JC played last year in the midst of all the chaos,rampant unprofessionalism and a league worst OL and to still have the production he had on 3rd downs and in the RZ are more impressive then his play w/ the Raiders.

[TheLongshot]

I can agree to that, I was just saying the rushing attack did help his performance. Still not to the level I would like to see him playing at, but it was an improvement.

I guess I should have spelled it out a bit more. A lot of those passing yards (79 yards) came on the last drive in the game, where the running game was not considered a threat and the defense was mostly protecting against the deep pass and the sideline pass. I give credit for McNabb to be able to move it down the field, but that had little to do with the running game.

FWIW, I think alot of peopl think I just want JC back. Thats not the case. I want those picks back because there has been no difference from the QB change. Seeing JC do well on another team is no surprise... its seems to be a right of passage for alot of ex-skins.

To be honest, it was pretty obvious before the trade that Campbell faced long odds to be the QB here beyond this season. Shanahan was looking for his guy rather than seeing if what he had here would work. I don't particularly blame him for that, but that's how it is with a lot of teams. And yes, I really didn't like that we traded two high picks for a player we weren't likely to reap the full benefits of.

I think JC would be a great fit for this offense.

1) He would benefit more from the improved pass protection b/c last year he was used to much worse pass pro as opposed to McNabb who is used to much better pass pro

2) He would benefit more from having a deep threat like Armstrong and having Cooley and Davis b/c he didn't have a deep threat last year and he already had a rapport w/ Davis and would likely target Davis more

McNabb on the other hand is coming from a more talented team w/ great weapons to a team that lacks weapons compared to the Eagles.

3) Jason is still mobile while McNabb is clearly injured

4) Jason is used to picking up new offenses and would probably have an easier transition (Sherman Bingo Lewis was part of Shanahan's staff)

Imo the way JC played last year in the midst of all the chaos,rampant unprofessionalism and a league worst OL and to still have the production he had on 3rd downs and in the RZ are more impressive then his play w/ the Raiders.

Well, as a negative, Campbell does have a bad habit of fumbling the ball when he gets sacked. Also, Campbell's deep ball accuracy isn't nearly as good as McNabb's. That being said, Campbell probably could move the ball on a more regular basis. The offense probably still would have struggled with the fact that the run game has struggled for most of the year, and Campbell still needs a run game to be most effective. I expect we probably would be in a similar position with Campbell here. As Passizle said above, the bigger issue is not having those two picks.

[Mahons21]

I guess I should have spelled it out a bit more. A lot of those passing yards (79 yards) came on the last drive in the game, where the running game was not considered a threat and the defense was mostly protecting against the deep pass and the sideline pass. I give credit for McNabb to be able to move it down the field, but that had little to do with the running game.

One could argue that the rushing the ball through the first half tired out the defense, and also allowed the Redskins to win the TOP. This allowed the Redskins to drive against a defense that may not have had as much energy had they not been pounded in the first.

Fact of the matter is #5 had himself a better game when the rushing attack improved. Though it may not have come in the form of plays that the rushing attack can setup, play-action roll outs and such, so I can see where you're coming from.

[elkabong82]

Why should I speak for the others?

Why would I refute their claims? Did you expect some long detailed analysis of what Campbell did? I didn't watch enough of the game to give one.

I misunderstood a poster last week. Has that never happened to you before? It was no desperate attempt to attack anything. I said I found it hypocritical that people who I had believed discounted QB stats in a game, were now using QB stats it a game. Califan explained his position, I was incorrect and I didn't say anything else.

I'm just curious do you have some problem with me? If so will you just stop, referencing my posts. I'm the only person who's argued against Campbell and come back in here right after his good game and claimed it to be so, yet you're engaging in a debate that has nothing to do with you, nor were you even addressed, you've just come in here to try to attack me, and not my opinion. So I'm curious what's your beef?

---------- Post added December-14th-2010 at 12:29 PM ----------

He's had a good game since last week? I was unaware the Raiders played both Sunday and Monday.

I meant "how about the others" as an indication that theposter you responded to was talking abo multiple posters, not just you. You did give JC credit, but certainly others are in here doing everything they can think of to take away from it.

I would expect you to refute their claims because you disagree with them on this game. I mean, anytime someone speaks good of JC, you are there to try and refute it, typically. So I figured when you said that JC actually did have a good game, you would respond to those saying he did not. But instead you immediately attacked JC supporters, calling them hypocrites. Just shows you're continuing the "my side vs. your side" antics rather than being earnest about the issue itself.

And understand my point before commenting on it. Last week you went solely off of stats, because it helped your opinion. However, when the game was broken down, i.e when the stats were put into context, it was shown JC had a better game than the stats indicated. Your attack, calling posters hypocrites, was THIS week, just a few posts ago. If you think his stats broken down this week show he didn't have as good of a game as they indicate, then please make thast case. But you already said he had a great game, so you'd be refuting your own statement.

Really though, you were simply looking for a way to attack the opposition, which is why you came up with the weak sauce of calling others hypocrites for using stats this week because you incorrectly claimed they discounted them last week, tho in reality they were put into context.

And now that you've been called out on your antics, you want to play victim? My beef is with people who grossly exaggerate and misrepresent, and try to pass extremist opinions offf as reasoned approaches. I's not my fault you've fallen into that category with the JC debates. I can respond to anybody at any point, it's a message board, you don't have to address me specifically, and that is a very cheap attempt at discounting my opinion, akin to "who asked you?"

And all I've done is attack your opinion. However, you started today off in this thread with attacking others as hypocrites. Good job. Way to accuse others of what you are actually guilty of.

Newsflash, when you come into a thread and misrepresent conversations I was a part of, and say that people, myself included, discounted QB stats, when even back then it was explained to you they were put in context, not merely discounted, yet you continue on with such a week later anyway, then I'm going to respond. When you use your misrepresented understanding of a situation I was involved with to label others as hypocrites, I'm going to respond. Again, my beef is with people whon misrepresent discussions I took part in. Perhaps if it wasn't a frequent occurrence with you when it comes to this debate, then you wouldn't see as much of me.

[Mahons21]

I meant "how about the others" as an indication that theposter you responded to was talking abo multiple posters, not just you. You did give JC credit, but certainly others are in here doing everything they can think of to take away from it.

Great. Then why'd you ask me about them? As I said I don't speak for them. There's not a conference phone call before one of us says JC had a good game.

I would expect you to refute their claims because you disagree with them on this game. I mean, anytime someone speaks good of JC, you are there to try and refute it, typically. So I figured when you said that JC actually did have a good game, you would respond to those saying he did not. But instead you immediately attacked JC supporters, calling them hypocrites. Just shows you're continuing the "my side vs. your side" antics rather than being earnest about the issue itself.

Why would I refute their claims if someone already has? There have been all of maybe 2 posts here that said JC had a bad game, each of them has been handled by someone who clearly saw more of Jason Campbell play than I did. Do you need to me type an I agree with these posts below them? Will that make you feel better.

And understand my point before commenting on it. Last week you went solely off of stats, because it helped your opinion. However, when the game was broken down, i.e when the stats were put into context, it was shown JC had a better game than the stats indicated. Your attack, calling posters hypocrites, was THIS week, just a few posts ago. If you think his stats broken down this week show he didn't have as good of a game as they indicate, then please make thast case. But you already said he had a great game, so you'd be refuting your own statement.

No last week I didn't go off stats, I readily admitted that he played beyond them. Go back and check. I didn't call posters I called califan a hypocrite, and he put me in place.

And as I've already stated in this thread, I do believe Campbell's stats were inflated in this week, but that doesn't mean he didn't have a good game.

I found it funny that there was no context given to Campebells magnificent first half. Good first half, yes, inflated to do a swing pass that went for 62 yards, also yes. However there was no mention of this.

Really though, you were simply looking for a way to attack the opposition, which is why you came up with the weak sauce of calling others hypocrites for using stats this week because you incorrectly claimed they discounted them last week, tho in reality they were put into context.

a quote from me earlier in this thread

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.

And now that you've been called out on your antics, you want to play victim? My beef is with people who grossly exaggerate and misrepresent, and try to pass extremist opinions offf as reasoned approaches. I's not my fault you've fallen into that category with the JC debates.

I'm not playing victim. If you have a beef with me, which you clearly do as evidenced by your tone right off the bat, than don't bother quoting me. It appears irritating for the both of us. I haven't misrepresented anyone's opinion other than Califan's and that's because I didn't realize he had posted a joke it was my mistake.

I never once said that Campbell only played as good as his statistics the week prior, and understood that his game needed to be put into context.

Even though I have readily admitted I gave Campbell too much blame on occasion last year, I have admitted I would rather have Jason back and the two picks as well, and also have been the first person and I believe only one of two to say that Campbell had a good game (of posters who had previously had a poor opinion of him) and you're passing me off as some extremist that thinks everything is this side or that side. You're very mistaken.

I can respond to anybody at any point, it's a message board, you don't have to address me specifically, and that is a very cheap attempt at discounting my opinion, akin to "who asked you?"

You're absolutely right, it's my mistake for bothering to reply to anyone who uses that tone right off

Newsflash, when you come into a thread and misrepresent conversations I was a part of, and say that people, myself included, discounted QB stats, when even back then it was explained to you they were put in context, not merely discounted, yet you continue on with such a week later anyway, then I'm going to respond.

The only person here misrepresenting anything is you. I was saying people were "discounting" QB stats because the stats didn't tell the story of the game. I also agreed this notion a week ago, so no, I'm not continuing on a week later.

When you use your misrepresented understanding of a situation I was involved with to label others as hypocrites, I'm going to respond. Again, my beef is with people whon misrepresent discussions I took part in. Perhaps if it wasn't a frequent occurrence with you when it comes to this debate, then you wouldn't see as much of me.

If you're going to call me on something like this you better damn well have some proof, and it better not be this thread, because the only thing I misrepresented was califans joke. Which was actually quite funny when I looked back on it.

Because half of this post is you misrepresenting my belief on last weeks game.

another quote from me in this thread

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

[elkabong82]

Great. Then why'd you ask me about them? As I said I don't speak for them. There's not a conference phone call before one of us says JC had a good game.

I asked about them only in reference to the fact the guy wasn't talking about just you. You commented to that guy like you were the only one he was talking about, I pointed out there were others and inferred nothing else. Again, if you don't understand the point, don't comment on it.

Why would I refute their claims if someone already has? There have been all of maybe 2 posts here that said JC had a bad game, each of them has been handled by someone who clearly saw more of Jason Campbell play than I did. Do you need to me type an I agree with these posts below them? Will that make you feel better.

Why would you respond in these debates when others have? Deflection isn't a correct response. You didn't hesistate last week to parrot others saying JC's stats were poor and he leaned on the run game, so why are you hesitating responding to someone who disagrees with you that JC had a good game? Again, you're simply playing "my side vs. theirs" and you don't want to argue with your side. You normally don't hesitate to argue with those you disagree with in the JC debates, but the one time you disagree with someone on your side, you conveniently ignore it. Peculiar.

No last week I didn't go off stats, I readily admitted that he played beyond them. Go back and check. I didn't call posters I called califan a hypocrite, and he put me in place.

BS! Again, you continue to misrepresent past arguments. You said "Campbell didn't have a bad game, but he also didn't have a good game. And you responded, post 576, when someone said JC was the MVP of that game: "MVP of what? Handing the god damn ball off?"

That's twice just today in this thread where you've misrepresnted what you said previously and have been called on it.

And as I've already stated in this thread, I do believe Campbell's stats were inflated in this week, but that doesn't mean he didn't have a good game.

I found it funny that there was no context given to Campebells magnificent first half. Good first half, yes, inflated to do a swing pass that went for 62 yards, also yes. However there was no mention of this.

The long dump off TD by McFadden was mentioned, and it was mentioned JC audibled that play. You do realize, though, that it takes more than just 1 play to prove a claim that the stats don't accuraetly represent performance in this case.

I'm not playing victim. If you have a beef with me, which you clearly do as evidenced by your tone right off the bat, than don't bother quoting me. It appears irritating for the both of us. I haven't misrepresented anyone's opinion other than Califan's and that's because I didn't realize he had posted a joke it was my mistake.

I never once said that Campbell only played as good as his statistics the week prior, and understood that his game needed to be put into context.

Your first response in here today was an attempt to label people you disagree with as hypocrites, yet you never correct anti-JC folk on their exaggations. Obviously you have beef with anyone that doesn't think JC is a bad QB.

And yeah, when you're asking "why are you attacking me?" when I'm discussing your opinion, you are playing victim.

You obviously didn't understand the game needed to be put into context because you argued against it last week, and then tried to claim this week that people, myself included, merely discounted the stats, and used such to call others hypocrites (you said "posters" not califan specifically, your fault and it shows your intent was directed at multiple people).

You're absolutely right, it's my mistake for bothering to reply to anyone who uses that tone right off

Again deflecting. I'll take it to mean that you concede trying to use "you weren't a part of this conversation originally" was a cheap attempt at discrediting the poster instead of the opinion.

The only person here misrepresenting anything is you. I was saying people were "discounting" QB stats because the stats didn't tell the story of the game. I also agreed this notion a week ago, so no, I'm not continuing on a week later.

Again you accuse others of what you are guilty of. Discounting stats is not the same as putting them into context. You wouldn't have called posters hypocrites for using QB stats this week unless you were also saying they didn't use them last week. Patently false, you took part in the convos last week, you know the stats were looked into further, not merely discounted. You didn't agree a week ago, stop misrepresenting what you and others say. You're either doing it intentionally or your memory is awful.

If you're going to call me on something like this you better damn well have some proof, and it better not be this thread, because the only thing I misrepresented was califans joke. Which was actually quite funny when I looked back on it.

Well, I've given you proof of you misrepresenting your very own words in this very thread, with post number references above. You accused others of cherry picking stats, despite them posting the stats in their entireity (page 43 of this thread), you misreprsented last week's arguments by saying people discounted stats and were hypocrites for using stats this week, when in reality the stats last week were not discounted, they were put into context, and you saw such. Pasizzle called you out, post 640, for misrpresenting your earlier arguments also, in fact, you quote yourself with the same exact post Passizzle called you out on.

"I never said the numbers weren't misleading or dismissed them" yet your previous statement on that game, post 557, "On to Campbell though. He didn't play a bad game, and he didn't play a good game. He made the occasional play here and there, as any NFL starter should." and "When it comes down to it though, he was still the same old Campbell.

-Not very accurate

-Difficulty reading a defense, probably led to him tucking the ball and running however many times he did.

-Usually when a QB's most impressive plays are rushes, it's not a great thing. "

All this despite JC getting the game ball that game and people showing you that he played better than the stats. Your language here certainly looks like you are being dismissive of JC stats and saying they are misleading, and nowhere is there any sort of hint that you truly believe he played better than his numbers, the fact you argued with anybody saying he played better than his numbers doesn't vibe well either.

Care to explain how "I never said the numbers weren't misleading or dismissed them. Campbell played better than his numbers." AND....

"MVP of what? Handing the god damn ball off?" ... work together? All I'm seeing is you contradicting yourself because you misrepresented even your own arguments.

Those are several examples in this thread alone, need I go on?

[darrelgreenie]

Well, as a negative, Campbell does have a bad habit of fumbling the ball when he gets sacked. Also, Campbell's deep ball accuracy isn't nearly as good as McNabb's. That being said, Campbell probably could move the ball on a more regular basis. The offense probably still would have struggled with the fact that the run game has struggled for most of the year, and Campbell still needs a run game to be most effective. I expect we probably would be in a similar position with Campbell here. As Passizle said above, the bigger issue is not having those two picks.

Don't disagree w. any of this but i was answering specifically why i thought Campbell wouldn't be a bad fit for this offense.

[Mahons21]

You haven't shown me anything that proves I'm misrepresenting the oppositions point of view. You can play beyond your numbers and still not have a good game, you realize this is possible right?

I said he wasn't the MVP of the game, that doesn't mean I don't think he played better than his numbers. Both statements can quite easily be true, they don't contradict one another. I think the offensive line as a whole deserves that game ball.

When one play makes up for almost 1/3 of the passing yards and half the touchdowns, and the QB didn't really do much on the play then yes that single play can inflate first half stats.

I had two debates after last weeks game. A.) Whether or not Campbell opened up the rushing attack, and I was the only person that refuted Luke's claim and B.) Whether or not Campbell had a good game. Since my view on this wasn't based on his stats but rather a comparison to a good game from a QB like Rodgers, it again was the loan view in the thread.

Unlike this thread where posters have already refuted claims other posters made.

In addition I watched last weeks game and was able to comment on it. If I were just in here to harp on Campbell every time he posted poor statistics I would have been here after the PIT game, yet I wasn't. Because I didn't watch the game.

Lastly you said I was misrepresenting the oppositions point of view not my own. Though I didn't misrepresent my own point of view, that seems to be what you're trying to prove.

edit:

used such to call others hypocrites (you said "posters" not califan specifically, your fault and it shows your intent was directed at multiple people).

please look at the bolded criteria in my post and notice that no one other than Califan and possibly luke fit.

this week Campbell has a good game statistically and the same people are citing numbers when discussing how well Campbell played.

Did you or anyone other than Califan cite his statistics after that game prior to my post? If not you don't fit the criteria.

I just can't get how ****ing dense you are. I haven't misrepresented anything.

I can say someone had an average game but player beyond their #'s. It doesn't mean they were accurate or found open receivers, it means that the plays they made came at crucial moments and this doesn't show up on the stat line.

You realize that right?

Nothing there is contradictory

[elkabong82]

You haven't shown me anything that proves I'm misrepresenting the oppositions point of view. You can play beyond your numbers and still not have a good game, you realize this is possible right?

Did you or anyone other than Califan cite his statistics after that game prior to my post? If not you don't fit the criteria.

"I never said the numbers weren't misleading or dismissed them. Campbell played better than his numbers." and "MVP of what? Handing the god damn ball off?"

Yes, in the second quote you are being dismissive of Campbell's performance, while in the first quote you claimed you never did such.

Only in Bizzaro world would "MVP of what? Handing the god damn ball off? also mean you think a QB played beyond his numbers. Only in Bizzaro world would that comment qualify as NOT being dismissive of his performance.

How else does calling others hypocrites for using QB stats this week work out other than inferring people dismissed stats last week? People didn't dismiss them last week, they added more context to them. So yeah, you were and are misrepresenting what the opposition is saying, or said. You can deny it all you want, I expected about as much, but it's still there.

"The QB doesn't do much on that play." Yeah, he only audibled to that play.

You said prior that the posters using QB statistics for this game are hypocrites because they discounted them last week. You never specifically said which posters, plus you referenced last weeks arguments, which I was a part of, and made a false claim that I and others dismissed the stats when in reality we added context to them.

This has been explained to you several times now. I'm not saying you called me a hypocrite, I'm simply saying that because you misrepresented last week's arguments, and because I was a part of those, I replied.

[Mahons21]

No that's me saying he's not the MVP. I sarcastically said MVP of what handing the ball off, because he did this 40+ times in the game. Just because I think calling him the MVP of the game is an exaggeration doesn't mean he didn't play better than 10/16, 117, 1 TD, 37 ruyd, 1 TD. Outside of touchdowns that is an extremely weak stat line, and it resembles a poor game from a QB, hardly breaking 150 total yards... That's bad. However if you watched this game you knew that 1 of his TD's came on a 4th down, when the game was still tied, his largest passing play of the game came on a drive after SD had pulled within 1 score. These aspects make his 150 yd game, better than the stat line would read, but they don't have to make him the MVP.

[elkabong82]

Again, how does saying "MVP of what? Handing the god damn ball off?" not consitute you being dismissive of his performance (which you claimed you never did)?

I take it that since you didn't clarify how calling people hypocrites for using stats this week doesn't infer they dismissed them last week, you concede you were misrepresenting the argument.

[Mahons21]

Again, how does saying "MVP of what? Handing the god damn ball off?" not consitute you being dismissive of his performance (which you claimed you never did)?

Because you're not putting in into context. I was replying to someone who said he was the MVP of the game. I thought that was an exaggeration, so I made a sarcastic reply. It's not that difficult to understand, and it doesn't dismiss his stats.

I take it that since you didn't clarify how calling people hypocrites for using stats this week doesn't infer they dismissed them last week, you concede you were misrepresenting the argument.

a.) It would be implied not inferred. That's what you inferred from it, it's not what I implied.

b.) I can understand how you may have gotten confused. However not but a few posts later I go on to explain to Passizle that my beef was that unlike the week before these stats were not put into context as well. Which is a further explanation of what I meant by people dismissing stats.

I didn't mean people literally dismissed stats all together, I meant they dismissed them for the game before, and for good reason, but the following game they were leaning on 1st half stats. Though the stats were inflated by a 62 yd swing pass, and multiple other dump offs. Yet there was no mention of this context.

And it's califan(we had a debate that carried on through the week prior) not people, and considering he posted the stats as a joke(also at the half) and I took them literally(and thought they were after the game), I looked quite dumb. Unlike you, I stopped when I wasn't too far behind.

[elkabong82]

Riiight, because your tone there certainly indicated sarcasm, lol. That's a very cheap cop-out. A guy who has been heavily critical of JC, says he was handing the ball off all game long, and also said the QB didn't have a good game or a bad game, and argued with people saying JC had a good game last week, and ignored Tom Cable gave him the game ball over the RBs, was being sarcastic when he said "MVP of what? Handing the god damn ball off?" Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Yeah, I meant imply, not infer, and I even used imply previously when making that point. Thanks for being a smart ass about it though.

I showed where this week's stats were put into context. You chose to completely ignore, several times now, that Campbell audibled that play. You're only concern was taking away credit from the QB and trying to diminish his performance.

I'm not saying JC's performance this week is without criticism. Though it was a very tough final drive with little time left, he and the team screwed the pooch on that one, for example. What I am saying is that the fact the only praise you could give to JC came with an attack on other posters, the fact you'll only argue with pro-JC people and try to correct them, but you let anti-JC people say whatever exaggerations and incorrect info they want without a single response from you, the fact you misrepresent other's arguments and your own as well (perhaps if you didn't do that, half your posts wouldn't be you back-peddaling and trying to alter the meanings of what you said previously), are all very telling of your bias in this debate and your inability to remove such from any discussion on the matter, hence your opinions in this debate are invalid.

[Mahons21]

Riiight, because your tone there certainly indicated sarcasm, lol. That's a very cheap cop-out. A guy who has been heavily critical of JC, says he was handing the ball off all game long, and also said the QB didn't have a good game or a bad game, and argued with people saying JC had a good game last week, and ignored Tom Cable gave him the game ball over the RBs, was being sarcastic when he said "MVP of what? Handing the god damn ball off?" Sorry, I'm not buying it.

I couldn't care less whether your buying it.

Apparently I believe their is an MVP of handing the ball off...

Yeah, I meant imply, not infer, and I even used imply previously when making that point. Thanks for being a smart ass about it though.

What exactly were you expecting after the tone you wrote with in the post you originally quoted me on?

I showed where this week's stats were put into context. You chose to completely ignore, several times now, that Campbell audibled that play. You're only concern was taking away credit from the QB and trying to diminish his performance.

They weren't put into context when I made my comment. It's irrelevant if they're put into context afterwards. All Califan had posted when I made my comment was a 1st half stat line, literally nothing else.

I didn't know that Jason called an audible on that play and do give him more credit now, though not 67 td bomb credit. For example that play doesn't get as near as much credit from the QB in my book as the 60+ yd bomb Vick throws 40+ of the yards which go through the air.

In addition it was still a routine throw, and the large majority of his 1st half stats were riddled with dump offs to his RBs. They we

I'm not saying JC's performance this week is without criticism. Though it was a very tough final drive with little time left, he and the team screwed the pooch on that one, for example. What I am saying is that the fact the only praise you could give to JC came with an attack on other posters

What's your point? I mistaken took his point literally and thought it to be hypocritical. Doesn't take away from the fact I said Campbell had a hell of a game.

,

the fact you'll only argue with pro-JC people and try to correct them,

correction. I argue after games I actually watched, not games I only saw bits and pieces of. If I was only in here against pro-JC people, can you explain why there was no sign of me after the PIT game? Why didn't I hop on that golden opportunity? Possibly because again, I didn't see the game.

but you let anti-JC people say whatever exaggerations and incorrect info they want without a single response from you,

Again, I didn't watch the game. Also there were all of two anti-jc posts since this game, it wasn't as if there was some plethora of them.

And why exactly haven't you gone after the lone post that is anti-JC since this game? You're hoping on me for not posting against this person, yet you yourself aren't saying anything. Rather you're coming after me the, guy who said he had a good game and calling me bias.

the fact you misrepresent other's arguments and your own as well (perhaps if you didn't do that, half your posts wouldn't be you back-peddaling and trying to alter the meanings of what you said previously),

I had one post where I should have explained myself further. However since I did so two posts below you would think it wouldn't be so confusing.

Can you stop with the misrepresenting? You haven't proven a single case where I've done this, other than your own inference.

However I have shown you cases where you have completely misrepresented my opinion. Which you seem to think I'm changing. You can't grasp that a player can have an average game and play better than their below average statistics.

are all very telling of your bias in this debate and your inability to remove such from any discussion on the matter, hence your opinions in this debate are invalid.

My bias? In case you missed it, I've openly admitted I gave Campbell too much blame, openly admitted I'd rather have him back here and the picks, I've been anything but bias.

If my opinions aren't valid do me a favor and don't randomly quote them, and act as if I'm referring to you when I clearly was not. Remember, you didn't fit the criteria, since you hadn't posted any stats.

[elkabong82]

Just keep spinning away. "Nuh-uh" is such a great reply. Again, quit playing the victim, and quit being purposefully one-sided in the argument.

I've constantly had to point out facts that you're ignoring, not my fault you're missing them, on accident or purposefully. Doesn't mean they haven't been made, so you pretending so doesn't actually negate them. I've even referenced the posts andpost numbers, but magically to you, the case hasn't been made. If you were anymore in denial you'd be posting from Egypt right now.

"I haven't dismissed JC's performance" vs. "MVP of what? Handing the ball off all game?" Then claiming you were being sarcastic when there is no indication of such, and nobody else took it that way either.

"JC didn't have anything to do with McFadden's TD catch" though it's been pointed out he audibled that play.

"You guys are hypocrites" but you'll allow the other anti-JC folk to exaggerate, cherry-pick, not put stats into context. All the things you demand of pro-JC folk, and called them hypocrites for not doing, you excuse for the anti-JC crowd. So really, you are the hypocrite. Either learn how to express an opinion clearly so you aren't back-peddaling so much and misrespresenting even your own arguments (which you admitted to),or own up to the bias. You already admitted you've had it in the past, yet magically it doesn't occur to you that you may be doing it again in here.

Everyone else in here can see, though they probably already knew, that you were biased in these debates and playing "my side is right" rather than discussing the issue earnestly, and that you can't even correctly represent your own past statements. Your act is old, unoriginal, but you're right, you aren't worth it, so goodbye, I'm done talking with you in this thread because it's a waste of time. There are actual good posters on here where things can be learned from conversation. You aren't one of them, so I'm done checking this thread and responding to you. If you feel like responding, I'm not reading it because I feel it will liekly be just more denail and deflection.

But hey, at least we root for the same team. Too bad that's about it in commonalities.

[Mahons21]

Discussion doesn't deserve to waste any more space in this thread. My apologies for how much time it has already taken up/de-railed.

[Boss_Hogg]

McNabb played well. The playcalling became suspect after the 1st half.

[HailGreen28]

This is where you like any other person who did not watch the game looks completely ignorant and sounds embarassing on your part. Campbell audibled Mcfadden's 31 yd run for a TD. On the long catch and run by Mcfadden, the defense could not stop him on the pass so they covered deep - Mcfadden was wide open when Campbell like any smart QB, threw to him. Some of you are real clowns. You try to take away Campbell's performance by putting it on Mcfadden. This is Mcfadden's third year in the league. Why wasn't he doing this the last two years?? You have to credit that there is now a competent QB who defenses fear and who is audibling alot and playing smart football. He avoided rush after rush to hit the pass and spread the ball to his receivers. Coach Cable called his performance "the finest performance by a Raider QB in a long time". This is Campbell's 5th 100+ QB rating this season. You guys can attempt to diminish his performance all you want, but 158.3 QB rating (137.6 for the game) is what it is. Damn fine performance by anybody. He has completely outplayed McNaab this year. There is absolutely no debate about that. You are so desperate that you call a 12/16 80% completion 10 ypa 158.3 QB rating performance "a first half of dump offs and incompletes". If they were all incompletes then how did he complete 80% of his passes? Do you understand that 158.3 QB rating is the highest possible rating in a game? The only person who had close to that in a half this season was Michael Vick against the Redskins!! Mediocre QBs do not put up 204 yds in one half! or throw for 324 yds in a game completing 70% of their passes. Whether you hate someone or not, you can maintain credibility when you give that person their due respect. The credit is well deserved so stop being a childish hater.

Listen, noob. You're doing what lots of rabid Candle supporters did every week after he had a good game with the Skins. IE: When everything else was going right. Crediting him with defenses fearing him, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if even some of the pro-Candle supporters here chuckle at that. Hang around, and watch history repeat itself, just like with the Skins. Only I doubt anybody will want Candle for as high as "a 4th a year removed" when the drama is over in Oakland.

Do you understand that if you're going to look at a QBs rating, you ought to at least look at what he did the whole game? Whether he threw 4 quarters or just 4 passes? Of course, Candle ended up coughing up the ball and getting hurt, so I see why you want to focus on something else.

I watched the game, off and on. And saw the same Captain Checkdown from Washington. He wasn't making any quick reads. It was his primary, then dump-off. Who knows what fantasy game you saw?

McFadden played hurt last season. Shows what you know about what went on with the Raiders last season. Not to mention the disaster at QB they had the past couple seasons.

Candle had a good game. With plenty of help. Including the one thing teams do fear from the Raiders. (Hint, it isn't their passing game.) He'll have plenty more bad ones, playing just well enough for a controversy. Don't kid yourself that he hasn't done this before, and won't do it again. Stick around to see.

Who gets credit for a 2 yard dump-off pass in the middle of the field that goes 60 yds for a TD? The QB or the receiver? Not just statistically, but who deserves the credit? Is it "hating" to not credit the QB?

[TheItalianStallion]

Candle had a good game. With plenty of help. Including the one thing teams do fear from the Raiders. (Hint, it isn't their passing game.)

Of McFadden's 123 rushing yards, 94 of them came in the 2nd half, 87 of which came on 2 carries, one of which was a JC audible, and he only had 29 rushing yards at halftime. Meanwhile JC had 204 yards at halftime. Could it be that JC's strong 1st half was what set up McFadden's strong 2nd half?

[Seabee1973]

\Who gets credit for a 2 yard dump-off pass in the middle of the field that goes 60 yds for a TD? The QB or the receiver? Not just statistically, but who deserves the credit? Is it "hating" to not credit the QB?

You would be blameing Campbell if it got dropped cant have it both ways

[elkabong82]

Who gets credit for a 2 yard dump-off pass in the middle of the field that goes 60 yds for a TD? The QB or the receiver? Not just statistically, but who deserves the credit? Is it "hating" to not credit the QB?

In this case the QB audibled that play, so he does get credit, and yes, not giving credit would be hating.

I don't see you looking at a season's worth of stats for good QBs and saying "oh, but we have to take away some yards and a few TDs because of dump offs. I mean, should WRs get full credit for making a 2 yard TD catch? Should RBs get credit for a TD when the WR caught it and took it to the one, and then the RB carries it in the next play untouched?

Or we could simply credit the players, since they are credited in he stats category, instead of picking and choosing to suit our respective opinions.

[Stillers6SB]

Coach Cable called his performance "the finest performance by a Raider QB in a long time".

Did Cable say that or was it a raider blogger? http://bloguin.com/articles/football/raiders-suffer-defensive-meltdown.html

"(Sunday) was Jason's finest day," Cable said "There's no question. How he played, what he did with his feet. He made three audibles in that game. One of them was the long run that Darren (McFadden) had for the touchdown. He made two others in the passing game. He was on point. "... Definitely it was his finest moment as a Raider."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Oakland-Raiders-QB-Jason-Campbell-converting-his-critics-27438054