Can Jason Campbell bounce back?

[superpunk]

So, you linking to the page on your personal settings and expecting me to read through all the pages figuring this and calling that evidence somehow jives in your mind? It isn't my job, when you are trying to prove a point, to show correct evidence.

You are alone in your point here, on a Cowboys board, does that show you anything.

It shows that noone reads the NFL Zone, genius.

Tank was the only player that wouldn't count because he wasn't injured. So even then, you'd have 58 games missed by Cowboys starters, as opposed to 64 for the Commanders, which I have not seen a breakdown on. Part of those 64 games were games missed by Jason Campbell, which was a blessing because he is so horrible.

Again, there was no significant difference in the amount of time your starters missed to ours. In addition, we lost better players for similar periods of time in guys like Newman, Ellis, Henry, Ferguson, Glenn, and Owens.

Yet the Cowboys finished with 13 wins.

That's what superior talent gets you. 13 wins despite serious injuries.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Geez some people are crabby. Now you're going to decide which missed games do and do not count? A missed game is a missed game.

Both Hoyte and Anderson missed time from the team. Anderson missed from the second half of the first philly game all the way through the end of the year. I believe Hoyte missed the first 6 games of the year with a neck injury or something.

Injuries or injuries. Missed games are missed games. The numbers are apparently pretty close but it was never my intention to say that we missed just as many games or anything. My only point was that dealing with missing starters, be it all year (Like Glenn) or through stretches like we went through with Henry, Newman, and Ellis, wasn't something unique to the Commanders last season. So using that as a way to say "Campbell dealt with things no one else had to" is foolish.

Peyton Manning I'm sure lost just as many starters during the season, at one time the only starting reciever he had in his entire offense was Wayne while Harrison, Clark, and Anthony were all out with injury, and yet they still managed to win quite a few games.

The Skins dealt with a lot, no doubt about it, but the injury thing is something every team deals with so it's not something that anyone is going to give the Skins a whole lot of credit for having overcome. Not when other teams lost players for just as much time, or even in some cases more or slightly less than the Skins.

But, geez, calm down. You two are acting like your mothers were raped here or something.

 

[zrinkill]

You are alone in your point here, on a Cowboys board, does that show you anything.

No he is not

The only reason you boys won a few games at the end of the season is because Taylor died.

And your coaching staff was able to use that to motivate your team to win some games.

Thats the truth ....... as cold blooded as it sounds.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

You mean like you did here?

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83444&page=13

That beating made you leave for 3 months.

:laugh2:

Hello sledgehammer, meet the glass house.





YAKUZA

 

[firehawk350]

So when it suits you (counting games missed by starters), Glenn counts as a starter. When it doesn't (counting age of starters) Glenn doesn't... Okay, gotcha.

Luckily, I kept every single injury report for each week (derived nearly directly from ESPN's injury report), we can go ahead and post that if you want to... Let me just give you a hint. The average Skins report included about 5-6 guys and the average Cowboys report included one or two guys. It's a bit buried in my inbox, but it's there. I'm pretty sure I can quote quite a few of you saying that you were "lucky" with the injury bug.

 

[superpunk]

So when it suits you (counting games missed by starters), Glenn counts as a starter. When it doesn't (counting age of starters) Glenn doesn't... Okay, gotcha.

Luckily, I kept every single injury report for each week (derived nearly directly from ESPN's injury report), we can go ahead and post that if you want to... Let me just give you a hint. The average Skins report included about 5-6 guys and the average Cowboys report included one or two guys. It's a bit buried in my inbox, but it's there. I'm pretty sure I can quote quite a few of you saying that you were "lucky" with the injury bug.

Maybe next time you can try making sense.

Your starters missed 64 games. You got lucky that Campbell missed some time, otherwise you might not have discovered that Todd Collins is a better QB than Jason Campbell. If that number isn't correct, take it up with your fellow Skins fan.

Our starters missed 62 games. About 58 if you don't count Tank.

Not a real big difference.

But there was a big difference in our teams win totals this year.

That's what vastly superior talent will get you.

 

[Sonny#9]

Hello sledgehammer, meet the glass house.





YAKUZA

Yep, you got me. You got the Cowboys version of Tr1 on your side. Good work.

I left for about three months. You left for seven, and have posted twice in the last nine. So, if leaving is a sign of "embarrassment" I'd estimate that you're about three times more embarrassed.

That thread had nothing to do with being embarrassed -- more just wanting to stir some s--t up. Call it boredom. Funny thing is, several of the posters that used to drive me nuts, I have come to enjoy talking with b/c they know football -- and I can respect that. You're not one of them.

 

[kapolani]

Yep, you got me. You got the Cowboys version of Tr1 on your side. Good work.

I left for about three months. You left for seven, and have posted twice in the last nine. So, if leaving is a sign of "embarrassment" I'd estimate that you're about three times more embarrassed.

That thread had nothing to do with being embarrassed -- more just wanting to stir some s--t up. Call it boredom. Funny thing is, several of the posters that used to drive me nuts, I have come to enjoy talking with b/c they know football -- and I can respect that. You're not one of them.

LOL.

TR1 is the biggest tool there is on your board.

If you look - EVERY single post is Cowboys related.

He seems pretty obsessed. I can't blame him though. We should take it as flattery though - people are always jealous of those they wish to be...

 

[firehawk350]

Maybe next time you can try making sense.

Your starters missed 64 games. You got lucky that Campbell missed some time, otherwise you might not have discovered that Todd Collins is a better QB than Jason Campbell. If that number isn't correct, take it up with your fellow Skins fan.

Our starters missed 62 games. About 58 if you don't count Tank.

Not a real big difference.

But there was a big difference in our teams win totals this year.

That's what vastly superior talent will get you.

Reading comprehension, try it. It works great for the rest of us.

I'll look it up but nfl.com isn't loading for me. I'll take care if it later.

 

[zrinkill]

LOL.

TR1 is the biggest tool there is on your board.

If you look - EVERY single post is Cowboys related.

He seems pretty obsessed. I can't blame him though. We should take it as flattery though - people are always jealous of those they wish to be...

Idiot came here for a few days and promptly ran away.

He is just like all the other Commander trolls who come here.

 

[kapolani]

Reading comprehension, try it. It works great for the rest of us.

I'll look it up but nfl.com isn't loading for me. I'll take care if it later.

Grammar... Try it.. Works wonders for your credibility...

If you're going to bust on someone - make sure you are beyond reproach...

 

[superpunk]

Reading comprehension, try it. It works great for the rest of us.

I'll look it up but nfl.com isn't loading for me. I'll take care if it later.

Nothing you said makes any sense. And it makes even less sense with your most recent post.

I never said anything about Glenn counting as a starter or not. He was a starter. End of story. Of course, you apparently have no clue how the quote function works, so I don't know if you were responding to me or someone else.

Why do you need NFL.com? After all, you

"kept every single injury report for each week (derived nearly directly from ESPN's injury report)"

- whatever that means.

You've been shown the number for games missed by Cowboys starters. Injury reports don't include only players who do not play, they include players who are probable or questionable and played anyway. But by all means, dig in your inbox and find the information that you "derived nearly directly from ESPN's injury report".

Skinsmaniac says your starters missed 64 games. Ours missed 62. Study up, son.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Yep, you got me. You got the Cowboys version of Tr1 on your side. Good work.

I left for about three months. You left for seven, and have posted twice in the last nine. So, if leaving is a sign of "embarrassment" I'd estimate that you're about three times more embarrassed.

I didn't say leaving was a sign of embarrassment. You on the other hand did. There's just a boatload of hypocrisy on your part claiming that I was "embarrassed" because I left a thread when you did the same exact thing.

That thread had nothing to do with being embarrassed -- more just wanting to stir some s--t up. Call it boredom.

It's usually called trolling.

Funny thing is, several of the posters that used to drive me nuts, I have come to enjoy talking with b/c they know football -- and I can respect that. You're not one of them.

Oh well.





YAKUZA

 

[zrinkill]

That thread had nothing to do with being embarrassed -- more just wanting to stir some s--t up. Call it boredom.

I love when trolls out themselves.

 

[Sonny#9]

I didn't say leaving was a sign of embarrassment. You on the other hand did. There's just a boatload of hypocrisy on your part claiming that I was "embarrassed" because I left a thread when you did the same exact thing.

Yep, you're right. Good work.

It's usually called trolling.

I try to tone it down, but sometimes I just get riled up. But then again, I really don't need to explain myself to the likes of you.

Considering there are people here who want to believe that losing a fullback who has since been cut, a back-up fullback, a back-up DT to suspension who made no impact when he did play, to the likes of losing a starting RG, a starting RT in successive weeks no less, a starting CB, a starting LB (who, at the time, was on pace to post 120 tackles).

There is no point in arguing with some people. So before I get going again and get accused of "trolling" I bid this thread adieu.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

This has turned into a big pile of absolutely nothing.

 

[superpunk]

Yep, you're right. Good work.



I try to tone it down, but sometimes I just get riled up. But then again, I really don't need to explain myself to the likes of you.

Considering there are people here who want to believe that losing a fullback who has since been cut, a back-up fullback, a back-up DT to suspension who made no impact when he did play, to the likes of losing a starting RG, a starting RT in successive weeks no less, a starting CB, a starting LB (who, at the time, was on pace to post 120 tackles).

There is no point in arguing with some people. So before I get going again and get accused of "trolling" I bid this thread adieu.

I guess we're just ignoring the starting WR who had accumulated 1,000 yards in his previous two seasons, the starting NT who was one of the best in the league at stopping the run in 2006, both starting corners, our starting strongside OLB. Probably for the best, so that it half looks like you have a point.

You don't want to play that game, because losing Carlos Rodgers and Jason Campbell helped your team since those two are so awful.

You can't pick and choose what injuries mattered more. The players the Cowboys lost during the season were every bit as valuable as the ones the Skins lost, and when you factor in the caliber of players like Glenn, Ferguson, Newman and Henry and Ellis, and compare them to the guys lost on the Skins (who were sometimes worse than the backups that replaced them) there is really no discernable difference, except the one that Skins fans need to create to help them feel better about their mediocre season.

 

[firehawk350]

I don't really feel like posting an answer to your blathering up there, as you may be the worst hypocrite I know on this board (you bash me for not quoting you yet you can't quote peplaw and expect us to dig through a thread to find your point for you).

Skinsmaniac says your starters missed 64 games. Ours missed 62. Study up, son.

And your evidence is two guys posting on a message board? That's great dude, clearly critical thinking is your forte. Okay using peplaw's numbers on your side...

We've missed Glenn for 15, TO for 1, Henry for 3+, TNew for 2+, Ferguson for 15, Anderson for 8, Ellis for 3+, Roy for 1, Gurode's missed 1, and will miss this week, so 2, Watkins missed 1, Hoyte missed 6, Tank was suspended for 4-5 while on the roster.

I count 57 here son. If the Skins signed Tank, I'm sure you wouldn't be quoting him as a missed game statistic.

Anyways, I updated the Skins numbers (holy research batman!) using games active from NFL.com (I omitted guys like Shaun Bodiford, Cory Boyd and David Macklin given they weren't consistently on the active roster)...
Sellers - 2 games
Campbell - 3 games
ARE - 1 game
Moss - 2 games
Thrash - 4 games
Lloyd - 8 games
Jansen - 15 games
Thomas - 14 games
Wade - 5 games
Rabach - 1 game
Yoder - 1 game
Smoot - 3 games
Rogers - 9 games
Daniels - 1 game
Golston - 1 game
Washington - 4 games
Rocky - 2 games
Taylor - 7 games

Bringing the grand total to 83 games missed. 57 vs. 83 or a difference of 25 games. If you include the playoff game the Skins' figure sits at 90 and the Boys' sits at 58 (Jason Ferguson is the only guy I can figure, but I might be wrong). So a total of 32 more missed games by the Skins.

So, can we please dispel this rumor that the Boys were as injury riddled as the Skins?

For further statistical fun, the Skins had 147% of the Cowboys injuries (almost half again) in the reg season and including the playoff game that number resides at 155%. For the record, in case you wanted to know, the Cowboys win total sits at 144% (which is bizarrely close to those other numbers, don't you think?) of the Skins total wins.

 

[superpunk]

I don't really feel like posting an answer to your blathering up there, as you may be the worst hypocrite I know on this board (you bash me for not quoting you yet you can't quote peplaw and expect us to dig through a thread to find your point for you).

I gave you the link to the thread, which is EXACTLY what you asked for. If you had wanted a quote, you might have said that, instead of asking for a link and then calling me a hypocrite for giving you what you asked for.

Really, how do you figure???

How do you define a game missed, would they have to miss the entire game or just not start?

If you had a thread about this, some linky goodness would be helpful.

I gave you exactly what you asked for, before you even asked for it. Wipe that egg off your face later, ok hon?

Anyways, I updated the Skins numbers (holy research batman!) using games active from NFL.com (I omitted guys like Shaun Bodiford, Cory Boyd and David Macklin given they weren't consistently on the active roster)...

What happened to all the injury reports in your inbox?

Sellers - 2 games
Campbell - 3 games
ARE - 1 game
Moss - 2 games
Thrash - 4 games
Lloyd - 8 games
Jansen - 15 games
Thomas - 14 games
Wade - 5 games
Rabach - 1 game
Yoder - 1 game
Smoot - 3 games
Rogers - 9 games
Daniels - 1 game
Golston - 1 game
Washington - 4 games
Rocky - 2 games
Taylor - 7 games

The guys highlighted were not starters. Wade became a starter due to Thomas' injury, if you want to get technical, but was not a starter to begin the season. With those taken out, you're down to 61 games missed by starters. With Wade, you're up to 66. Still not a significant difference considering how much better the guys replacing Rogers and Campbell were than Rogers and Campbell.

Sit down kid, I'm getting embarassed for you.

 

[zrinkill]

This is getting sad.