Cam for MVP, debunking statistical assumptions

[JawnyBlaze]

and be honest with yourself.  DA beat the TERRIBLE Bucs twice.  Cam almost certainly would have also beaten the Bucs both of those games.

[CPcavedweller]

Just now, JawnyBlaze said:

I didn't say it with certainty.  I said "I think", "I can't imagine".  Nothing in the entire discussion can be said with certainty. You can't say with certainty that Brady's backup wouldn't do better than him.  You can't say with certainty that Rodgers' backup wouldn't do better than him.  You can make educated guesses though.

Tom Brady goes down, insert Matt Cassel 10-6 season. Drew Bledsoe goes down, insert Tom Brady. It's not coincidence that Anderson has better statistics than Cam every preseason and last year against the Bucs twice, he played extremely well.

This isn't a Cam versus Anderson debate, this is me arguing that you are using one fallacy(we suck without Cam) to debunk another( Cam isn't MVP worthy). This team depends on the sum of its parts, from coaching down to the second string guys and to assume, or even argue that we would have lost 6 more games without Cam is a point you cannot back-up.

If anything, as I said before, you cannot even win the argument considering we are undefeated with Anderson starting since he's been here. 

It's a silly thing to say and ultimately shows weakness in the argument that Cam should be MVP. He should be MVP based on his play this season, not where we would be without him. 

[CPcavedweller]

2 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

and be honest with yourself.  DA beat the TERRIBLE Bucs twice.  Cam almost certainly would have also beaten the Bucs both of those games.

You're missing the point. The point i'm trying to make is that there is no empirical, logical, or critically thought out explanation that could argue we wouldn't be a playoff team without Cam. 

That's my only point. I hate that people make arguments against fallacy's with fallacy's. It's weak and really undermines the credit you're trying to deservedly give. 

[JawnyBlaze]

2 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

Tom Brady goes down, insert Matt Cassel 10-6 season. Drew Bledsoe goes down, insert Tom Brady. It's not coincidence that Anderson has better statistics than Cam every preseason and last year against the Bucs twice, he played extremely well.

This isn't a Cam versus Anderson debate, this is me arguing that you are using one fallacy(we suck without Cam) to debunk another( Cam isn't MVP worthy). This team depends on the sum of its parts, from coaching down to the second string guys and to assume, or even argue that we would have lost 6 more games without Cam is a point you cannot back-up.

If anything, as I said before, you cannot even win the argument considering we are undefeated with Anderson starting since he's been here. 

It's a silly thing to say and ultimately shows weakness in the argument that Cam should be MVP. He should be MVP based on his play this season, not where we would be without him. 

lol ok buddy

[PhillyB]

31 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

The assumption that we would not be a playoff team without Cam is a fallacy in itself. That is not something that can be proven and if anything can be debunked by the fact that with Derek Anderson starting we are 2-0. There isn't any evidence to say that we lose with Anderson starting. This is one of those things that we dislike when it was said about our starter, so why would it be different for the back-up?

Cam is playing at a high level this year, but to say we aren't a playoff team without him is a dig on everyone else. The team isn't built to be QB centric and it shows in the fact that regardless of if Cam is lights out (New Orleans) or managing (Dallas) we still win. 

I would appreciate never reading the statement again, especially considering how the rest of the South is playing. 

you can't possibly believe this.

in effect you are saying that it's fallacious to suggest cam newton is a better quarterback than derek anderson.

do you know what a fallacy is?

[JawnyBlaze]

Just now, PhillyB said:

you can't possibly believe this.

in effect you are saying that it's fallacious to suggest cam newton is a better quarterback than derek anderson.

do you know what a fallacy is?

don't go down this rabbit hole.

[CPcavedweller]

1 minute ago, JawnyBlaze said:

lol ok buddy

Have you been to college? Taken any critical thinking, debate, or even higher level english classes to try to understand what i'm arguing? It's shoddy journalism to make assumptions that cannot possibly be proven or disproven. The fact is it's a pointless argument that is used to boost someone else. In psychology this would be the downward comparison. It's unneeded when discussing Cam as an MVP candidate. 

[CPcavedweller]

2 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

you can't possibly believe this.

in effect you are saying that it's fallacious to suggest cam newton is a better quarterback than derek anderson.

do you know what a fallacy is?

THE POINT IS THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT WORTH EVEN MENTIONING.

I'm not suggesting Anderson is better than Cam. I'm suggesting that to say we are not a playoff team without Cameron Jerrell Newton, is a point that does not boost Cam's MVP chances because it is something that can never be known. You can assume all you'd like, however using what we DO KNOW, we still win without Cam. Maybe not 13-0, maybe 13-0, no one knows. No one will ever know because its not possible to go back in time. 

So no, I don't believe that Anderson is better than Cam. 

[JawnyBlaze]

2 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

Have you been to college? Taken any critical thinking, debate, or even higher level english classes to try to understand what i'm arguing? It's shoddy journalism to make assumptions that cannot possibly be proven or disproven. The fact is it's a pointless argument that is used to boost someone else. In psychology this would be the downward comparison. It's unneeded when discussing Cam as an MVP candidate. 

1. Yes, I've been to college.

2. I have a pretty highly intellectually demanding job, don't try to question someone's capabilities who you don't know.

3. I'm not a GD journalist.  I'm a fan with my own opinions, contributing to a medium that's main point is just that.

Just stop now.  I will not continue this discussion with you.

[PhillyB]

6 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

THE POINT IS THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT WORTH EVEN MENTIONING.

I'm not suggesting Anderson is better than Cam. I'm suggesting that to say we are not a playoff team without Cameron Jerrell Newton, is a point that does not boost Cam's MVP chances because it is something that can never be known. You can assume all you'd like, however using what we DO KNOW, we still win without Cam. Maybe not 13-0, maybe 13-0, no one knows. No one will ever know because its not possible to go back in time. 

So no, I don't believe that Anderson is better than Cam. 

uh, yes it certainly does. one of the MVP metrics is being a guy whose performance elevates the play of the guys around him to the point where he's completely indispensable, he is such an integral part of what they do because of how the team is designed around his skillsets that if he was gone there is literally no one else (within reason) that could take his place and put up the same performance.

it's a reasonable statement to make that without cam this team wouldn't be undefeated, and that we'd have a few losses notched if DA were starting.

no one knows for sure, but we can project and we can extrapolate based on what we know of cam, DA, this offense, and the national football league. anything else and you're just being obtuse. your rationale doesn't pass the validity test, because it could be similarly applied to the packers, where you could argue that we don't really know that blaine gabbert wouldn't have the packers in the same playoff contention as aaron rodgers if he were the starter instead.

dumb

[L-TownCat]

33 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

"Making statements, assuming?"

why you axin all dem questions

[CPcavedweller]

55 minutes ago, L-TownCat said:

why you axin all dem questions

Thank you.

I would've assumed other's would understand the point I was trying to make. Which is that you "debunk statistical assumptions" by making other assumptions based on....absolutely nothing. 

Good bye. 

[cardiackat88.]

I keep seeing this kind of stupid shyt, it was Kaep earlier in the season and now this: 

 

 

[MadHatter]

I see that they have ONCE AGAIN conveniently excluded Cam's rushing yards and TD's from their comparison.

These "experts" are so predictable.....and laughably pathetic at the same time.