Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

W T F .. that's all I can say ... W T ****ing F .. W T ****ing F .... why why why why why why why why

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

[quote=GTripp0012;770041]How does checking down inflate numbers? Completion percentage, perhaps, but if it's actually inflating TDs and yards while lowering INTs, that's called "offense."

Completion percentage without yards or TDs is meaningless, for sure, but if the defense is actually sitting on check downs, it's hella hard to complete those short passes.

I'd actually argue that McNabb has layed out more backs and receivers on ill-advised dumpoffs this year than Campbell ever did. That's the issue with checking down (when it gets your receivers killed), not when you get 7 yards on 2nd and 12.[/quote]

I'd like to call on a witness that can better explain how completion percentage inflates a QB's passer rating.

[url=http://bleacherreport.com/articles/342748-things-i-learned-from-passer-rating-and-completion-percentage]NFL Passer Ratings and Completion Percentages: What Do They Really Mean? | Bleacher Report[/url] (Yes I know it's bleacher report).

[quote][B]Fatal Flaw- Completion Percentage[/B]

In addition to being now coined a QUARTERBACK rating without evaluating all the ways a quarterback can affect the game even from a tangible standpoint, let alone intangible, the biggest flaw perhaps of the passer rating system is how heavily it is attached to Completion Percentage.

Which is kind of amusing when someone points to a quarterback who doesn't have a great passer rating and cites completion percentage as corroborative evidence of the lack of effectiveness of that particular QB, when those two statistics could not be any more correlated.

There is a reason why a guy like Chad Pennington who ranks so high on the all-time list of completion percentage is also high on the list of passer rating. It's many of the same names at the top of both lists. Same for a Daunte Culpepper. Completion percentage is a misleading statistic that does not take into account routine spectacular catches/routine drops, dump off passes/throw aways, or first down scrambles. It also can be heavily skewed when the total number of pass attempts per game is not high. One to two incomplete passes a game could make all the difference between what's considered respectable and poor.[/quote]

[quote][B]Completion Percentage In Passer Rating Formula[/B]

Completion percentage plays perhaps the biggest factor in the entire passer rating formula to the point where someone who has a not so great touchdown to interception ratio can rank near the all-time greats while someone such as McNabb who has the second best TD/INT ratio of all-time is not even in the top 15 in that category that only uses those four statistics. This is again why on the all-time passer rating list has those names that clearly don't belong above current/future HOFers.
[/quote]

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;770046]I'd like to call on a witness that can better explain how completion percentage inflates a QB's passer rating.

[url=http://bleacherreport.com/articles/342748-things-i-learned-from-passer-rating-and-completion-percentage]NFL Passer Ratings and Completion Percentages: What Do They Really Mean? | Bleacher Report[/url] (Yes I know it's bleacher report).[/quote]Does anyone still give a crap about passer rating? It's a monstrosity of a stat, and that comes from me.

I don't think passer rating = all numbers. If all numbers are trending upward, then the offense is improving, nothing is being inflated.

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

Donovan McNabb has the worst TD% of his career and the worst INT% of his career. His completion percentage is where it's always been. The reason his QB rating is down has nothing to do with his completion percentage.

If you use completion percentage, you know exactly what you are seeing. Percentage of completions over total attempts. That's easy. If you use passer rating, you have a gross performance estimate, but you have no idea what you are actually judging a QB on.

In short, completion percentage = good, while passer rating = largely useless.

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

Remember when the Redskins were a good football team? Ahhhhhh, those were the days. The eighties were great!

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/17/donovan-mcnabb-very-disappointed-i-strongly-disagree/]Donovan McNabb “very disappointed,” “I strongly disagree” | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

The correlation between QB rating and completion percentage is well documented. The reasoning is that QBs that complete a high percentage of their passes also throw for more yards per attempt, more TDs, and (usually, though not always) fewer INTs. That's why QB rating has managed to hold mainstream for so long: because it doesn't give 100+ ratings to people who sucked. It gave 100+ ratings to guys who have dominated the defense through completions through yards and TDs.

Also, even one INT probably puts the single game QB rating under 90. Interception percentage is the least correlated with completion percentage. Which is probably the one benefit of using QB rating instead of completion percentage: completion percentage probably overrates the guys who often don't read a defense (Favre, Cutler) before going all gunslinger on us.

But completion percentage doesn't overrate those who check down without reading the defense. Those players likely don't throw for yards or points either.

I did a PFR query, and found one season in NFL history where a quarterback performed well below average, for an entire season, but his completion percentage suggested greatness. It was David Carr's one season under Gary Kubiak, [URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CarrDa00.htm"]in 2006[/URL]. Carr was released in the offseason, and his 82.1 QB rating wasn't even the best of his career. This may be the only season in NFL history that qualifies a QB who clearly completed too many meaningless passes (Houston [URL="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff2006"]finished 24th in passing DVOA[/URL] that season).

/rant

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;770051][url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/17/donovan-mcnabb-very-disappointed-i-strongly-disagree/]Donovan McNabb “very disappointed,” “I strongly disagree” | ProFootballTalk[/url][/quote]

DM is a class guy so I definitely feel bad for him.

But in the end this marriage just isn't going to work, and as MS said anything DM would do over these last 3 games wouldn't change how he feels about how he did over the first 13 so...

Might as well see if Grossman can at least be a viable 6-8 game starter next year until a rookie is ready.

I would think more people would be happy with this, since it basically forces Shanahan to "rebuild".

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

[quote=Mattyk;770058]DM is a class guy so I definitely feel bad for him.

But in the end this marriage just isn't going to work, and as MS said anything DM would do over these last 3 games wouldn't change how he feels about how he did over the first 13 so...

Might as well see if Grossman can at least be a viable 6-8 game starter next year until a rookie is ready.

I would think more people would be happy with this, since it basically forces Shanahan to "rebuild".[/quote]

I just dont know if Shanny really wants to "Rebuild" It will be another interesting off season in DC

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

My take on Mike Shanahan is pretty clear... He is 100% ANTI "Superstar"... anti-"Special Treatment"

... meaning, he doesn't even entertain the idea of someone getting superstar treatment or being "grandfathered" in to leeway. Either you practice 100%, perform well, or you are sat down.

He's not going to budge at all to meet common ground or give in at all to a player.

That I can respect a little... but at the same time...

He has made some of the craziest bone-headed moves I could have imagined.

Mistake 1: 3-4 defense. If he evaluated the Skins at all last year he'd have known that we had the pieces for a 4-3... with some of our absolute best players thriving in it. And not just Haynesworth, but he, Carter, and Rak all used properly in the 4-3 may have helped us win at least 1 or 2 more games this year IMO.

Mistake 2: Benching McNabb vs Lions wasn't the mistake... it's how he handled it after that was... whoa dumb.

Mistake 3: Not going after Houshmenzadeh or R. Moss when they were available and dirt cheap. We could have had them BOTH... these guys could've help evaluate McNabb (taking away the whole "he had no weapons" excuse... imagine Santana & Randy Moss on the outside, Housh in the slot, with Cooley & F. Davis as your TEs)

Mistake 4: Benching McNabb right now. Everyone knows Grossman & Beck are not future Super Bowl winning QBs and now all we've done is ruin trade value we had for McNabb. If he's not your guy... fine... but whew... dumb.

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

[quote=Hail to the Redskins;770061]Mistake 3: [U]Not going after Houshmenzadeh or R. Moss when they were available and dirt cheap[/U]. We could have had them BOTH... these guys could've help evaluate McNabb ([U]taking away the whole "he had no weapons" excuse... imagine Santana & Randy Moss on the outside, Housh in the slot, with Cooley & F. Davis as your TEs[/U])[/quote]Those two have been great this year.

I'm imagining our offense without Anthony Armstrong's contribution. It isn't pretty.

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

[quote=Hail to the Redskins;770061]My take on Mike Shanahan is pretty clear... He is 100% ANTI "Superstar"... anti-"Special Treatment"

... meaning, he doesn't even entertain the idea of someone getting superstar treatment or being "grandfathered" in to leeway. Either you practice 100%, perform well, or you are sat down.

He's not going to budge at all to meet common ground or give in at all to a player.

That I can respect a little... but at the same time...

He has made some of the craziest bone-headed moves I could have imagined.

Mistake 1: 3-4 defense. If he evaluated the Skins at all last year he'd have known that we had the pieces for a 4-3... with some of our absolute best players thriving in it. And not just Haynesworth, but he, Carter, and Rak all used properly in the 4-3 may have helped us win at least 1 or 2 more games this year IMO.

Mistake 2: Benching McNabb vs Lions wasn't the mistake... it's how he handled it after that was... whoa dumb.

Mistake 3: Not going after Houshmenzadeh or R. Moss when they were available and dirt cheap. We could have had them BOTH... these guys could've help evaluate McNabb (taking away the whole "he had no weapons" excuse... imagine Santana & Randy Moss on the outside, Housh in the slot, with Cooley & F. Davis as your TEs)

Mistake 4: Benching McNabb right now. Everyone knows Grossman & Beck are not future Super Bowl winning QBs and now all we've done is ruin trade value we had for McNabb. If he's not your guy... fine... but whew... dumb.[/quote]

#1: Do you really think going back to a 4-3 with the same players would make that much of a difference? Just line up Carter, AH, Golston, Orakpo along the front four; with Alexander, Fletch, and McIntosh back at LB and we'd be back in the top 10 defensively? I don't. Something happened with this group of players -- and we know that because they still play in 4-3 alignments. It didn't matter what the scheme was.

#2: Okay, so it was a public relations mishap. Shanny said the wrong things. And? So what? Might as well get used to this head coach being especially cryptic about the information he's willing to release.

#3: Point taken. Housh would have been nice. Randy Moss? Ehh. Not so much.

#4: I don't know what sort of trade value McNabb would have been worth even if he played the rest of the season out. He wasn't doing well. No matter what we would have been looking at a 5th - 7th round pick in the best of circumstances.

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

[quote=Beemnseven;770079]#1: Do you really think going back to a 4-3 with the same players would make that much of a difference? Just line up Carter, AH, Golston, Orakpo along the front four; with Alexander, Fletch, and McIntosh back at LB and we'd be back in the top 10 defensively? I don't. Something happened with this group of players -- and we know that because they still play in 4-3 alignments. It didn't matter what the scheme was.[/quote]Agreed, an above average 4-3 defense requires, necessarily, a career-type year from AH. That's a HUGE assumption given where he is now that all we needed to do was stay in the 4-3 on RUNNING downs, and Albert would have terrorized quarterbacks while keeping blockers off of Fletcher better than Ma'ake and Golston (who would have been the DTs) have.

The defense failed because we weren't able to adequately replace Haynesworth's 2009 contributions. Assuming that a 40 front would have made the entire problem with AH disappear is to misunderstand both the Shanahan-Haynesworth dynamic and the natural aging of defensive players.

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

I think they both are still damn good receivers when in a halfway decent situation, yes. So they aren't being used or targeted much where they are right now....

R. Moss last year - 83 catches, 1,264 yds, 13 TDs. Please save any "he's a year older" or "that was with Brady" stuff... Those numbers mean he can still get it done in the right situation. Bottom line... Do I think he's better than Anthony Armstrong as a #2 receiver? ... umm, yes.

Housh - A minimum of 904 yds receiving per season over the past 6 years with sub-par QBs (IMO). If you want to try and tell me that Housh is a worse option than Roydell Williams or Joey Galloway at the #3 or slot position... please go ahead.

You, and everyone else, knows what I was getting at... I clearly stated that these guys would help evaluate our QB... I didn't say... "TJ Whoseyourmomma... Championship!"

Re: Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;770032]I'd be interested in seeing what Orton gets as a Free Agent.

On another note we better pray that Andrew Luck ends up in the AFC. It's already a pain knowing we're going to have to deal with the likes of Ryan and Bradford for the next 10 to 15 years. I'd hate to throw Luck into that mix as well. I mean who is going to pass up an accurate strong arm QB with an ideal build that works hard and plays well in high pressure situations.

[/quote]

I think Carolina's got the fast track on getting Luck, simply because they have a legit shot at not winning another game the rest of the season and if that happens they've got the first pick. Fox will be gone next season and you can bet that w/e head coach they bring in will be tailored to help Luck become a franchise quarterback. This is what happens when the NFC is consistently the worse conference over the better part of a decade, eventually the balance of power will shift over to the NFC like it did to the AFC after the NFC's dominance over the 80's and 90's.