Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-02-2010, 03:00 PM   #91
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis View Post
Favre's tier is a tad tounge-in-cheek because I have to account for the fact that he may not be coming back.

Ben has ridiculous pocket presence and by extension, ability to extend the play along with sufficient accuracy and late-game reliability.

I'm not the biggest proponent of using stats, but Rodgers has been amazingly consistent production-wise.

Besides, all that tier means is whether or not one should be certain that they've established themselves as QBs that the franchise can rely on, not whether they're going to the HOF.

Gradkowski has better pocket presence than Campbell and is stuck on bad team with arguably the most toxic work environment as well.

Moore helped revitalize a stagnant Carolina team and posted good stats against Minny.

Smithy can at least run the spread well.

Orton is a good game manager who doesn't shit things up and has good accuracy on shorter passes.

Lack of durability doesn't imply lack of ability in the case of Hasselbeck.

Bulger's "has-been" tier means just that. He may not be able to win outright against Campbell in a QB war NOW, but he would have crushed him in his prime.

Individual order within tiers doesn't matter. I've had enough of that reading debates on Fire Emblem units.
I'll move the "ok" tier above the wildcard one to stay consistent with the principle that tier represent [perceived] diminishing quality, with Bulger's tier and Favre's tier being the exception.
The tier's thing was just a clarity issue, I have no problem with tiering off data and throwing it in whatever order, I just had no idea what was and was not being implied by the order.

The one consistent principle that permeates your list is that you've put a premium on potentially random events in a small sample (Gradkowski's three wins with Raiders, Moore's excellent Vikings game, looking at Smith's replacement level performance as a vast improvement rather than a regression to mean), while devaluing consistent but unspectacular performance over a long period of time.

There's no way I would put a guy who was last productive in 2007 (Hasselbeck) over a guy who was even better in 2007, and has maintained a consistent level of average production since (Garrard). And the dudes who haven't proven that they can play at this level one way or another also don't get the nod over average performers, because that implies that average isn't valuable, which is a falsehood.

That would be the justifications for the differences in my list.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-02-2010, 03:46 PM   #92
Pro Bowl
 
SirClintonPortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,052
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

You're slightly different metrics than I am. My list was made in response to a poster saying there were only 7-8 actual franchise QBs and we shouldn't be whining as much about it since others were in similar situations. Thus, I was trying to weight the concepts I call "[perceived] benefit provided to their respective franchises/fanbases" and "worthiness and likeliness to be invested in either in the future" along with their actual ability and their "objective" utility QBs provided to any team. There's no way Pitt is not going to withdraw their commitment to Ben and he is very skilled QB to get a team with an outright terrible o-line to the SB and win it, even if he may stink as a person. Romo, Eli, etc, all have their teams committing giant contracts to them and they're good QBs, but they have their flaws.
And yeah, "franchise QB" can come with a ton of definitions. I guess I was using one that factored all of the aforementioned elements.

Trying to engage in sabermetrics trying to discretize, for lack of a better word, how much utility comes from the QB and how much comes from everyone else is a giant pain in the arse, hard to measure, and would not have addressed the point I was responding to, although I do consider it an exercise worth undertaking to get "even closer" to what actually goes on on the field.

Quote:
The tier's thing was just a clarity issue, I have no problem with tiering off data and throwing it in whatever order, I just had no idea what was and was not being implied by the order.
Perhaps I should make Hasselbeck and Bulger's sub-tiers for the "ok" tier. Thoroughness was not my main concern when posting.

Quote:
The one consistent principle that permeates your list is that you've put a premium on potentially random events in a small sample (Gradkowski's three wins with Raiders, Moore's excellent Vikings game, looking at Smith's replacement level performance as a vast improvement rather than a regression to mean), while devaluing consistent but unspectacular performance over a long period of time.
Pocket presence is something that's easy to tell. I only watched the Raiders-Cowboys game, so I'm stuck with the qualitative equivalent of t-distribution inference. But since the Pukes have one the best damn pass rushes in the league, he was almost always having to "feel" the pressure, and not once did he display complete ignorance or oblivious to it. His accuracy was subpar, but he got rid of the ball when he had to and with a small margin for error.
Also, in the same game, the commentators were talking about how Gradkowski was able to place the ball where his receiver can make the play. You can't tell very well whether JC17 meant to place it somewhere or it just happened to be there.

Moore only had one bad game against NE, and he at least played adequately for the others, if not better.

Quote:
There's no way I would put a guy who was last productive in 2007 (Hasselbeck) over a guy who was even better in 2007, and has maintained a consistent level of average production since (Garrard). And the dudes who haven't proven that they can play at this level one way or another also don't get the nod over average performers, because that implies that average isn't valuable, which is a falsehood.

That would be the justifications for the differences in my list.
Hasselbeck still has the human capital to work the WCO like a charm for his team and probably can adjust to another O if needed since he was able to comprehend the WCO. Garrard can do what at the age of 32? Be blessed with a good running game and still post fewer TDs than even JC17? Seattle still can use Hasselbeck, Garrard is on his way out the door by now.
SirClintonPortis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010, 04:07 PM   #93
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,627
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

Anyone else remember that episode of South Park when the kids dress up as characters from Lord of the Rings and they go on some secret mission to return a videotape, and as they're crossing the neighborhood in full LOTR garb, they run into some kids dressed us as characters from Harry Potter? And Cartman looks at them in his LOTR gear and says "Ha...nerds!"

That's sort of what it feels like I'm watching as I see Tripp and SirClinton go back and forth

Seriously though, good points on both sides
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010, 04:09 PM   #94
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 12,514
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Anyone else remember that episode of South Park when the kids dress up as characters from Lord of the Rings and they go on some secret mission to return a videotape, and as they're crossing the neighborhood in full LOTR garb, they run into some kids dressed us as characters from Harry Potter? And Cartman looks at them in his LOTR gear and says "Ha...nerds!"

That's sort of what it feels like I'm watching as I see Tripp and SirClinton go back and forth

Seriously though, good points on both sides
hahahaha
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010, 04:11 PM   #95
Naega jeil jal naga
 
Dirtbag59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 29
Posts: 14,506
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Anyone else remember that episode of South Park when the kids dress up as characters from Lord of the Rings and they go on some secret mission to return a videotape, and as they're crossing the neighborhood in full LOTR garb, they run into some kids dressed us as characters from Harry Potter? And Cartman looks at them in his LOTR gear and says "Ha...nerds!"

That's sort of what it feels like I'm watching as I see Tripp and SirClinton go back and forth

Seriously though, good points on both sides
Tripp lost all credibility with me as soon as I saw that he didn't put Whitehurst in the top tier. Pffft "speculative value." What an idi0t.
__________________
6.6710−11 m3 kg−1 s−2

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG
Dirtbag59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 03:11 AM   #96
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis View Post
You're slightly different metrics than I am. My list was made in response to a poster saying there were only 7-8 actual franchise QBs and we shouldn't be whining as much about it since others were in similar situations. Thus, I was trying to weight the concepts I call "[perceived] benefit provided to their respective franchises/fanbases" and "worthiness and likeliness to be invested in either in the future" along with their actual ability and their "objective" utility QBs provided to any team. There's no way Pitt is not going to withdraw their commitment to Ben and he is very skilled QB to get a team with an outright terrible o-line to the SB and win it, even if he may stink as a person. Romo, Eli, etc, all have their teams committing giant contracts to them and they're good QBs, but they have their flaws.
And yeah, "franchise QB" can come with a ton of definitions. I guess I was using one that factored all of the aforementioned elements.

Trying to engage in sabermetrics trying to discretize, for lack of a better word, how much utility comes from the QB and how much comes from everyone else is a giant pain in the arse, hard to measure, and would not have addressed the point I was responding to, although I do consider it an exercise worth undertaking to get "even closer" to what actually goes on on the field.

Perhaps I should make Hasselbeck and Bulger's sub-tiers for the "ok" tier. Thoroughness was not my main concern when posting.



Pocket presence is something that's easy to tell. I only watched the Raiders-Cowboys game, so I'm stuck with the qualitative equivalent of t-distribution inference. But since the Pukes have one the best damn pass rushes in the league, he was almost always having to "feel" the pressure, and not once did he display complete ignorance or oblivious to it. His accuracy was subpar, but he got rid of the ball when he had to and with a small margin for error.
Also, in the same game, the commentators were talking about how Gradkowski was able to place the ball where his receiver can make the play. You can't tell very well whether JC17 meant to place it somewhere or it just happened to be there.

Moore only had one bad game against NE, and he at least played adequately for the others, if not better.


Hasselbeck still has the human capital to work the WCO like a charm for his team and probably can adjust to another O if needed since he was able to comprehend the WCO. Garrard can do what at the age of 32? Be blessed with a good running game and still post fewer TDs than even JC17? Seattle still can use Hasselbeck, Garrard is on his way out the door by now.
I guess I'm trying to avoid being the guy who defines franchise quarterback and fits the definition to his argument. This is something you're avoiding as well. But I can see how, under a restrictive definition of the term, that you might only have 7 or 8 franchise QBs in the NFL (my top two tiers). I can also accept a more liberal/inclusive definition that allows for 18-22 franchise quarterbacks (including our own JC17). I personally don't care enough about the term itself to make a stand one way or another.

But my point of greater importantance is that Romo and Eli do bring (sustainable, repeatable) skills to the table that Big Ben and Aaron Rodgers do not, even if numbers wise, their per play and total production is indistinguishable. I'm not trying to disrespect Rodgers, Roethlisberger, or Matt Schaub here by declaring that they shouldn't be considered franchise quarterbacks even though their stats compare well to Romo and Eli, but that we should recognize the differences in context between "successful players" like those three, and players who have to deal with contextual deficiencies. Schaub, Rodgers, and Roethlisberger (and McNabb, really) all have high yards per attempt because they throw to a lot of WIDE open receivers downfield, and Campbell, Henne, Palmer, Garrard, and Cutler (09) really just don't have the same opportunities.

I think if they were in a great offense, Campbell's and Garrard's '09 production would be grounds for dismissal. (Sort of like '08 Cassel: you have that sort of production with the Redskins, you deserve a contract extension. With the Pats, it gets you traded.) However, neither gets pass protection, neither has a true downfield target that's ever open, both offenses lack ingenuity, and so then average performance looks kind of nice.

The problem with Hasselbeck is not durability (though that is a problem), it's that he's no longer in an offense where his familiarity with the timing of plays is useful. If he were producing like Campbell and Garrard, he probably would still have value. But he's played like a rookie in consecutive seasons, and replacement level (valueless by definition) would be a major improvement from the last two years. Hasselbeck used to be what Matt Schaub currently is: the system player who generates down-field plays in the context of the strong offense. He was a top quarterback as recently as age-33, but I do wonder if Matt Hasselbeck ever qualified as a franchise QB. Under the restrictive definition, I'd say: no. Same with Bulger, Delhomme, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Culpepper, and McNabb to an extent. At all of their peaks, these guys were major cogs in an offensive juggernaut, but limited without their other parts. And so, if you restrict the definition of franchise QB to "guy who makes players around them better," none of these guys qualify. None of the older guys withstood the test of time, and I doubt that Rodgers/Roethlisberger can reverse the trend.

Agreed that trying to discern which players are responsible for which percentage of a given production total is painful, time-consuming, and ultimately requires the necessity to continually check your assumptions with objective evidence and never get too comfortable with any given opinion. But painful or not, it's still a major part of player analysis.

So while I'd agree that 3/4ths of the league can't just replace their quarterback with the best available player and expect no dropoff, only about 1/4 of the league has a truly indispensable player at the QB position. It's fashionable to call a guy a franchise QB right out of college, but one of the reasons I don't think people should be surprised if Bradford or Clausen ends up being the next Campbell or Garrard is because you can't mandate context before the draft.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 11:20 AM   #97
Pro Bowl
 
53Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C.
Posts: 7,391
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

^ Aannnnnnd.......he's back!
__________________
"Cautiously And Optimistically... Looking Forward To Change"
53Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 11:25 AM   #98
Special Teams
 
Beneil (diehard since 87)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 118
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

I don't thing GTripp is too off in his assesments. The only huge flaw, to me, was the thought that Peyton Manning would have success in another offense. More specifically, behind another o-line. Dude has all day ALL THE TIME! He's only gotten sacked 10 times this year. The last time we had a QB sacked so few times, his name was Rypien and he got us a Superbowl win. Manning has better hands to throw to as well. His TEs have better hands than all but maybe one of our receivers. The last time we had as many good hands on our team... wait, i refered to that year already.

I'm just saying that manning throws the ball away instead of taking sacks or taking chances. The last time we had a guy like that was Mark Brunell. If Manning was a Redskin, he'd have put up Mark Brunell numbers, not Manning numbers... okay, maybe Archie Manning numbers...
Beneil (diehard since 87) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 11:36 AM   #99
Special Teams
 
Beneil (diehard since 87)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 118
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

Hey guys, how would you react to us pulling in McNabb?
Beneil (diehard since 87) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 12:04 PM   #100
Pro Bowl
 
53Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C.
Posts: 7,391
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beneil (diehard since 87) View Post
Hey guys, how would you react to us pulling in McNabb?
Badly.
__________________
"Cautiously And Optimistically... Looking Forward To Change"
53Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 12:23 PM   #101
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,507
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beneil (diehard since 87) View Post
Hey guys, how would you react to us pulling in McNabb?
Very badly.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 01:05 PM   #102
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,491
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beneil (diehard since 87) View Post
Hey guys, how would you react to us pulling in McNabb?
I would trade CP for McNabb in a minute, otherwise not really interested.
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 03:18 PM   #103
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 12,514
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beneil (diehard since 87) View Post
Hey guys, how would you react to us pulling in McNabb?
In Madden? That's the only way it would happen.
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 09:06 PM   #104
The Starter
 
Mechanix544's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fort Bliss, TX
Posts: 2,277
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

I hope this never gets traction..........ugh....
Mechanix544 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 09:11 PM   #105
Naega jeil jal naga
 
Dirtbag59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 29
Posts: 14,506
Re: Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk View Post
Meh... sounds like a guy who was stopped in the hall at Redskins Park and asked a few questions.

His job being on the line is nothing new.
Still it's a very different dynamic then last year. You have to wonder how Jason is handling all this. Last year he seemed to have more of an outlet to voice his frustration (though he did so very sparingly), at least the second time around with Sanchez. This time around he's practically forced to watch as the Redskins inquire about every available QB and he knows if he says anything he's as good as gone. Last year he ironically had a lot more leverage despite putting up much less in terms of stats.
__________________
6.6710−11 m3 kg−1 s−2

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG
Dirtbag59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.50526 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25