Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560047]Again, For the first 8 games he was probowl bound. I think he ranked higher then all of them. I guess if people are looking at the whole season (which I guess ya have to) then statistically he's were he should be.

Also here's the statistics:
QB's;
9th-Cutler: threw for 4,526 yrds, 25td's, and 18inter. Rating 86.0
[B]24th-Orton: threw for 2,972 yrds, 18td's, and 12inter. Rating 79.6
26th-Campbell: threw for 3,245 yrds, 18td's, and 6int. Rating 84.3[/B]

RB's;
Forte(Bears)-rushed for 1,238, avg-3.9yrds, 8tds.
Portis(Skins)-rushed for 1,487, avg-4.3yrds, 9tds.

then you have Denver who seemed to have RB by commitee;
Selvin Young-303yrds, 1td
Michael Pittman-320yrds, 4tds
Peyton Hillis-343yrds, 5tds
LaMont Jordan-363yrds, 4tds

One could say none of Denvers RB's got over 1,000yds like the other teams or you could say they are better back field wise simply cause they have 4 good RBs plus a plethora of others that had less then 100 yrds.

Speaking of backfield alone as I thought this thread was I would rank the Skins higher. If you are talking about the offense in general then we are probably ranked close but would move us above some of the teams ahead of us.[/quote]I come from a place where 84 is a higher number than 79, so you should probably help me figure out what stat you are using in your rankings.

I'm aware you aren't out to just disprove the notion that Campbell can ever have success here, but I'm just confused by the fact that you are citing "statistics" without actually telling us what statistic you are using to come up with the rankings.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560047]
RB's;
Forte(Bears)-rushed for 1,238, avg-3.9yrds, 8tds.
Portis(Skins)-rushed for 1,487, avg-4.3yrds, 9tds.
[/quote]

I like Portis but man id love to have Forte. He ran great at Tulane and was a beast at the Senior Bowl. When he was drafted by the Bears in the 2nd round last year I thought they got the steal of the draft. He looked really good as a rookie for Chicago. He can knock people over and still has the speed to make long runs. He also caught 63 passes last year. With a year under his belt and Jay Cutler in Chicago hes going to be that much better in 2009.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560054]I come from a place where 84 is a higher number than 79, so you should probably help me figure out what stat you are using in your rankings.

I'm aware you aren't out to just disprove the notion that Campbell can ever have success here, but I'm just confused by the fact that you are citing "statistics" without actually telling us what statistic you are using to come up with the rankings.[/quote]

Simply pointing out that Campbell is no better nor no worse then the other two. The team tried for Cutler because of why? his interception ratio? LOL. just kidding. Yes he had more td's but he also had or interceptions and a few more yrds. but as an over all QB I'd rather have JC simply cause of his interception ratio. His rating was a nice 84.3, Cutler was only 2 percent more....right? so my point is for those who think Cutler is a lights out QB are only fooling themselves when you look at the fact JC had similar stats. All the Skins were doing by trying to pick up Cutler was make a lateral move. I mean it's not like we were trying for Bradey.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

and I think 24 and 26 represent the respective position on SI's strange list, not SBXVII's ranking of the QBs

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560056]I like Portis but man id love to have Forte. He ran great at Tulane and was a beast at the Senior Bowl. When he was drafted by the Bears in the 2nd round last year I thought they got the steal of the draft. He looked really good as a rookie for Chicago. He can knock people over and still has the speed to make long runs. He also caught 63 passes last year. With a year under his belt and Jay Cutler in Chicago hes going to be that much better in 2009.[/quote]

Statistically, and wisdom alone I would have to go with Portis. If you are talking about age, future of the team, and being on the rise then yes I would take Forte.

Again all I was trying to point out was that I thought we were ranked rather low in regards to some teams who sit above us. I would definitly put us ahead of Chicago, perhaps Dallas cause I think they are going to have trouble this yr, the Eagles cause they still have not proved anything other then Westbrook who is usually injured half a season.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560057]Simply pointing out that Campbell is no better nor no worse then the other two. The team tried for Cutler because of why? his interception ratio? LOL. just kidding. Yes he had more td's but he also had or interceptions and a few more yrds. but as an over all QB I'd rather have JC simply cause of his interception ratio. His rating was a nice 84.3, Cutler was only 2 percent more....right? so my point is for those who think Cutler is a lights out QB are only fooling themselves when you look at the fact JC had similar stats. All the Skins were doing by trying to pick up Cutler was make a lateral move. I mean it's not like we were trying for Bradey.[/quote]I think you are very balanced with your Campbell analysis; I just want to know what the rankings you cite are using to rank. The sentence, "Campbell is ranked 26th by statistics" is problematic.

I'm on your side in Campbell and Cutler analysis, the difference is more marketing than actual play on the field. You simply wouldn't give up one to get the other, if there weren't external factors. But most measures don't see Orton as anywhere near the level of Cutler or Campbell, but he's ranked 24th in something, so I was just trying to figure out what.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;560058]and I think 24 and 26 represent the respective position on SI's strange list, not SBXVII's ranking of the QBs[/quote]Oh, okay. Got it. I was confused because it was in his line.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560060]I think you are very balanced with your Campbell analysis; I just want to know what the rankings you cite are using to rank. [B]The sentence, "Campbell is ranked 26th by statistics" is problematic.[/B]

I'm on your side in Campbell and Cutler analysis, the difference is more marketing than actual play on the field. You simply wouldn't give up one to get the other, if there weren't external factors. But most measures don't see Orton as anywhere near the level of Cutler or Campbell, but he's ranked 24th in something, so I was just trying to figure out what.[/quote]

Perhaps so...sorry. SI ranked the team 26th. sorry. I felt the team should be higher.

As for my putting Campbell at 84.3 below Orton at 79.6 in my first post ....I was just listing them, but not in order. So people could see the statistics of each QB.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560060]I think you are very balanced with your Campbell analysis; I just want to know what the rankings you cite are using to rank. The sentence, "Campbell is ranked 26th by statistics" is problematic.

I'm on your side in Campbell and Cutler analysis, the difference is more marketing than actual play on the field. You simply wouldn't give up one to get the other,[B] if there weren't external factors[/B]. But most measures don't see Orton as anywhere near the level of Cutler or Campbell, but he's ranked 24th in something, so I was just trying to figure out what.[/quote]

Perhaps that issue is JC's ability to read defense? Honestly I have no idea. but statistically they are similar and I could not see trading out Campbell for Cutler.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560059]Statistically, and wisdom alone I would have to go with Portis. If you are talking about age, future of the team, and being on the rise then yes I would take Forte.[/quote]

As of right now both of them are really good RBs. I dont think right now you could go wrong with either one of them. I just love Fortes style. He runs like a man on a mission and can do so many different things. Hes going to be really good in Chicago for a long time imo.

[quote=SBXVII;560059]I would definitly put us ahead of Chicago[/quote]

Really? I think Forte is on the same level as Portis and Cutler as of right now is better than Campbell.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

When you average 16 points a game, you deserve to be ranked in the bottom of the league. Portis doesn't have to prove anything to me. Let Campbell prove them wrong.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;560067]When you average 16 points a game, you deserve to be ranked in the bottom of the league. Portis doesn't have to prove anything to me. Let Campbell prove them wrong.[/quote]

Agreed. :food-smil

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

Man, our PPG total gets worse and worse everytime someone cites it. Next week, our offense will have scored 9 PPG last season.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SBXVII;560065]Perhaps that issue is JC's ability to read defense? Honestly I have no idea. but statistically they are similar and I could not see trading out Campbell for Cutler.[/quote]The stats have that covered. The external factors would be something like obscene contract value, or an argument with a coach, fan, a media member, or an owner. Or committing a crime of some sort. Or an allergy to having seven draft picks.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560010]I think that ignores that Campbell/Portis were essentially responsible for 6 out of our 8 wins. With Collins and Betts in those rolls, we're a 4-12, or maybe 3-13 team. Which, I think, is something that unit rankings have to figure in.[/quote]

yeah, it had nothing to do with our 4th ranked defense...what world are you living in making that statement?