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

GTripp0012 · 04-02-2010, 02:44 PM

GTripp's qualitative QB analysis

Elite quarterbacks: The elite few who are both excellent and would be as good anywhere as they are where they are now.

Peyton Manning, Rivers, Brees, Brady (Brees and Brady are on the fringe).

Franchise Passers: Play at somewhat below an elite level, but would be as good on any team as they are on their current team.

Eli Manning, Matt Ryan (I think), Carson Palmer, Tony Romo, Kurt Warner and Chad Pennington were here.

Top System Related Performers: these guys are top performers who probably wouldn't be if you took them off their current rosters. They are a big part of their teams success, but not much by themselves (Marc Bulger/Matt Hasselbeck used to be this player). [This is where Sam Bradford projects]

Old-man Brett Favre, Matt Schaub, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco, Jake Delhomme used to be here.

Flawed players who are productive: You could make an argument for all of these guys as franchise quarterbacks, but every one of their teams has at least entertained the notion of going in a different direction. Difference between this category and the above isn't skill, it's context.

Donovan McNabb, Jason Campbell, David Garrard, Vince Young, Jay Cutler, Trent Edwards, Chad Henne (maybe?), Kyle Orton

Players who have no meaningful history of success, but offer plenty of speculative value

Matt Leinart, Brady Quinn, Matt Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, Charlie Whitehurst, Dan Orlovsky, Nate Davis, Matt Moore, the tattered remains of Tim Rattay from 2006

Players who have failed early in their careers, but might have a second act (though unlikely)

Bruce Gradkowski, David Carr, Derek Anderson, SexyRexy Grossman, Tarvaris Jackson, Byron Leftwich (probably out of place here, but can't force him into McNabb/Campbell category), and Alex Smith's mother wants me to put him here

Valueless players of various sorts:

Matt Hasselbeck, Marc Bulger, JaMarcus Russell, Matt Cassel, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Kyle Boller, Kerry Collins, Drew Henson, Drew Stanton, Jon Kitna, JT O'Sullivan

QB Grab Bag (have no current or future value, but could possibly get some with some investment):

Mark Brunell, Patrick Ramsey, Daunte Culpepper, Jim Sorgi, Gus freakin Frerotte, Charlie Frye, Chris Redman, Tyler Thigpen, Shaun Hill, Josh Johnson, Seneca Wallace

GTripp0012 · 04-02-2010, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

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.

SirClintonPortis · 04-02-2010, 03:46 PM

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.

SmootSmack · 04-02-2010, 04:07 PM

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

tryfuhl · 04-02-2010, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

Dirtbag59 · 04-02-2010, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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.

GTripp0012 · 04-03-2010, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

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.

44ever · 04-03-2010, 10:42 AM

'It's just totally different than it used to be' -Campbell. Yeah just one more thing needs to be changed... Jason.

53Fan · 04-03-2010, 11:20 AM

^ Aannnnnnd.......he's back!

Beneil (diehard since 87) · 04-03-2010, 11:25 AM

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) · 04-03-2010, 11:36 AM