Completion Percentage, you worried?

[SWFLSkins]

Doesn't mean he won't turn it around and become real good and stuff, but the odds of that kind of turnaround aren't very good. Yes Peyton and Elway did it, but they don't come around the corner but every so often.

So the question remains. Do you feel lucky?

___________--

Yeah, was Romo sits to pee's first year, in fact first half of the year a fluke? Or will 2nd half bobble fingers show up this year. Touche'-Douche'

[Dumbsheet]

Ok why would I be worried about him being 6/14 in the pre-season??? Relax it's pre-season. Our first team hasn't found the stride yet.

Yo diggity.

I think the worrisome part is that they haven't "found the stride" since 2005.

[Henry]

Yo diggity.

I think the worrisome part is that they haven't "found the stride" since 2005.

Aaaaand now we've gotten to the real point of this thread.

Trash. What a shocker.

Next time open with this line and save everyone some time.

[theTruthTeller]

There's really no point in worrying about stuff like this, because there is no realistic alternative to playing Campbell. When he was inserted last year, the die was cast - he would be the starter in 2007 no matter what. And it will take the entire year to fairly evaluate him.

Most people on this board think he'll be great, some worry that he'll suck. But there is a whole spectrum of success; he may turn out to be an average QB. That's probably the worst case scenario, because if he sucks, then you know what has to be done. If he's average, then maybe he gets another year.

[theTruthTeller]

For those of you who want deeper insight into completion percentages, Football Outsiders has researched this in depth, with revised stats that eliminate dropped balls from the stat and which adjusting for short passes.

Warning - if you're a good-news-only type of fan, don't click on the link. Interesting analysis, though.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/07/23/ramblings/stat-analysis/5254/

[SKINS FAN #56]

just one preseason game so far nothing big :doh:

[Califan007 The Constipated]

For those of you who want deeper insight into completion percentages, Football Outsiders has researched this in depth, with revised stats that eliminate dropped balls from the stat and which adjusting for short passes.

Warning - if you're a good-news-only type of fan, don't click on the link. Interesting analysis, though.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/07/23/ramblings/stat-analysis/5254/

Cool article...I'm trying to figure out how to navigate the site, though lol...

Did you see what one poster said in his comments?

"I did a comparison where I took the standard deviations on VOA and comp%.

Then I did VOA(stdev)-comp%(stdev) to see who is worse or better than their completion %

Overinflated comp%

8-D.Carr -2.85 1

9-C.Frye -2.10 2

14-B.Johnson -1.17 3

7-J.Losman -1.14 4

10-C.Pennington -1.05 5

2-C.Simms -1.00 6

2-A.Brooks -0.88 7

8-J.Kitna -0.85 8

3-D.Anderson -0.83 9

10-T.Green -0.71 10

Underinflated comp%

5-D.McNabb 2.15 1

17-J.Campbell 1.97 2

11-D.Huard 1.46 3

10-V.Young 1.38 4

18-P.Manning 1.37 5

7-M.Vick 1.13 6

4-B.Favre 1.00 7

8-R.Grossman 0.84 8

11-D.Bledsoe 0.80 9

17-P.Rivers 0.72 10 "

[Dumbsheet]

Cool article...I'm trying to figure out how to navigate the site, though lol...

Did you see what one poster said in his comments?

"I did a comparison where I took the standard deviations on VOA and comp%.

Then I did VOA(stdev)-comp%(stdev) to see who is worse or better than their completion %

Overinflated comp%

8-D.Carr -2.85 1

9-C.Frye -2.10 2

14-B.Johnson -1.17 3

7-J.Losman -1.14 4

10-C.Pennington -1.05 5

2-C.Simms -1.00 6

2-A.Brooks -0.88 7

8-J.Kitna -0.85 8

3-D.Anderson -0.83 9

10-T.Green -0.71 10

Underinflated comp%

5-D.McNabb 2.15 1

17-J.Campbell 1.97 2

11-D.Huard 1.46 3

10-V.Young 1.38 4

18-P.Manning 1.37 5

7-M.Vick 1.13 6

4-B.Favre 1.00 7

8-R.Grossman 0.84 8

11-D.Bledsoe 0.80 9

17-P.Rivers 0.72 10 "

That made my brain hurt....What?

[theTruthTeller]

Cool article...I'm trying to figure out how to navigate the site, though lol...

Did you see what one poster said in his comments?

"I did a comparison where I took the standard deviations on VOA and comp%.

Then I did VOA(stdev)-comp%(stdev) to see who is worse or better than their completion %

Overinflated comp%

8-D.Carr -2.85 1

9-C.Frye -2.10 2

14-B.Johnson -1.17 3

7-J.Losman -1.14 4

10-C.Pennington -1.05 5

2-C.Simms -1.00 6

2-A.Brooks -0.88 7

8-J.Kitna -0.85 8

3-D.Anderson -0.83 9

10-T.Green -0.71 10

Underinflated comp%

5-D.McNabb 2.15 1

17-J.Campbell 1.97 2

11-D.Huard 1.46 3

10-V.Young 1.38 4

18-P.Manning 1.37 5

7-M.Vick 1.13 6

4-B.Favre 1.00 7

8-R.Grossman 0.84 8

11-D.Bledsoe 0.80 9

17-P.Rivers 0.72 10 "

I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I'm generally at a loss for most of their stats, especially VOA. This article was one of the few I could just read and understand. And I have two engineering degrees.

Its a fun site to look at during the year. I think you need to go to Fox Sports to get the weekly stats once the season starts.

[Henry]

That made my brain hurt....What?

Basically, Campbell is strong in other areas which compensate for his low completion percentage.

The football geeks on that site basically created a stat (VOA) which they claim is a more accurate gauge than passer rating. In English, it measures the rate at which positive things happen when the QB in question handles the ball. Campbell's 'VOA rank', or Value Over Average: value, per play, over an average QB in the same game situations is much higher than his completion percentage ranking.

It still wasn't great, mind you, just a lot better than his completion percentage ranking, which is close to the bottom.

[ClintonINFORSIX26]

u do realize hes only played 7 games right?

[Henry]

u do realize hes only played 7 games right?

Excellent, excellent point.

[mistertim]

Completion percentage is certainly important but, like all stats, it is useless without any context or game film to go with it. So, on to the context. Was his comp % not that good last year? Yes. However this offensive system is, as many have mentioned, timing based which means that practice with the people you will be playing with is extremely important. Before his first start last year Campbell had about a week of practice with the first string guys. Given that, the comp % should be taken with a bit of a grain of salt.

And how about the Titans game? Was his comp % low? Yes. Again, context and watching the game makes a difference here. Watching the game, he really only had a couple of balls that were off target and the first of those was the very first ball he has thrown in a live game situation since the Giants game last year. There were dropped passes, a couple of very well played passes defended by the guys covering, and it looked like the pass to Espy may have been in the right place but Espy didn't break at the right time, but there is no way to know for sure. Campbell said himself that after watching the film almost all of his throws were on point, and this is coming from a guy who always takes blame for mistakes and downplays it when he does really well. One other thing to consider that someone else brought up in another thread is that even the passes that were missed, or the ones dropped or well defended had ZERO chance of being intercepted. There were no passes thrown behind guys or into questionable coverage situations like last year. This, I think, is pretty important.

Also remember that it is the very first time in a live action setting since last year and everyone has to get back into a groove. It is the first preseason game, and given what I said above, I think Campbell played better than that one stat indicates. Lets give it a little bit of time. I think he will be fine.

[Hibachi]

That's because he wasn't very accurate. Again (and again and again) noone's saying Campbell was GOOD in this area. What I'm saying is seven games into a player's career, picking out one statistic and holding it up as the totality of his present and future ability is insane.

I think most would agree that accuracy is kind of an important quality in a quarterback. You seem to pass it off like it's no big thing. How much can accuracy be improved? I'm not saying it can't be improved at all, but he isn't all of a sudden going to go from possibly the least accurate starter in the NFL to an adaquately accurate starter just because he spent his whole offseason studying the playbook at Redskins Park.

One reason for this (beyond the fact that seven games represents an extremely small sample size) is the existance of differing schemes, which will inflate some stats and shrink others. If, for example, we looked at Donovan McNabb's 4.4 yards per attempt his first season and claimed that decidedly meant he was a lousy QB, without factoring in the short-passing scheme he played in (not to mention his youth) we'd have missed out on a 5-time pro-bowler. Sure, his accuracy was a problem, but it wasn't the only reason for such a crushingly low ypa.

McNabb had a low ypa because of his scheme and his accuracy problem.

Yes, there are exceptions. There are quite of few examples that emphasize completion percentage/yards per attempt over TD to INT ratio in determining future play.

I also disagree with your contention that bad QBs can more easily produce good TD/INT rates. Especially young QBs. If that's the case, go back to that list of first year starters and tell me where Campbell ranks. There should be, as you say, numerous instances of more TDs than INTs.

First of all, TD passes are a very overrated stat for quarterbacks. A quarterback can hand the ball off for a touchdown just the same as he can throw for a touchdown. It's a small part of the game and is largely based on luck. Interceptions are more indicative of the overall play of the quarterback. Campbell was exceptional in this area, but there are countless examples of bad quarterbacks forging good numbers in this area.

Campbell would have ranked 14th in the NFL in interception percentage (2.8%) last year if he played in enough games. That's fantastic for a first-year starting quarterback. Once again, I'm not saying that taking care of the ball isn't important in winning games, but just that a bad quarterback can forge good numbers in these areas.

In 2006:

David Carr - 2.7%

Bruce Gradkowski - 2.7%

Mark Brunell - 1.5% (I include him on the list only because everyone here thinks he the worst quarterback ever to play for the Redskins)

In 2005:

Brooks Bollinger - 2.3%

David Carr - 2.6%

Gus Ferrotte - 2.6%

In 2004:

Kyle Boller - 2.4%

Mark Brunell (his horrible year) - 2.5%

In 2003:

Patrick Ramsey - 2.7%

In 2002:

Shane Matthews - 2.6%

Here's a list of a few quarterbacks since 2002 who really aren't very good, yet forged good INT% numbers. Keep in mind that these are quarterbacks who played at least 8 games, so there a probably a bunch more who would qualify if they played enough games (Campbell wouldn't actually qualify either).

Campbell has a low completion rate for the same reason: His scheme generally produces lower completion rates, and he's got accuracy issues.

That does not mean Campbell is doomed to failure. It means he's a young guy who needs to pick up one aspect of his game. It's not an unprecedented, or even uncommon, phenomenon in this league. And no, this does not mean Campbell is destined for greatness either. It just means we don't know.

I challenge you to find me a list of quarterbacks who put up good numbers in completion percentage and yards per attempt in their first year and didn't turn out to be a productive quarterback. Yes, there is a decent number of quarterbacks who put up bad numbers in completion percentage and yards per attempt (though it usually coincided with bad numbers in TD/INT ratio) and turned out to have productive careers. Most of these quarterbacks, however, started their first season as rookie quarterbacks. There are few quarterbacks who started after their rookie season and put up numbers like Campbell's and eventually succeeded.

Funny. Denver and Tennessee are the only other teams on that list who played first year starters. Go figure.

Denver's rookie quarterback, Jay Cutler, averaged 7.3 yards per attempt, a full yard higher than Campbell. Tennessee's rookie quarterbck, Vince Young, won the NFL rookie of the year and gained a large percentage of his yards on the ground. Most would agree that Young had a better season than Campbell.

[mistertim]

Vince Young, won the NFL rookie of the year and gained a large percentage of his yards on the ground. Most would agree that Young had a better season than Campbell.

You sort of shot yourself in the foot here. Vince Young's completion percentage was 51.5% with 12 TDs and 13 INTs. What does Vince Young running for most of his TDs have to do with Campbell's completion percentage anyway? If he had not been able to run for TDs, I bet quite a few people would have labeled him a big time bust.

[Hibachi]

You sort of shot yourself in the foot here. Vince Young's completion percentage was 51.5% with 12 TDs and 13 INTs. What does Vince Young running for most of his TDs have to do with Campbell's completion percentage anyway? If he had not been able to run for TDs, I bet quite a few people would have labeled him a big time bust.

It means that though Campbell had better passing statistics than Young, Young did more on the ground, which made him a more productive quarterback. Plus, Young won eight games.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I'm generally at a loss for most of their stats, especially VOA. This article was one of the few I could just read and understand. And I have two engineering degrees.

:laugh: :laugh:

[youngestson]

Unless Jason starts to throw so hard the ball ruptures and lodges in the wr's body cavity he won't have a great % with this group.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Basically, Campbell is strong in other areas which compensate for his low completion percentage.

The football geeks on that site basically created a stat (VOA) which they claim is a more accurate gauge than passer rating. In English, it measures the rate at which positive things happen when the QB in question handles the ball. Campbell's 'VOA rank', or Value Over Average: value, per play, over an average QB in the same game situations is much higher than his completion percentage ranking.

It still wasn't great, mind you, just a lot better than his completion percentage ranking, which is close to the bottom.

Exactly... :applause:

I wonder...since they said they considered dropped passes as completions, did they consider poorly thrown balls that were caught anyway to be incompletions? Since they're measuring passing accuracy, I'd imagine they'd have to consider a terribly thrown pass that the receiver contorts himself to catch as an incompletion...I mean, just because Santana Moss catches the ball doesn't mean it was thrown accurately lol :cool:

[mistertim]

It means that though Campbell had better passing statistics than Young, Young did more on the ground, which made him a more productive quarterback. Plus, Young won eight games.

I still fail to see what Young doing more on the ground has to do with anything in a thread about completion percentage. Yes, Young won 8 games, mostly because of his ground game and getting TDs by rushing. That doesn't change the fact that his completion percentage was horrible and his TD/INT ratio left something to be desired.

[Vladimir L]

Campbell is no Rookie he sat on the bench.

[Hibachi]

I still fail to see what Young doing more on the ground has to do with anything in a thread about completion percentage. Yes, Young won 8 games, mostly because of his ground game and getting TDs by rushing. That doesn't change the fact that his completion percentage was horrible and his TD/INT ratio left something to be desired.

Vince Young isn't as good a passer as Campbell. But I think what he does on the ground and the way he seemed to make big plays to win games makes him a better quarterback than Campbell. You can't look at Young the same way you look at Campbell because Young is a running quarterback.

[Vladimir L]

Vince Young isn't as good a passer as Campbell. But I think what he does on the ground and the way he seemed to make big plays to win games makes him a better quarterback than Campbell. You can't look at Young the same way you look at Campbell because Young is a running quarterback.

On top of that young doesnt have a Santana Moss, Chris Cooley, Betts and Clinton Portis.

Hopefully JC will take his game to the next level. I dont care about how many starts he has. He is no rookie we cant compare him to Rookies. He has been in the NFL for 3 years now.

[riggins4452]

Give me at least till week 6 to start worrying about anything.

[Anne The Fan]

Mayhap I could've used a different list of qbs . . .

Mayhap you could've used the spell check function before you posted . . .

. . . the number becomes even more twingent.

. . . as well as a dictionary.

Seriously, your shtick is tiresome. If you're going to troll, at least troll in a somewhat coherent manner.