Are we overrating Todd Collins's performance?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

JC is a bum

This reminds me...I need to start another "optimists vs. naysayers" bet thread themed around Jason Campbell lol :cool:...

[CRobi21]

What truly is funny is how the JC nuthuggers expect people to believe that the team suddenly got healthy and started to compete better at halftime of the Bears game. JC is a bum, hopefully we are able to overcome it with others on offense and defense.

I know the cure for cancer.......

Sorry. I thought we were all throwing out statements that don't need to be backed up with actual facts.

I retract my statement.

[Redskins:Victory_or_Death]

What truly is funny is how the JC nuthuggers expect people to believe that the team suddenly got healthy and started to compete better at halftime of the Bears game. JC is a bum, hopefully we are able to overcome it with others on offense and defense.

And here come the TC "nuthuggers"...

Hope we keep bumping your "Collins will be the starter after 5 games." prediction through Game 6. :laugh:

[Redskins:Victory_or_Death]

I know the cure for cancer.......

Sorry. I thought we were all throwing out statements that don't need to be backed up with actual facts.

I retract my statement.

:rotflmao:

Don't worry - he'll disappear right back to the boxing forum where he spends all his time anyway soon.

[dizzinator53]

How satisfying! All of ES's least favorite posters in one thread chiming in with skewed logic and piss-poor facts.

Todd Collins certainly exceeded expectations last year as our starter. It's only logical to think that his knowledge of Al Saunder's playbook, stellar OL play, and a multitude of practice experience attributed to his success as our starter considerably. Anyone who argued that would be a fool.

His weak arm causes him to be exposed for the average QB that he is. Todd Collins overachieved while performing his job as the backup QB. Period. Good for Todd, it helped him get a raise in salary.

This is the logic behind this "Factual" information:

For over a decade, Todd has been able to secure his spot on an NFL roster as a perrenial backup QB. This speaks volumes for his ability to consistently be the second best QB on the squad. Kudos to Todd. However, through many Head coaches, owners, position coaches, and starting QB's that he has "backed up" he has failed to show enough to earn the starting position on the Depth Chart.

That means that the staff of the Chiefs, Bills, and Redskins (all under several administrations) failed to have enough faith in Collins to be their starter over a guy like Jason Campbell who showed incredible improvement last season.

Whether you are a JC supporter or a TC believer, nearly ZERO members of the ES community possess the skills, expertise, knowledge, experience, and downright football IQ to overrule what an NFL staff of Coaches and scouts think of players that fill out the depth chart.

There are special circumstances such as: Tony Romo sits to pee (who still hasn't proven a ton) or Doug Flutie, but they certainly aren't the norm.

Todd Collins does not suck.... He just isn't the second coming of Christ. I understand emotion plays a part in the TC supporter's decision, but please use common sense and logic to support your stand as to why you beleive TC is better to lead this team than Campbell.

Some Facts:

Arm Strength: Campbell

Accuracy: Campbell

Speed/ Scrambling: Campbell

Poise: Campbell

Height: Campbell

Age: Campbell

Experience: Collins

Their Careers:

Same Comp %

Same TD per game %

A Main difference is Campbell's elusivness when avoiding the sack. He has more hurries and 1/3 of the sacks against him... while totalling nearly 300 yds rushing to Todd's 1.9 yds. The upside of Cambell is far better than that of Collins.

To top all this off, The skins brought in Colt Brennan in the draft... Collins remains a "Quick Fix" to a Campbell injury... as he should be.

[bedlamVR]

If we are talking about perception then it is my perception that Collins was a bum, the play book changed in the final few weeks we started actually using multiple WR sets we didnt line up on the 36 yard line with 3TE, 1WR (Thrash) formations he was often lucky that someone was open on the sidelines with his weak assed throws . The Collins interceptions to Moss were boneheaded when he was throwing into tripple coverage on a blown play, on the game changing Campbell ints ( i am thinking about the Lloyd over throw in particular) his guy was often single covered and the CB simply made a better play on the ball. It is my perception that offensive line was still struggling to cohere as a unit with Campbell behind center, It is my perception that Campbell had more dropped passes in one game (green bay) than Collins had in his five games. It is my perception that Collins won 4 games last season and Campbell won 5.

Thing is my perceptions are skewed because it is my belief that Campbell is the future, other people believe other things . Stats could prove me wrong and probably will . End of the day all the arguing in the world wont change the fact that Campbell is the stater, the season is just over a month away and we will be able to find out who was right once and for all.

[Cpt.Chaos47]

I don't think Collins's performance is overrated I think people don't take into consideration he knowledge of the offense, but he did a great job for us. I think people at times underestimate Jason Campbell. He has played well for a young QB, but people are so impatient if the guy isn't Tom Brady he needs to be benched. They expect him to be a Superstar within his first 19 games as a starter and it just doesn't work that way. JC's numbers are comparible with some of the best in the game at the same points in their careers. Drew Brees was horrible his first couple of years now look at him. Peyton Manning threw 26 TD's his first year, but he also 28 ints. Jason has thrown 5 more TD's than ints as a starter which is pretty good for a QB, plus he has gotten better as he's gone. I think working with Jim Zorn will only make him that much better.

[robotfire]

Wanna know how to measure a QB? How about we cut right to the chase, ok? It all comes down to wins vs. losses, baby.....and all the spinning of all the other stats don't mean a thing! The sooner some of you realize this the better. Who gives a rat's ass if a QB throws 3 TDs in a game but doesn't have the ability to lead the team down the field with under 2 minutes to play for the winning score? Campbell HAS NEVER led the Skins to a come from behind victory in the 4th quarter, and until he does (Tampa, Philly, Giants, and Dallas games, and he had plenty of chances) all of the B.S. spinning of his stats are getting on many fans' nerves big-time.

Kyle Orton went 9-6 in his rookie year. He was replaced by Rex Grossman in the very last game, because Grossman was healthy. He had a QB rating of 59.7, 1869 yards, 5.1 yards per pass, 9 TDs, 13 INTs, and a winning record. Nobody in their right mind would say that kid played well in his rookie year. Nobody would have called him a good quarterback at that time.

[Woofer]

you can't over rate Colin's performance. Stats do not tell the whole story, nor are they a decisive gauge.

Collins did a remarkable job, helped hold the team together, and won games the best way he could. He played smart, heads up football, and won.

How can you over rate winning?

[fansince62]

It is very possible TC had a much bigger playbook to work with. I wouldn't say people overrate TC's performance, given he is a back-up. I would say people underrate JC when comparing the performances of both QBs last season.

This thread does show though, just how ignorant some of the "TC is the Skins best QB" comments are.

agree.

[cathartic-j]

First, :applause: to ThinkingSkins and Califan007 for their contributions in this thread. Even if you disagree with their conclusions, you have to appreciate the work they're putting into their posts.

I think sdkast made a very good point about how teams didn't have much material to use in preparation for Collins. I'll be stupid for a second and make an unsupported assertion: I think most quarterbacks take a step or two back after a handful of games, because opposing defensive coordinators are finally able to start targeting their gameplans a little more accurately.

But even taking this into consideration, I still think that Collins was nothing short of spectacular at the end of the regular season. When looking at the individual games, it doesn't look terribly amazing -- just very good. But I think that's what elite quarterbacks are: players who can consistently provide very good performances. Plenty of random quarterbacks have come up with the occasional freak 400-yard game. (If I remember correctly, Kelly Holcomb has done it...) So having some otherworldly games isn't the mark of a great QB. It's the ability to be significantly better than average for almost every single game.

The one time Collins wasn't signficantly better than average (in the regular season) was in a game where the weather clearly had a significant effect on both team's passing games.

To put one more set of numbers on Collins performance, we can look at the staples of Football Outsiders: DVOA, which is a per-play stat that takes strength of opponent into account, and DPAR, which is a counting stat. ("Total yards" would be an example of a counting stat -- it's one where the totals of each game are added up, so it's cumulative.)

Collins was third in the league in DVOA during his brief tenure as starting QB. Even if we assume that his play would drop as defensive coordinators adjusted, I think he still would've been a top-10 player if he'd played a few more games. (Campbell was 20th -- which isn't bad, considering he's young and looked like he was showing improvements over the course of the season.)

In terms of DPAR, Collins was 20th -- but this was in only four and a half games. Most of the players ranked 1-19 had played twelve to sixteen games. Campbell was 16th, so Collins probably would've caught him if he'd had one or two more games.

So I don't think that Collin's performance was very overrated.

Now, I do think that people are overrating how much his performance last year means in terms of what will happen this year. Collins's familiarity with Al Saunder's system was probably his most obvious asset, and so when the team hired Zorn, Collins's usefulness automatically took a hit. Add in the fact that coordinators will have a little more to work with in preparation, and I'd say that it's highly unlikely that Collins would turn in the same kind of performance as last year. But I think that last year did show that Collins still has the raw tools to be a good quarterback, and I'm personally quite happy that he's our security blanket.

Your post simply shows how statistics are meaningless.

Not quite -- it showed how misused statistics are meaningless.

All that matters is this: does the team win or does the team lose when QB John Doe is behind center? Yup, you can throw away all of the other stats.

Cathartic-j's birthday wishes:

1. World peace;

2. No more poverty;

3. Thinking along the lines of the quote above would disappear.

Sadly, I think all three are equally unlikely.

you can't over rate Colin's performance. Stats do not tell the whole story, nor are they a decisive gauge.

Collins did a remarkable job, helped hold the team together, and won games the best way he could. He played smart, heads up football, and won.

How can you over rate winning?

They're not saying that winning by itself is overrated; they're saying that its usefulness for judging QBs is overrated.

I have an idea: lets apply the "more wins means a better QB" logic to other situations.

Let's say a company earns a profit of $5M under CEO A, and under CEO B, it earns a profit of $10M. CEO B must be the better CEO, right?

Not necessarily. One of the company's competitors might have been forced to recall a product. Or a manager could have come up with a revolutionary product idea. Or maybe one of the company's products became a fad for pre-teens, leading to an unexpected -- and unearned -- windfall.

Equating team performance with a single individual's performance is simply ludicrous.

[fansince62]

First, :applause: to ThinkingSkins and Califan007 for their contributions in this thread. Even if you disagree with their conclusions, you have to appreciate the work they're putting into their posts.

I think sdkast made a very good point about how teams didn't have much material to use in preparation for Collins. I'll be stupid for a second and make an unsupported assertion: I think most quarterbacks take a step or two back after a handful of games, because opposing defensive coordinators are finally able to start targeting their gameplans a little more accurately.

But even taking this into consideration, I still think that Collins was nothing short of spectacular at the end of the regular season. When looking at the individual games, it doesn't look terribly amazing -- just very good. But I think that's what elite quarterbacks are: players who can consistently provide very good performances. Plenty of random quarterbacks have come up with the occasional freak 400-yard game. (If I remember correctly, Kelly Holcomb has done it...) So having some otherworldly games isn't the mark of a great QB. It's the ability to be significantly better than average for almost every single game.

The one time Collins wasn't signficantly better than average (in the regular season) was in a game where the weather clearly had a significant effect on both team's passing games.

To put one more set of numbers on Collins performance, we can look at the staples of Football Outsiders: DVOA, which is a per-play stat that takes strength of opponent into account, and DPAR, which is a counting stat. ("Total yards" would be an example of a counting stat -- it's one where the totals of each game are added up, so it's cumulative.)

Collins was third in the league in DVOA during his brief tenure as starting QB. Even if we assume that his play would drop as defensive coordinators adjusted, I think he still would've been a top-10 player if he'd played a few more games. (Campbell was 20th -- which isn't bad, considering he's young and looked like he was showing improvements over the course of the season.)

In terms of DPAR, Collins was 20th -- but this was in only four and a half games. Most of the players ranked 1-19 had played twelve to sixteen games. Campbell was 16th, so Collins probably would've caught him if he'd had one or two more games.

So I don't think that Collin's performance was very overrated.

Now, I do think that people are overrating how much his performance last year means in terms of what will happen this year. Collins's familiarity with Al Saunder's system was probably his most obvious asset, and so when the team hired Zorn, Collins's usefulness automatically took a hit. Add in the fact that coordinators will have a little more to work with in preparation, and I'd say that it's highly unlikely that Collins would turn in the same kind of performance as last year. But I think that last year did show that Collins still has the raw tools to be a good quarterback, and I'm personally quite happy that he's our security blanket.

Not quite -- it showed how misused statistics are meaningless.

Cathartic-j's birthday wishes:

1. World peace;

2. No more poverty;

3. Thinking along the lines of the quote above would disappear.

Sadly, I think all three are equally unlikely.

They're not saying that winning by itself is overrated; they're saying that its usefulness for judging QBs is overrated.

I have an idea: lets apply the "more wins means a better QB" logic to other situations.

Let's say a company earns a profit of $5M under CEO A, and under CEO B, it earns a profit of $10M. CEO B must be the better CEO, right?

Not necessarily. One of the company's competitors might have been forced to recall a product. Or a manager could have come up with a revolutionary product idea. Or maybe one of the company's products became a fad for pre-teens, leading to an unexpected -- and unearned -- windfall.

Equating team performance with a single individual's performance is simply ludicrous.

you misunderstand statistics. they do not explain. they are employed in the context of theories that offer explanation. they can be used to support hypotheses....but even these are formulated in some larger set of assumptions/axioms and deductions that seek to EXPLAIN. all the stats presented on this board are simply book report stuff.

speaking of book reports....wasn't Collins magnificent in the Seattle game? you know...the one where the stats in terms of final score weren't so favorable?

as for the simplistic CEO example.....the stockholders don't care. they reward the CEO.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Some Facts:

Arm Strength: Campbell

Accuracy: Campbell

Speed/ Scrambling: Campbell

Poise: Campbell

Height: Campbell

Age: Campbell

Experience: Collins

Actually, poise isn't a "fact" lol ...It can't realistically be objectively measured.

My take on those categories:

Arm Strength: Campbell

Accuracy: Even

Speed/ Scrambling: Campbell

Poise: Even

Height: Campbell

Age: Campbell

Experience: Collins

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Cathartic-j's birthday wishes:

1. World peace;

2. No more poverty;

3. Thinking along the lines of the quote above would disappear.

Sadly, I think all three are equally unlikely.

I dunno...I think you got a shot with the world peace and the poverty one...

[cathartic-j]

you misunderstand statistics. they do not explain. they are employed in the context of theories that offer explanation. they can be used to support hypotheses....but even these are formulated in some larger set of assumptions/axioms and deductions that seek to EXPLAIN. all the stats presented on this board are simply book report stuff.

speaking of book reports....wasn't Collins magnificent in the Seattle game? you know...the one where the stats in terms of final score weren't so favorable?

as for the simplistic CEO example.....the stockholders don't care. they reward the CEO.

Where did I write that statistics alone can explain causality? I didn't, because I know that they don't. I have no idea what drove you to say that.

Collins wasn't good in the Seattle game, but I'm not sure I'm not sure that any of the offensive players did too well. I guess Cooley played okay, but I can't think of anyone else that looked very impressive. In any case, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

As for the CEO example -- of course it was "simplistic." That's the point. The concept that one individual is not solely responsible for a group performance over any reasonable period of time is a pretty simple concept. I have no idea why you brought up the CEO's compensation, because it has nothing to do with the point. The point is that in other contexts, everyone (I hope) recognizes that one person is rarely -- if ever -- 100% responsible for a group outcome ... so why would people act like the quarterback is solely responsible for win/loss record in football?

[Oldfan]

With a 92% correlation to wins, net points is still the most reliable team stat in the NFL. Through the first 12 games of the 2007 season, the Jason Campbell led Skins were -28 in net points against their opponents. In the four games led by Todd Collins, they were +52.

This stat confirmed what I saw by watching the games. Collins outplayed Campbell by a decisive margin. We would not have made the playoffs with Campbell.

[skinfan2k]

With a 92% correlation to wins, net points is still the most reliable team stat in the NFL. Through the first 12 games of the 2007 season, the Jason Campbell led Skins were -28 in net points against their opponents. In the four games led by Todd Collins, they were +52.

This stat confirmed what I saw by watching the games. Collins outplayed Campbell by a decisive margin. We would not have made the playoffs with Campbell.

Take out that NE game please and see what you get?:doh:

[SoCalSkins]

Take out that NE game please and see what you get?:doh:

Why? TC beat the only team that beat NE, and it was on their home field.

[Oldfan]

Take out that NE game please and see what you get?:doh:

You don't get to cherry-pick stats like that. Take out the highest (Detroit)and lowest (NE) if you want to. You're still in the negative range.

[skinfan2k]

You don't get to cherry-pick stats like that. Take out the highest (Detroit)and lowest (NE) if you want to. You're still in the negative range.

No wonder youre a joke around here. This is what you said.

"you misunderstand statistics. they do not explain. they are employed in the context of theories that offer explanation. they can be used to support hypotheses....but even these are formulated in some larger set of assumptions/axioms and deductions that seek to EXPLAIN. all the stats presented on this board are simply book report stuff.

"

[Oldfan]

No wonder youre a joke around here. This is what you said.

"you misunderstand statistics. they do not explain. they are employed in the context of theories that offer explanation. they can be used to support hypotheses....but even these are formulated in some larger set of assumptions/axioms and deductions that seek to EXPLAIN. all the stats presented on this board are simply book report stuff.

"

WHO said that, Swifty?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

With a 92% correlation to wins, net points is still the most reliable team stat in the NFL.

But then, this:

This stat confirmed what I saw by watching the games. Collins outplayed Campbell by a decisive margin. We would not have made the playoffs with Campbell.

Can you really use a team stat to determine how an individual player played? It would be iffy and majorly speculative at best.

For example, with Tony Banks as their QB the 2000 Ravens had a +55 point differential through the 8 games that he started. For anyone who remembers Banks' level of play that season, would ANYONE say Banks performed better than Jason Campbell did last season? Here's a hint: Banks played so well that they benched him in mid-season. The +55 point differential apparently didn't hold too much value in determining his individual performance.

[Oldfan]

Can you really use a team stat to determine how an individual player played? It would be iffy and majorly speculative at best.

I think you can use it to confirm what you observe when the two QBs are playing with the same supporting cast. It would be of no value if we tried to compare QBs from one team to another.

[Thinking Skins]

With a 92% correlation to wins, net points is still the most reliable team stat in the NFL. Through the first 12 games of the 2007 season, the Jason Campbell led Skins were -28 in net points against their opponents. In the four games led by Todd Collins, they were +52.

This stat confirmed what I saw by watching the games. Collins outplayed Campbell by a decisive margin. We would not have made the playoffs with Campbell.

You know what Oldfan, I'm not even going to try to discount the NE game. But what I will do is show how this statistic is limited.

This statistic ignores critical things about the team, like :

- the injury report

- the run to pass ratio

- how conservative the offense was with the lead

- how many drops the QB had

- how well the QBs played in the games vs how well the other players played

- the strength of schedule of one QB vs another QB

- how good was the defense?

- how good was the special teams (and field position)?

- how many times was the QB hurried

- how many times was the QB sacked

- etc.

There are a million different reasons that we could name that show this statistic not being reliable. So since you didn't state where the 92% comes from, I've got to question what you mean by "with a 92% correlation to wins", and where does that come from. And if you like, I can probably come up with numerous examples that prove this statistic is a very limited view of things. So using this stat to solely base your analysis of the performances of Collins and Campbell is a bit too simple.

[elkabong82]

With a 92% correlation to wins, net points is still the most reliable team stat in the NFL. Through the first 12 games of the 2007 season, the Jason Campbell led Skins were -28 in net points against their opponents. In the four games led by Todd Collins, they were +52.

This stat confirmed what I saw by watching the games. Collins outplayed Campbell by a decisive margin. We would not have made the playoffs with Campbell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a win a total TEAM effort? Seems to me when receivers start catching the ball, the OL loses injured back-ups like Wade and puts in young Heyer more often, and the team as a whole is playing inspired because of their fallen teammate, that the O is going to click. Add to that a veteran who knows the playbook inside and out, and isn't handcuffed in the plays because of it, and it sems like you have a better performing O.

We all saw JC leading the team down the field, but falling short in the redzone. Do some of you honestly believe a young QB typically won't have those problems, and can't continue to improve? I guess our first 3 draft picks will have no help in making JC improve there. Those of you who agree that the game is fought and won in the trenches, must realize then the impact of losing your starting RT and RG, and having injured back-ups playing there at times also. Collins' experience gave him a quicker release, which bought him a few more seconds at times, but even he wasn't fully immune, fumbling 4 times in 4 games. The entire season almost every single hurry and sack was coming from the right side. In those final 4 games, nearly every succesful run and every TD run, came on the left side. The OL had a major impact, and those of you who would rather dismiss injuries as "excuses" are just being plain ignorant. Again, how well did Larry Johnson or Shaun Alexander do when they lost their quality OL? OL has a major impact, and having a quick release and younger, non-injured RT def. helps. A more open playbook helps a lot also.

The run game improved with Heyer seeing more time at RT, and the team playing more inspired, and with a more open playbook. Campbell was responsible for 14 TDs (13 pass/1 rush) in his games. The run game brought 8 TDs to help. Collins was responsible for 5 TDs, the run game (and 1 TD pass from CP) brought in 7 TDs. So in TC's 4 game stretch, the run game brought in just 1 less TD than it had in 13 games for JC.

I don't think anyone on here is saying Collins' sucks. That is a perception that was held in '06, eventhough like several people's opinions in here, it was based off nothing. I think was some are saying, and using stats to back it up, is that the difference between Collins and JC is not staggering. If some of you all really want to use team stats like W-L, instead of the individual stats Thinking Skins and Califan used, then I'll point out Trent Dilfer in 2000, who was 7-1 in games started. Collins' did his job, and I'm glad he and the team won those games, I don't think any of us initially expected the team to play like that with Collins' at the helm. I think this lack of expectation, vs. a large expectation from JC, also skew perceptions. Both QBs are good, but I don't think one is far ahead of the other.