Are we overrating Todd Collins's performance?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

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.

But if that were true, you'd see significant differences in the two QB's individual stats as well, so why not use those instead of relying on point differential? Besides, point differential is determined by how the defense and special teams plays, neither of which is directly effected by the play of the QB (as the Tony Banks example showed). Indirectly effected, yes, because this is a team sport. But to use point differential as a validating stat for showing the difference between two QBs you'd first have to show that the performance of both the defense and special teams remained constant, and only the unit that the QB is in charge of improved.

How nice it would have been if the defensive production of the last 4 games showed up in the 2nd Eagles game and the 1st Cowboys game. What a waste it was for Jason Campbell to put up 23 points on the #1 team in the NFC and another 25 points on a division rival, and both result in losses. And what a shame it is that we blame HIM for those losses.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

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.

By the way, if you can't cherry pick stats, then include the Seattle game in Collins' point differential stat lol ...

And for the record, I don't think anyone denies that the offense ran better when Collins was in, and that he was definitely one of the reasons it did. But, yes, he was ONE of the reasons. The Giants game showed that. Collins was mediocre at best in that game, but the defense stepped up huge (especially Smoot), the Giants receivers couldn't catch a cold, Suisham was nailing lengthy fieldgoals in swirling winds, and both Betts and Portis carried the offense the rest of the way. I can't look at that game and say "We only won because Collins was in at QB. JC would have lost that game."

[Oldfan]

Thinking Skins: So using this stat to solely base your analysis of the performances of Collins and Campbell is a bit too simple.

The 92% correlation quote I used is based on a study done by the stats guys at footballoutsiders.com for the years 2000-2006. Interestingly, their own very complex DVOA showed only 86% (but DVOA is more versatile). Basically, net points is a better guide to the quality of the team than the won-lost record.

I'm using the stat to argue that the Skins were a much better team when led by Collins last season. Sure, we could debate our subjective judgments based on our observations of their performances endlessly, but I'm offering objective evidence instead.

In the end, you have to offer a list of excuses for Campbell because there was a very clear difference that showed up on the scoreboard in Collins' favor.

[Blackest Eyes]

My feeling is that Todd Collins played well at the end of the season and he played how he should have played considering he was in that system for several years.

I will be interested to see how he does with a new system. I expect to see a different QB in the WCO.

I will get reamed for this but I wish we dumped Collins and kept Brunell (didn't he play in a WCO in JAX?) That would have made more sense to me.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I'm using the stat to argue that the Skins were a much better team when led by Collins last season. Sure, we could debate our subjective judgments based on our observations of their performances endlessly, but I'm offering objective evidence instead.

I think a better and more accurate way of saying this would be "The Skins were a much better team while Collins lead them last season". That way it acknowledges the improvement of the team as a whole and doesn't put the entire improvement solely on the QB's shoulders.

From there, you can take the individual stats from both QBs to show if their individual performances differed enough to explain the offensive unit's improvement. Separately you'd have to see if the defensive unit and special teams improved under one of the two QBs as well. If you wanted to truly see if the QB change effected THOSE units, you'd have to start analyzing things like time of possession, turnover ratios and average field position when punting, things like that...

In short, you'd have to do a helluva lot more than just show point differential to truly tell if one QB "obviously outperformed" another. On the surface you can easily say "of course"--and in reality I think pretty much everyone on this thread HAS said Collins outperformed Campbell. The question is, by how much? Were their performances closer than we thought? Farther apart? That some on this thread think it's a ridiculous question kind of speaks volumes.

In the end, you have to offer a list of excuses for Campbell because there was a very clear difference that showed up on the scoreboard in Collins' favor.

No, we're just willing to accept that "scoreboard" doesn't tell the entire story, and in fact leaves out some VERY important facts--again, see my Tony Banks example lol...did the "scoreboard" tell you everything you needed to know about HIS performance in 2000? Could you really just look at the scores the next morning and determine how well Banks played? Of course not.

[Oldfan]

Elkabong82: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a win a total TEAM effort?

Of course it is, but the QB is the most important cog in the machine. And when one QB gets much better results than another as soon as he steps on the field, it's logical to think that he probably had a good deal to do with the improvement.

I downgraded Jason from a C to D after watching Collins do so much better with the same supporting cast. With time to throw, in good conditions, Todd Collins threw the ball with more accuracy than Jason Campbell -- and accuracy is the number one factor in grading QBs.

[skinfan2k]

Of course it is, but the QB is the most important cog in the machine. And when one QB gets much better results than another as soon as he steps on the field, it's logical to think that he probably had a good deal to do with the improvement.

I downgraded Jason from a C to D after watching Collins do so much better with the same supporting cast. With time to throw, in good conditions, Todd Collins threw the ball with more accuracy than Jason Campbell -- and accuracy is the number one factor in grading QBs.

You just said before that Brady wasn't the most important piece of the NE offense. WOW

[SkinsJackpot]

Yes, he is over rated!

[Califan007 The Constipated]

You just said before that Brady wasn't the most important piece of the NE offense. WOW

No, I think he said he was, but that he wasn't the ALL-important factor.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I downgraded Jason from a C to D after watching Collins do so much better with the same supporting cast. With time to throw, in good conditions, Todd Collins threw the ball with more accuracy than Jason Campbell -- and accuracy is the number one factor in grading QBs.

Collins had a 61.9% completion percentage last year.

Campbell had a 60.0% completion percentage last year.

Does that 1.9% really have that much of an effect on how you perceive a QB's performance to be? Does that 1.9% make the difference between giving JC a D last year and whatever you gave Collins? Really?

And let's forget the "in good conditions" crap as a disqualifyer, because I wouldn't know if, say, the Green Bay game was "good conditions" or not, or what exactly the wind gusts were from one game to the next for either Campbell OR Collins. The Giants game stands out for obvious reasons, but as for the other 15 games (and playoff game), I'm not about to speculate if the weather conditions for each game qualified as "good conditions".

[Oldfan]

Califan: I think a better and more accurate way of saying this would be "The Skins were a much better team while Collins lead them last season". That way it acknowledges the improvement of the team as a whole and doesn't put the entire improvement solely on the QB's shoulders.

The improvement in the team began in Bears game. We scored all of our 24 points after Collins entered with a few minutes left in the second quarter. Collins was responsible is explanation A. It isn't impossible that explanations B through W also were responsible for the improvement. It's just not likely that all these things happened coincidentally.

From there, you can take the individual stats from both QBs to show if their individual performances differed enough to explain the offensive unit's improvement.

Individual stats are not of much value, especially over a four-game span. In my judgment, based on observation, Collins outplayed Campbell decisively, a fact supported by the net points stat.

No, we're just willing to accept that "scoreboard" doesn't tell the entire story, and in fact leaves out some VERY important facts--again, see my Tony Banks example lol...did the "scoreboard" tell you everything you needed to know about HIS performance in 2000? Could you really just look at the scores the next morning and determine how well Banks played? Of course not.

Your Tony Banks example is not relevant. Here, I am comparing two QBs, playing with the same supporting cast, to each other. I am not using net points to evaluate one QB. Apples and oranges.

[Oldfan]

Collins had a 61.9% completion percentage last year.

Campbell had a 60.0% completion percentage last year.

Does that 1.9% really have that much of an effect on how you perceive a QB's performance to be? Does that 1.9% make the difference between giving JC a D last year and whatever you gave Collins? Really?

I pay no attention to completion percentages. I based my accuracy comment on what I saw. Collins hit receivers in stride. Even when both completed a short pass, Campell's completions were "wild in the strike zone," not allowing the receiver a good chance to pick up YAC.

I worry about that problem. I doubt that it's correctable, but maybe Jim Zorn can help.

[skinfan2k]

I pay no attention to completion percentages. I based my accuracy comment on what I saw. Collins hit receivers in stride. Even when both completed a short pass, Campell's completions were "wild in the strike zone," not allowing the receiver a good chance to pick up YAC.

I worry about that problem. I doubt that it's correctable, but maybe Jim Zorn can help.

of course you dont when others bring up stats. But when you bring up stats, they are concrete

[Califan007 The Constipated]

The improvement in the team began in Bears game. We scored all of our 24 points after Collins entered with a few minutes left in the second quarter. Collins was responsible is explanation A. It isn't impossible that explanations B through W also were responsible for the improvement. It's just not likely that all these things happened coincidentally.

It ALSO happened after Springs intercepted the Bears and ran the ball down to their 21 yard line. In fact, at the time he was credited with giving the team the momentum it needed to start playing better. Again, we brush off the defense's performance and role in the victory in order to heap praise (or assign blame) soley or primarily to the QB. That's the wrong avenue to take.

Also, the rushing game against the Bears was pathetic...31 yards and 1.3 yards per carry...so I'm having a hard time claiming that the entire Skins' offense improved once Collins stepped onto the field. He executed Saunders' game plan better than Campbell did, definitely. But the entire team contributed (other than rbs lol), not just Collins.

Would Collins, who fumbled the ball on his first series, have driven 80 yards for a TD before the half if Springs had NOT intercepted Greise's pass? Would Collins have done just as well if down by 7 at the half? Would Gibbs have called the same game if the Skins were down at the half?

I don't know. But I don't believe for a second that Collins could throw a TD from the 21 yard line but JC could not. Don't get me wrong, I give Collins full credit for his performance in that game...but the next week the Skins showed that they could still win even if Collins played worse than Campbell. So I'm seeing an entire team that started playing better in the Giants game and beyond, NOT just Collins. I see Collins as playing better than JC in the Bears game.

Individual stats are not of much value, especially over a four-game span. In my judgment, based on observation, Collins outplayed Campbell decisively, a fact supported by the net points stat.

Individual stats are the ONLY way of judging how an individual played. Or will you judge Betts' performance by the overall rushing total of the team? No need to look at his individual stats, just look at the team stats for rushing. Same with receivers. Was Moss good or bad? Don't bother looking at his individual stats, concentrate on the TEAM stats, that'll tell you all you need to know about Moss' performance. Same thing as in 2005. Was Patten a worthwhile pick up? No, don't go look at his individual stats, look at the team stats for that season. We actually did pretty well there, lots of TDs and yards. Obviously Patten contributed quite a bit, then.

Sorry, use team stats to gage how a team does, and use individual stats to gage how an invidual player does...and then cross reference what you come up with to help further fill out your analysis.

Your Tony Banks example is not relevant. Here, I am comparing two QBs, playing with the same supporting cast, to each other. I am not using net points to evaluate one QB. Apples and oranges.

Of course it is, because I'm using it to show the falacy in your logic. I'm not showing it to prove JC was good or Collins was overrated. I'm using it solely to show the falacy of your logic that team stats tell how well a QB is doing. You can't argue that.

*Edit: thought it was Collins' first drop back, but was his first series lol...

[CRobi21]

I pay no attention to completion percentages. I based my accuracy comment on what I saw. Collins hit receivers in stride. Even when both completed a short pass, Campell's completions were "wild in the strike zone," not allowing the receiver a good chance to pick up YAC.

I worry about that problem. I doubt that it's correctable, but maybe Jim Zorn can help.

So what do you make of it when Collins throws his deep balls to Tana Moss, and he's able to come back for them, go up and get them, and make spectacular catches.

But JC hits him right on stride, and it hits Moss in the face mask for an incomplete pass.

?

[Oldfan]

of course you dont when others bring up stats. But when you bring up stats, they are concrete

If you think I'm wrong, explain why.

[fansince62]

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?

I disagree. your notion robs the sport - any area of life really - of its richness and variety. there have certainly been instances in sport when an individual has carried a team....barry sanders, for example. be careful with universals...they are rarely true. now...had you said that "football is quintessentially a team sport that generally relies on the orchestrated efforts of 22 players to succeed...." then I might have agreed.

for my own part...some of us noted early on...:-)....that Todd Collins had manifestly obvious mobility problems that could be easily exploited by smart DCs with capable pass rushers. how one captures this subjective opinion - which is obvious to the eye - is hard to do. it rang true when it mattered most....but...who cares? playoff waters under the bridge. we sink or swim with JC. If TC is back in the mix...that means things are not going well in Skins land.

btw...just for feces & grins: can a really bad player sink a team?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I pay no attention to completion percentages. I based my accuracy comment on what I saw. Collins hit receivers in stride. Even when both completed a short pass, Campell's completions were "wild in the strike zone," not allowing the receiver a good chance to pick up YAC.

I worry about that problem. I doubt that it's correctable, but maybe Jim Zorn can help.

So you think completion percentages mean less to a QB's accuracy than your personal perception does lol :laugh:...Ok...

Since that's the case, I thought many of Collins' passes were off the mark even though completed. In the Dallas game alone you saw Cooley and Caldwell sliding into passes instead of catching them in stride or hitting them in the chest. And this is with tons of room for more yardage after the catch. You saw receivers making sideline grabs with their toes barely in bounds with no cb close by. In the Seattle game you saw INTs returned for TDs and Moss have to leap 10 feat in the air to make a fingertips grab from one of Collins' "accurate" passes. I mean, I could easily go on and on and on if I ONLY base my opinion on my perceptions, and deem stats to be irrelevant. Definitely makes things easier.

[fansince62]

So what do you make of it when Collins throws his deep balls to Tana Moss, and he's able to come back for them, go up and get them, and make spectacular catches.

But JC hits him right on stride, and it hits Moss in the face mask for an incomplete pass.

?

COllins & "Deep"? Is this humor hour?

just havin sum fun....

[Califan007 The Constipated]

COllins & "Deep"? Is this humor hour?

just havin sum fun....

:laugh:

[CRobi21]

COllins & "Deep"? Is this humor hour?

just havin sum fun....

Well by "deep balls", you know I meant 30 yards down field for Collins.

:laugh:

[Blackest Eyes]

So what do you make of it when Collins throws his deep balls to Tana Moss, and he's able to come back for them, go up and get them, and make spectacular catches.

But JC hits him right on stride, and it hits Moss in the face mask for an incomplete pass.

?

Yeah, thats a pretty good question. Hopefully that does not happen this season like it did last.

[Oldfan]

Califan: It ALSO happened after Springs intercepted the Bears and ran the ball down to their 21 yard line. In fact, at the time he was credited with giving the team the momentum it needed to start playing better. Again, we brush off the defense's performance and role in the victory in order to heap praise (or assign blame) soley or primarily to the QB. That's the wrong avenue to take.

Did I say that Collins won the Bears game alone? No.

What I'm saying, of course, is that Todd Collins was the major factor in the improved record of the team over the final four games. I thought his best game was against the Giants. He outplayed Eli in terrible wind conditions.

Of course it is, because I'm using it to show the falacy in your logic. I'm not showing it to prove JC was good or Collins was overrated. I'm using it solely to show the falacy of your logic that team stats tell how well a QB is doing. You can't argue that.

But I am NOT using net points to grade QB performances. That would be a misuse of the stat. But, when two QBs on the same team are compared, the net points stat, as well as the won-lost record are valid measures since the QB position is such an important factor in determining these stats.

[Oldfan]

So what do you make of it when Collins throws his deep balls to Tana Moss, and he's able to come back for them, go up and get them, and make spectacular catches.

But JC hits him right on stride, and it hits Moss in the face mask for an incomplete pass.

?

I make nothing of it. What do a couple of plays, taken from hundreds during the season, tell you?

[CRobi21]

I make nothing of it. What do a couple of plays, taken from hundreds during the season, tell you?

Not sure. But 5 games from a man's 10 yr career tells you everything?