Are we overrating Todd Collins's performance?

[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.

By the way, here's how Collins started the Bears' game, when his entrance suddenly made the entire offense--no, team--play better:

Incomplete pass.

4 yard pass.

Fumble.

21 yard TD (after Springs' INT).

Portis for 5 yards.

Portis for 3 yards.

Portis for 54 yards after catching a pass from Collins at the line of scrimmage.

Sellers 1 yard TD.

Incomplete pass.

Betts for -1 yard.

Incomplete pass.

Punt.

Portis for 7 yards.

Portis for 1 yard.

4 yard pass.

10 yard pass.

-1 yard pass.

That's up through the end of the 3rd quarter. 17 plays. Collins was 5/8 at the time for 71 yards...with 54 of those 71 yards coming on one play: Portis' 54 yard run after the catch (I actually think he caught it behind the LOS). The first two scores were due as much to Springs' INT and Portis' 54 yard run after the catch than to anything Collins was providing. Without Portis' 54 yards of running after the catch?...17 yards of passing from Collins. And a lost fumble.

In the 4th quarter, however, Collins started to shine, even if the rest of the offense did not. He definitely lead them to that win. But was he doing anything up until the 4th quarter than Campbell was not? Nope. JC could have thrown the TD after Springs' INT just as easily. Campbell could have completed the short pass to Portis and let him run the 54 yards just as easily. Campbell could have handed the ball off to Sellers just as easily. And the Skins could have been up 14-0 afterwards just as easily.

Could Campbell have had just as productive a 4th quarter? I'm not thinking so, not yet anyway.

[s0crates]

Regarding the OP: I don't know if anybody is overrating Todd Collins. I think most people recognize his performance for what it was, a demonstration of his mastery of the Al Saunders offense. There is no denying that he played exceptionally well over those last five games. His stat line doesn't lie.

I don't know if anybody is hating on Jason Campbell. He is clearly our best bet this year, with the potential to be a true franchise quarterback. His arm strength, durability, and mobility are all impressive. However, as of now, it is still only potential. He has shown flashes of greatness, but just as often, he has made costly mistakes. Accuracy is an issue with him, one need only check his completion percentage and touchdown to interception ratio to verify that. His stats don't lie.

I think we would agree that Campbell is our starting quarterback. However, I would not defend him by saying that he was almost as good as Todd Collins last year. He wasn't really. Not only did Campbell throw twice as many INT's as Collins, he also had fewer TD passes. Collins also had a significantly higher YPA average. I would not deny Campbell's potential or worthiness as starting quarterback, but Collins deserves credit for his superb performance, and Campbell still has room for improvement.

Against the Giants (the #11 defense against the pass last year), he was 8/25 for 166 yards, no touchdowns and no interceptions - not a horrible game and not a great game. He did his job and didn't lose the game.

This was really Todd Collin's only bad game, and skews the accuracy stats quite a bit. It must be pointed out that passing conditions were terrible that day. Take a look at Manning's stat line on that day: 18 completions on 52 attempts for 184 yards.

[Voice_of_Reason]

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.

Then, to be perfectly honest, you need to go back and re-watch the games. Because I did. And Collins' passes were nowehere near as accurate as you want to make them out to be. Sorry. They were all over the place in most of the games. All of the "deep" stuff came off of absolutetly terrific adjustments by the WRs.

Again, TC did a very good job, to answer the thread, I don't know who's over or under rating TCs performance, but he did not look like Joe Montana. Really, the group of players who looked better over the last 4 games were the WRs. Who actually made adjustments, cought the ball, and didn't fumble.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

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.

You were making the assertion that the team played better and performed better with Collins under center in the Bears game, and that the scores are indicative of that. I simply pointed out that in reality, Collins got a huge boost from Springs' INT (as well as Portis' 54 yard scamper)...both things that were not due to anything Collins provided.

And he didn't outplay Eli...Eli's receivers let him down HUGE, while Collins' receivers did not. Go back and count the number of catchable dropped passes the Giants had.

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.

But not to the point of rendering individual stats irrelevant...which you seem to be doing.

[CRobi21]

Then, to be perfectly honest, you need to go back and re-watch the games. Because I did. And Collins' passes were nowehere near as accurate as you want to make them out to be. Sorry. They were all over the place in most of the games. All of the "deep" stuff came off of absolutetly terrific adjustments by the WRs.

Again, TC did a very good job, to answer the thread, I don't know who's over or under rating TCs performance, but he did not look like Joe Montana. Really, the group of players who looked better over the last 4 games were the WRs. Who actually made adjustments, cought the ball, and didn't fumble.

Bingo! :applause: :applause:

And also to answer the OP's question, I think, to me he's rated exactly how he should be rated. Nothing more, nothing less.

But opinions on him will vary, as we've already seen.

Still, major props to #15!

[Oldfan]

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

Why is that so hard to understand? The completion percentage depends as much or more on the plays called than it does on the QB's accuracy.

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.

I don't discount stats. Some are good. Some are worthless. Some should be relabeled. The QB rating is a lousy stat for rating QBs, but does fairly well over the course of a season in grading a team's passing game.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Then, to be perfectly honest, you need to go back and re-watch the games. Because I did. And Collins' passes were nowehere near as accurate as you want to make them out to be. Sorry. They were all over the place in most of the games.

That's how I saw it, too...I even remember during the Dallas game, one of the announcers said something like "And Collins continues to throw darts", and I'm watching Cooley sliding and tumbling to the ground to catch Collins' pass and thinking "Um, that was NOT a dart...more like a wet sponge" lol :laugh:...I loved that the pass was completed and everything, but I thought the announcer's description was a bit exaggerated.

[Oldfan]

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

Nope. I'm only grading his performance for last season as the OP asked.

[Morneblade]

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.

[CRobi21]

Nope. I'm only grading his performance for last season as the OP asked.

:laugh:

Damn it! I can never get anything by you.

[s0crates]

Then, to be perfectly honest, you need to go back and re-watch the games. Because I did. And Collins' passes were nowehere near as accurate as you want to make them out to be. Sorry. They were all over the place in most of the games. All of the "deep" stuff came off of absolutetly terrific adjustments by the WRs.

Again, TC did a very good job, to answer the thread, I don't know who's over or under rating TCs performance, but he did not look like Joe Montana. Really, the group of players who looked better over the last 4 games were the WRs. Who actually made adjustments, cought the ball, and didn't fumble.

That's how I saw it, too...I even remember during the Dallas game, one of the announcers said something like "And Collins continues to throw darts", and I'm watching Cooley sliding and tumbling to the ground to catch Collins' pass and thinking "Um, that was NOT a dart...more like a wet sponge" lol :laugh:...I loved that the pass was completed and everything, but I thought the announcer's description was a bit exaggerated.

Two things to point out here: First, sometimes a quarterback is forced to throw through a window in the defense and is therefore unable to hit the receiver in stride. Second, it may be the case that Todd Collins throws a more catchable pass (as Bill Walsch and Al Saunders famously urged their QBs to do).

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Why is that so hard to understand? The completion percentage depends as much or more on the plays called than it does on the QB's accuracy.

So, the difference in TC's and JC's accuracy is do "as much or more" to the plays Gibbs called...than how accurate each individual QB actually is? If so, it would be kind of foolish to label one as more accurate than the other...wouldn't you say?

I don't discount stats. Some are good. Some are worthless. Some should be relabeled. The QB rating is a lousy stat for rating QBs, but does fairly well over the course of a season in grading a team's passing game.

And according to you, completion percentage is "worthless", as your individual perception easily trumps it in terms of a measure of a QB's accuracy.

They really do need an "Oldfan" column on the stat page of NFL.com lol...just click on it and it will tell you who were the most accurate QBs in the league. :cool:

[Oldfan]

Portis' 54 yard run after the catch (I actually think he caught it behind the LOS). ... Campbell could have completed the short pass to Portis and let him run the 54 yards just as easily.

I think a major factor is Todd's success was his use of the RBs as outlets. I watched the combined yardage stats for Betts and Portis climb with Collins at QB.

These weren't plays that went deep into Al's 700 page playbook. Jason had the same options but didn't use them. That tells me that he probably wasn't making good decisions.

Portis was quoted as saying that he had to pay attention when running his routes with Collins at QB, otherwise he might get hit in the helmet with the ball.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Two things to point out here: First, sometimes a quarterback is forced to throw through a window in the defense and is therefore unable to hit the receiver in stride. Second, it may be the case that Todd Collins throws a more catchable pass (as Bill Walsch and Al Saunders famously urged their QBs to do).

If a QB consistently fails to hit a receiver in stride, that points to more than the occasional "window" that limits his passes. Plus, what I was noticing is that too many times Collins' passes were too low or too close to the sideline, even when the receiver made good separation. I'm not gonna chalk that up to small passing lanes all the time.

And while Collins may deliver a more catchable ball than Campbell, it doesn't speak to where he delivers that more catchable pass.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I think a major factor is Todd's success was his use of the RBs as outlets. I watched the combined yardage stats for Betts and Portis climb with Collins at QB.

These weren't plays that went deep into Al's 700 page playbook. Jason had the same options but didn't use them. That tells me that he probably wasn't making good decisions.

Portis was quoted as saying that he had to pay attention when running his routes with Collins at QB, otherwise he might get hit in the helmet with the ball.

That may be true, but on that specific 54 yard play by Portis that was a designed play to him...he wasnt' an outlet for Collins. I say that only because it was almost a purposeful screen set up for him, and Collins looked his way almost immediately. I think they let the Bears' defensive linemen through quicker precisely to get Portis behind them once me made the catch, and just let him do his stuff in space...which he did.

[Thinking Skins]

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.

Not to mention that whole Vikings draw of luck where Collins threw a pass to Moss that he caught out of bounds, but Childress couldn't throw a red flag quick enough, but on the next play Collins fumbles and turns the ball over to the Vikings, but the Vikings had 12 men on the field and the play is overturned. Remember that?

[Oldfan]

So, the difference in TC's and JC's accuracy is do "as much or more" to the plays Gibbs called...than how accurate each individual QB actually is? If so, it would be kind of foolish to label one as more accurate than the other...wouldn't you say?

No. The coach can call plays to achieve a 60% accuracy from any QB, no matter how accurate he is. If his QB is wild, the coach only has to call higher percentage pass plays.

Philip Rivers completion percentage was higher under Cam Cameron than it will ever be under Norv because Norv wants to go deep to stretch the field. Same QB, same accuracy, different completion percentage.

Tom Brady's completion percentage was significantly higher in the shotgun than under center. Same Qb, same accuracy, different completion percentage.

[Oldfan]

And while Collins may deliver a more catchable ball than Campbell, it doesn't speak to where he delivers that more catchable pass.

Cooley was quoted in the post to the effect that -- you turn around, the ball's there.

[Oldfan]

Then, to be perfectly honest, you need to go back and re-watch the games. Because I did. And Collins' passes were nowehere near as accurate as you want to make them out to be. Sorry. They were all over the place in most of the games. All of the "deep" stuff came off of absolutetly terrific adjustments by the WRs.

I thought Todd Collins looked like Chad Pennington, weak arm, but uncanny accuracy and timing, when playing under good conditions.

Like Chad, he needs to be protected. He's not going to win any games with his legs. Like Chad, defenses will compress the field on him. The Giants did that in the wind, but he burned them just enough to open up the running game.

[Redskins:Victory_or_Death]

Next thread:

"Are we underrating Colt Brennan's future performances?"

[Voice_of_Reason]

Two things to point out here: First, sometimes a quarterback is forced to throw through a window in the defense and is therefore unable to hit the receiver in stride. Second, it may be the case that Todd Collins throws a more catchable pass (as Bill Walsch and Al Saunders famously urged their QBs to do).

Moss almost got decapetated a number of times because the passes were high, and he had to jump up exposing himself to the defense to make the catch. TC does NOT have the arm to throw a deep out. It rainbows in, and it's generally low and outside. He's got to keep the ball really low, or else pic-6 the other way.

Oh, John Elway, Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady all throw "catchable" balls. Proof is that they have TONS of yardage. They also all gun the ball into the reciever most of the time. Peyton's warmup passes at mid field to his TE, Clark, have more pop than TC's throws.

Not to mention that whole Vikings draw of luck where Collins threw a pass to Moss that he caught out of bounds, but Childress couldn't throw a red flag quick enough, but on the next play Collins fumbles and turns the ball over to the Vikings, but the Vikings had 12 men on the field and the play is overturned. Remember that?

That was a fantastic sequence of events. Jubilation to despare to jubilation.

Next thread:

"Are we underrating Colt Brennan's future performances?"

Yes. Because if he's just given a chance, he's going to make Tom and Peyton look like Tom and Jerry.

Once again, I REALLY am happy with the way TC played, I'm thrilled he's on the team, and I think that he could step in and win a couple games for the 'Skins this year if called upon.

And, btw, Mix is TALL.

[Wyvern]

[To Califan -- After consideration, I decided to make time to challenge how some of my statements about perception and statistics have been construed. I hope this regretably lengthy post, clarifies matters. However, after this post, perhaps our dialogue/comments on this topic might be better taken offline. Feel free to email me.]

There seems to be some growing debate about the primacy of use statistics over perceptions for those wanting express an opinons on ES. Perhaps a bit more balance is in order. After all, ridiculing ES fans' conclusions and perceptions they've drawn from watching and (possibly re-watching) Skins' games, might be viewed as just as arrogant as those supposedly denouncing any use of statistics. Also, there should be recognition that demanding that every fan's position on a football topic be backed up by statistical analysis could be construed as a somewhat rigid requirement and a narrow approach ---good for some perhaps, but not for all.

Moreover, whenever someone chooses to use statistics to buttress their position, they cannot expect this should be considered as the final word. Those who go through all this work should not be surprised when others won't accept their conclusions as decisive, and challenge the conclusions or methods in which the statistics are used. After all, there is significant room for debate even on which statistics are the most appropriate to be used in analysis of an issue.. Even hindsight analysis, the analysis of the long-run results, and even franchise history may not always be conclusive, because here too, people are always trying different ways to recast what happened.

Basically, my point boils down to this: Fans do not have to forfeit their opinons simply because someone trots out a detailed statistical exercise aimed at debunking one of their views. Nor should they be ridiculed if they disagree with the conclusions of the statistical analysis, or challenge the validity of the approach.. Stats are helpful, and can reshape opinions, but they do not trump everything. They have limitations. For example, what's the difference between an incompletion to Thrash versus one to Brandon Lloyd? How can stats measure effort, heart, and team chemistry? --And even if you were to try to use stats tp amswer this, you would be employing a subjective approach on which stats to use, and which to exclude.

Game statistics can only capture the more numerical aspects of the game. And while game records help, in fleshing out background on the statistics, they they do not capture the entire context of the play.

[For example, was a QB sacked for hanging onto the ball too long? Or was the O-line a sieve? Or were the receivers too slow to break free? --Statistics can capture yardage, but not opportunities missed. Nor do they show how the yardage was actually gained (were there broken tackles? ...missed tackles? ...a breakdown in secondary coverage? ... a receiver slipping down with 40 yards of free running room?, etc., etc.)]

Statistics can also be misleading, simply because people may not know about how there they are defined and measured and what led to their results.

[if a team is the 32nd against the pass, most might conclude it was the worst pass defense in the NFL. However, if that same pass defense was coupled with a run defense 1st in the NFL, and total defense ranked 12th -- perhaps the pass defense is only around 24th in the league but happened to look worse because all the opponents seek their yards through passing. Then there is the context of time -- What if much of the bad numbers were early in the season, and one had to play the team late in the season, when it's defense was better? Doesn't that matter?]

Analyzing statistics can be a fine numerical excercise, but projections and predictions based on statistics can becomes a very subjective. Even fantasy football fans have realized the limits of projecting performance on the basis of statistics; did statistics predict a 50 TD season for Brady? Was there a statistic that could predict the chemistry between Moss and Brady?

Now one should appreciate the work done by those who go through the exercise of slicing and dicing an existing body of statistics to abstract a conclusion. This can be a good thing, and their work could be helpful to fans wishing for more tools to aid their in-depth reflections about their team. Nor should any fans be reluctant to ponder the conclusions from these statistical analyses.

However, just as with politician-provided statistics, it's also valid to take any of the associated conclusions with a grain of salt. Moreover, if someone feels (or was informed) the stats-exercise was conducted simply to prove a point, there is all the more reason to be skeptical. As mentioned above stats have limitations and can be presented in many different ways to prove a point. (And while this isn't the Tailgate, it is well within ES fans' rights to challenge the motives or methods behind even of the most statistics-laden analyses and conclusions.)

I mention all this above, because statistics can be misleading or even be "spun" for effect-- even football statistics.

[For example, assume a QB was able to dink and dunk short passes all the way down the field, and then tossed 2 incompletes in the redzone stalling the offense for a FG. That QB is still going to look good. If he did it 4 times, he might look real good, with a 300 yard game, and no INTs. But his team might have lost 14-12. Is this guy a great QB? His completion ratio is certainly glowing. But in the context of TDs (and wins) he's may not be that great. What if an 'analyst' decided not to mention that? Or what if he decided to combine these results with a game where the WR owned the depleted-DB corps, and the QB clicked on 3 of the 5 'automatic' TDs. The QB still looks good, right? Or not? Much depends on how the stats are presented and other information accompanying the stats.]

In short, ES fans have a justifiable right to challenge any positions posted on the board, even those positions/conclusions toting their own statistical analyses. However, please don't construe this defense of ES fan's rights, with a disdain of anyone choosing to dive into available statistics to research a point.. On the contrary, this is a marketplace of ideas, and no one benefits from being offered only one type of product. And if we decide to honor diversity for ideas being presented, maybe we should also honor diversity in how one responds to an idea.

I apologize ito readers for the length of this post. It's my last one on this particular thread.

[s0crates]

Nice post Wyvern.

[elkabong82]

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.

How come this was the only part of my reponse you chose to highlite?

I'd actually like to hear your, or anyone's, thoughts about the run game providing 7 TDs for Collins in just 4 games, while giving JC one more (8) in 13 games. When the supporting cast starts playing better and providing more help, it needs to be considered. Perceptions are greatly influenced by the supporting cast.

Also, good point to the poster who said TC was bailed out at times by his receivers. JC was bailed out at times, but was also left hung out to dry, for example by Lloyd in Miami, and by Moss and his regular drops at that part of the season. All one has to do is watch the highlites of TC's 4 games, and they'll see Moss and Cooley bailed TC out of some questionable throws with last second adjustments. The team as a whole got better at the end of the season, JC just so happened not to be the QB when that happened.

Like I said, though, neither QB is light years ahead of the other, as some would suggest. However, perception can play tricks on you. And the fact that the expectations for TC were small, and the expectations for JC were large, definitely impact those perceptions.

[s0crates]

I'd actually like to hear your, or anyone's, thoughts about the run game providing 7 TDs for Collins in just 4 games, while giving JC one more (8) in 13 games. When the supporting cast starts playing better and providing more help, it needs to be considered. Perceptions are greatly influenced by the supporting cast.

This goes both ways though. The quarterback and the rest of the offense effect each other. A good running game helps a quarterback of course, but a quarterback who can consistently convert third downs can open up the running game.

Also, good point to the poster who said TC was bailed out at times by his receivers. JC was bailed out at times, but was also left hung out to dry, for example by Lloyd in Miami, and by Moss and his regular drops at that part of the season. All one has to do is watch the highlites of TC's 4 games, and they'll see Moss and Cooley bailed TC out of some questionable throws with last second adjustments. The team as a whole got better at the end of the season, JC just so happened not to be the QB when that happened.

I still think the case can be made that Collins throws a more catchable ball. Campbell almost puts too much heat on his passes. As Bill Walsh said, you have to throw them a ball they can catch.