Are we overrating Todd Collins's performance?

[fansince62]

[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.

You know the old saw...right?....."How is a statistician using stats like a drunk leaning against a lampost? The stats are used for support rather than illumination"

[Fieldy]

Absolutely impossible to overrate the performance of Todd Collins.

The guy sat on the bench for ten seasons....saw limited reps......came in cold, kicked ass and took names.

You just can't possibly ask for anything else from the second stringer.

Now.....possibly underrating the performance of JC........but I wouldn't discount what Collins did.

Nice way to get the thread started off on a positive note. :laugh:

If anything, a guy coming in after ten years cold and doing a better job than the starter we have so much invested in might support that our starter is a square peg that we are attempting to fit into a round hole.

It certainly isn't within a million miles of supporting that JC is a better qb than Todd Collins.

Too early to say. And hopefully JC improves.

Nice consistency elka.....A+.

Yeah, TC played well, but people keep pointing out that he came in after 10 YEARS ON THE BENCH AND WON 4 STRAIGHT GAMES...OMG...IT'S THE MESSIAH!!!

NO.

All 10 years that he was sitting on the bench he was studying the Al Saunders offensive playbook. If he wasn't able to step in and do what he did after 10 years in the same system I would've thought there was something wrong with him. You better believe that if in the second half of his season JC was performing at about the same clip as TC was in his five games, that after 10 years in the same system JC would be x100 better than TC. He didn't play great, he did what he knew and as soon as someone got some film on him he stank (Seattle playoff game).

[36HAMMER]

yes and no, no because he did a great job last year with a offense he knows like the back of his hand. yes becuase this is a brand new offense the he doesn't know as much as campbell who played this kind of offense in his senior year at auburn. and colt b played in his senior year at high school and alittle at colorado before tranfereing to hawaii,

[oraphus]

I am not going to come in here and say that TC is better then JC. But you cant discount what Collins did last year.

He came in and played well. Threw quick, crisp accurate passes. did what he was supposed to when he was supposed to and won games.

You dont need to have a spectacular QB to win games or to get to the superbowl. Take Chicago, Baltimore even Giants.

Then think of TC on a team like TN, Min, Chicago - these teams with bellow avg passers would give their left nut for their starters to play like our backup.

[Peregrine]

Ill take a QB who can do that in any circumstances, any day of the weak. I frankly think its kind of sad to be looking for a weakness in one of our strong points. Dont we have enough weaknesses to nitpick about?

[Oldfan]

Wyvern: 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.

I don't see that this has anything at all to do with a poster's rights. If objective statistical evidence can be offered to support a subjective judgment , the argument is strengthened. But obviously stats are often misused, so the merit of the statistics are debateable as well.

[cathartic-j]

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?

I know that universal statements are seldom true, but I don't feel uncomfortable asserting that a single player has never been 100% responsible for a team's performance. Even if a running back ran for ten touchdowns in a game, with the offensive line simply standing up and letting the defenders go every play ... the defense still has to keep the other team from scoring more than 63 points. And unless the running back plays defense, then he wasn't completely responsible for the outcome of the team. Would he have made a gigantic contribution, more than any real player ever could? Of course! But the bottom line is that no player is even on the field for every single play, so there's no way you can say that any single player is solely responsible for the outcome.

If it seems like I'm being too literal, here's why it matters: when people use W-L record to compare individual players, they're making one of two assumptions: either (a) the other 21 players on the field played at exactly the same level when each of the players in question were playing; or ( the performance of the other 21 players was entirely irrelevant. Since we know that individual performances vary from game to game, we know that assumption (a) isn't true; and I'm pointing out that ( isn't true, either. So using W-L as a way of comparing individual players doesn't work.

I'm not sure why you feel that, as you eloquently put it, "[my] notion robs the sport - any area of life really - of its richness and variety." But then you bring up Barry Sanders, who might be one of the best examples to illustrate my point: if Sanders were 100% responsible for his team's performance, then he's to blame for the Lions' failure to win a Super Bowl with him carrying the ball. To me, that demeans his performance far more than the mere suggestion that while he was a superlative player who made the team much better, he wasn't completely responsible for any success his team had.

Furthermore, I'd say that the idea that one player can single-handedly determine the outcome of a game demeans the nature of the game itself. After all, that suggests that there are 21 other players who are completely irrelevant -- which, as we all know, is not the case. Why is it a good thing to suggest that those contributions (or mistakes) should be ignored?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that an individual can't make extremely crucial and unique contributions. They can. But W-L record simply isn't an appropriate way to measure those contributions.

[Oldfan]

cathartic-j: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that an individual can't make extremely crucial and unique contributions. They can. But W-L record simply isn't an appropriate way to measure those contributions.

Not on its own, it isn't. But when combined with other evidence, it can have merit. For example:

QB #1 led his team to a 5-7 record and his team was -28 in net points for those games before he suffered an injury.

QB #2 took over and led the same team to a 4-0 finish for the regular season while putting a +52 in net points on the board.

The two stats combine to give obvious plausibility to the theory that QB #2 played much better than QB #1. "Obvious plausibility" doesn't end the debate, but it gives those offering opposing arguments an uphill battle if they want to win over impartial minds.

[fansince62]

I know that universal statements are seldom true, but I don't feel uncomfortable asserting that a single player has never been 100% responsible for a team's performance. Even if a running back ran for ten touchdowns in a game, with the offensive line simply standing up and letting the defenders go every play ... the defense still has to keep the other team from scoring more than 63 points. And unless the running back plays defense, then he wasn't completely responsible for the outcome of the team. Would he have made a gigantic contribution, more than any real player ever could? Of course! But the bottom line is that no player is even on the field for every single play, so there's no way you can say that any single player is solely responsible for the outcome.

If it seems like I'm being too literal, here's why it matters: when people use W-L record to compare individual players, they're making one of two assumptions: either (a) the other 21 players on the field played at exactly the same level when each of the players in question were playing; or ( the performance of the other 21 players was entirely irrelevant. Since we know that individual performances vary from game to game, we know that assumption (a) isn't true; and I'm pointing out that ( isn't true, either. So using W-L as a way of comparing individual players doesn't work.

I'm not sure why you feel that, as you eloquently put it, "[my] notion robs the sport - any area of life really - of its richness and variety." But then you bring up Barry Sanders, who might be one of the best examples to illustrate my point: if Sanders were 100% responsible for his team's performance, then he's to blame for the Lions' failure to win a Super Bowl with him carrying the ball. To me, that demeans his performance far more than the mere suggestion that while he was a superlative player who made the team much better, he wasn't completely responsible for any success his team had.

Furthermore, I'd say that the idea that one player can single-handedly determine the outcome of a game demeans the nature of the game itself. After all, that suggests that there are 21 other players who are completely irrelevant -- which, as we all know, is not the case. Why is it a good thing to suggest that those contributions (or mistakes) should be ignored?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that an individual can't make extremely crucial and unique contributions. They can. But W-L record simply isn't an appropriate way to measure those contributions.

if one accepts your strawman case....sure. the fact is...there are moments in sport in which we all know that a team cannot win without the singular performance of an individual. there's even a phrase that recognizes this: "he carried the team". it happens in basketball all the time. it has happened in football. your notion is too literal and...as noted...robs sport of its richness and variety. we don't need to go to the baricades over this - different perspectives on what has happened in sport ver the decades.

not so sure about your W-L argument either. there are periods where one can very clearly point to the fact that a single player makes the difference - especially when that player is injured and does not play. yes...the idea changes somewhat in the context of team sports...but the result is fundamentally the same: remove that key player and the team loses. restore him to the line-up and the team wins. that the chemistry may be different from sport to sport that leads to this result doesn't alter the observable truth - that player is the difference between winning and losing.

[Wrenkels]

Yeah, TC played well, but people keep pointing out that he came in after 10 YEARS ON THE BENCH AND WON 4 STRAIGHT GAMES...OMG...IT'S THE MESSIAH!!!

NO.

All 10 years that he was sitting on the bench he was studying the Al Saunders offensive playbook. If he wasn't able to step in and do what he did after 10 years in the same system I would've thought there was something wrong with him. You better believe that if in the second half of his season JC was performing at about the same clip as TC was in his five games, that after 10 years in the same system JC would be x100 better than TC. He didn't play great, he did what he knew and as soon as someone got some film on him he stank (Seattle playoff game).

Is it me or did anyone else notice how the play calling from Al sanders changed after TC came in? Is it that TC didn't have an arm like JC? Or is that Al felt more confortable knowing that TC understood his 700 page play book. Last chance for TC to show what he can do coming up to a contract year.

Good back up for the 5 games he played thats all.

[eljeasel]

Todd Collins played well, really well. Ran the Saunder's offense well, didnt force throws, used the running backs out of the backfield well, and displayed an uncanny ability to not throw regular season INTs.

But you cant say he was soley responsible for the way the defense played, how the running game worked, etc. Did he contribute? Sure, but I cant really say how much. Our yardage and points per game did not skyrocket as some people claim although they did improve.

Todd Collins was pretty efficient and that might be his greatest influence on the game. Although he fumbled as much as Jason did (about once a game), he didnt have the interceptions. He wasnt going to force some of the throws that Jason Campbell had tried to make. And maybe thats all we needed to win was one less turnover a game. We lost six games by one score. If Jason throws a ball out of bounds, or slides, or just takes the sack and protects the ball those games could be Ws. Not to say it was soley his fault for losing, obviously theres a story for each game but my point is still, if Jason just makes one better choice a game we are could be a 9-7 team? a 12-4 team? Maybe, maybe not

So why did Todd Collins make those better decisions? Maybe, its just him being smarter. Ive heard some players comment on how hes just a very smart guy and that could translate to the games. Maybe its just a factor of him being a 13 year vet. Keep in mind that he had been in the Saunders offense for about twice as long (2001-2008) as Campbell had been in the league (2005-08).

Whatever it is, I personally am very happy to have a vet like Collins who can step in and play efficiently. Would love to see that rub off on Campbell.

[bobzmuda]

Todd Collins was pretty efficient and that might be his greatest influence on the game. Although he fumbled as much as Jason did (about once a game), he didnt have the interceptions.

Just wanted to point out that even a stat like INT's isn't completely clear on its face. It is faulty to presume that an interception results solely from a bad decision/bad throw. I think the INT stat is a good indicator, but comparing one INT number of one player to another INT number of another player isn't necessarily conclusive to a relative comparison of the two players.

Not every INT is a result of a bad decision/bad throw, and not every pass that is a bad decision/bad throw that should be picked off is picked off. I've rewatched this past year's game's again and Campbell did make some bad decisions/bad throws. But there were some INTs that were more bad luck than anything (e.g. blocker failing to cut a DL on a screen that manages to get good air and tip a screen pass for an int, ball bouncing off the hand of Moss into a joint possession situation by ARE and a CB with the official incorrectly ruling an INT, etc.). Also, Collins caught a couple of breaks on passes that should have been intercepted that weren't (e.g. quick hitch against Giants that CB had sniffed out and Moss fell down that was probably a pick-6), and made his bad decisions/bad throws at the worst time (trying to comeback in the playoffs).

I guess it depends on who's doing the rating to say if TC's performance is overrated. TC played pretty well last year, and so did Campbell. It's clear to me the Skins have two quality QBs.

[Oldfan]

eljeasel: Todd Collins played well, really well. Ran the Saunder's offense well, didnt force throws, used the running backs out of the backfield well, and displayed an uncanny ability to not throw regular season INTs.

I don't think that this controversy about how well Todd played is really about Todd Collins at all. It's about Jason Campbell. Those who are very high on Jason's abilities want to downplay Todd's performance because it made Jason look bad by comparison.

[eljeasel]

I don't think that this controversy about how well Todd played is really about Todd Collins at all. It's about Jason Campbell. Those who are very high on Jason's abilities want to downplay Todd's performance because it made Jason look bad by comparison.

I think you have just identified a phenomenon. Quarterback Envy.

[JimmyConway]

Not really. He played well but IMO it was mainly due to the system he was running. He was extremely familiar with it and probably runs it better than any other QB in the leauge other than the ancient Trent Green (we'll see what happens with Bulger). TC is good but he wouldn't have looked as good in another system such as the WCO. I'm glad he's our back-up though.

[elkabong82]

I don't think that this controversy about how well Todd played is really about Todd Collins at all. It's about Jason Campbell. Those who are very high on Jason's abilities want to downplay Todd's performance because it made Jason look bad by comparison.

I could say the vice versa of that rings true, and was probably the motivation for this thread. Although unlike in that scenario, here nobody is really dragging TC through the mud like some do with JC.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I could say the vice versa of that rings true, and was probably the motivation for this thread. Although unlike in that scenario, here nobody is really dragging TC through the mud like some do with JC.

I agree, because this:

I don't think that this controversy about how well Todd played is really about Todd Collins at all. It's about Jason Campbell. Those who are very low on Jason's abilities want to exaggerate Todd's performance because it makes Jason look bad by comparison.

...rings just as true in my eyes.

[Morneblade]

Collins played well and I dont think his peformance was over-rated. However I dont think you can over-look the effect that Sean Taylor had on the team when TC took over. I think the entire team picked it up a notch when he was gone, and that also had a big factor in our run down the stretch. Making this soley about JC and TC is missing what was probably the biggest difference maker in our run last year.

[Thinking Skins]

Collins played well and I dont think his peformance was over-rated. However I dont think you can over-look the effect that Sean Taylor had on the team when TC took over. I think the entire team picked it up a notch when he was gone, and that also had a big factor in our run down the stretch. Making this soley about JC and TC is missing what was probably the biggest difference maker in our run last year.

good point.

[fansince62]

Collins played well and I dont think his peformance was over-rated. However I dont think you can over-look the effect that Sean Taylor had on the team when TC took over. I think the entire team picked it up a notch when he was gone, and that also had a big factor in our run down the stretch. Making this soley about JC and TC is missing what was probably the biggest difference maker in our run last year.

agree...that and the fact that the defense set the stage in several of those games.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

agree...that and the fact that the defense set the stage in several of those games.

Definitely...and obviously Sean's murder affected the defensive unit in a profound way. They were playing balls-out until the last quarter of the Seattle game. They had just as good a run as Collins did, and definitely made it easier for the team to win.

[ucfSKINS]

Thank you for that sig TLC.

Seriously, I can't even focus when I see a TLC quote. I just stare at that magnificant ass of Jessica's and go blank for about two minutes.

Um yeah, TC. He good did.

[Oldfan]

I could say the vice versa of that rings true, and was probably the motivation for this thread. Although unlike in that scenario, here nobody is really dragging TC through the mud like some do with JC.

It seems to me that the motivation for this thread was exactly what I pointed out. It was to argue that Collins didn't play as well as most people thought. So, we shouldn't downgrade Jason by making the comparison.

As for the popular, emotional theory that Sean Taylor's death motivated the team to the playoffs. That would play better if the team had played inspired football in the Buffalo game. But since the playoff run really didn't begin until a few minutes before halftime of the Chicago game, it's not a theory that unbiased minds would readily accept.

Todd Collins was the difference maker going down the stretch. I downgraded Jason when I realized that, despite the injured O line, he had more supporting talent to work with than I had guessed.

[Morneblade]

As for the popular, emotional theory that Sean Taylor's death motivated the team to the playoffs. That would play better if the team had played inspired football in the Buffalo game. But since the playoff run really didn't begin until a few minutes before halftime of the Chicago game, it's not a theory that unbiased minds would readily accept.

Not really. People had to get over the "shock" of what had happened. Critically thinking people realize it had alot to do with the improved play of the team.

What will be interesting to see is how well Collins plays in a system that he is unfamilar with compared to the other QB's we have. He had a decided advantage over everyone in that regard last year.

[Oldfan]

Not really. People had to get over the "shock" of what had happened. Critically thinking people realize it had alot to do with the improved play of the team.

I think your theory would play better in Hollywood.

What will be interesting to see is how well Collins plays in a system that he is unfamilar with compared to the other QB's we have. He had a decided advantage over everyone in that regard last year.

If Jimmy Zorn plans lots of rollouts, as some suspect, Todd probably won't fit. On the other hand, his accuracy and timing work well in any system. And his weak arm is less of a handicap in the WCO than it was in Al's system.