Are we overrating Todd Collins's performance?

[elkabong82]

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.

So you have statistical eveidence which shows the difference between TC and JC last season wasn't large as popular opinion has held. You've been shown statistical evidence that the team, as a WHOLE, played better after Sean's passing. But instead you dismiss both to favor your own perceptions. Whatever.

The Buffalo game occurred a few days after Sean's passing. It wasn't until after that game that Sean's father talked with the team and said win for Sean.

The playoff run didn't really begin until a few minutes before halftime in Chicago? Yeah, that's unbiased. You've already been shown by Califan how "well" TC started off the Chicago game.

The difference maker down the stretch was the team as a whole. The run game provided better scoring, the D played better. All this has been shown. It's great what TC did, but like I said, the expectations of what TC could do were very low, the ones for JC were very high, and that affects perception. Perception is heavily influenced by bias, which is why statistics are used.

[Oldfan]

elkabong and others,

If you are not familiar with the Principle of Parsimony, here is a Wikipedia link explaining it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony.....

In the first 12 games of last season, the team with Jason Campbell at QB went 5-7 while scoring 28 points less than the opposition. In the final four games, with Collins at QB, the team went 4-0 while putting up 52 points more than the opposition. What is the most likely explanation for this dramatic turnaround that sent the team into the playoffs?

Theory A is that Todd Collins was primarily responsible for it since the turnaround on the scoreboard began with his entry in the game.

Theory B is a collection of causes. Some propose that, after six-periods of dull football, the death of Sean Taylor woke up the team. Others say it was the defense, the O line, the RBs, or better play by the WRs while not denying that Todd's play was a factor.

Which explanation, A or B is more likely to be true? If we apply the principle of parsimony, theory A is the more likely because it is simple. It requires fewer assumptions.

[Morneblade]

I think your theory would play better in Hollywood.

It would play well in Hollywood, but it's also a fact that a tragic death tends to make people pull together. And while you cant quanity it with stats, you also cant say it doesnt happen either. If you've even been in a situation remotely similar to that you can relate.

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.

Once again, missing the point. Instead of having several years in a system in which everyone else is in the process of learning, he'll be in exactly the same boat. Learning a new system. Which he wasnt trying to do last year. That rather large advantage he had is now gone.

[Thinking Skins]

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.

This is not quite true. Campbell was doing pretty well that game too. And the Collins TD was right after a Springs int (as had already been pointed out). And we got the ball at the 21 yard line. You want to tell me that the defense play a signifant role in that score?

And it has already been noted that players were crying all through the Buffalo game - you'd think that just might effect their performance. Maybe a little?

[Oldfan]

It would play well in Hollywood, but it's also a fact that a tragic death tends to make people pull together. And while you cant quanity it with stats, you also cant say it doesnt happen either. If you've even been in a situation remotely similar to that you can relate.

Your theory registers zero probability for me.

Once again, missing the point. Instead of having several years in a system in which everyone else is in the process of learning, he'll be in exactly the same boat. Learning a new system. Which he wasnt trying to do last year. That rather large advantage he had is now gone.

They called Collins "Rainman" in K.C. because he learned Al's playbook over a weekend. They're football plays, Blade.

The difficulty in Al's scheme was in the execution, making the read and throwing to the spot with timing and accuracy before the receiver made his break.

The WCO is built on the same idea. Jason still has to show he can do that. I think he needs to improve significantly.

[djbubba4life]

No. But were deffinatly overreacting by saying hes going to do just as well in a new system. The only reason he had success was because he had breathed and slept that Al Saunders offense. it took him 4 years just to have that kind of performance. Its not going to be the same.

[Oldfan]

This is not quite true. Campbell was doing pretty well that game too. And the Collins TD was right after a Springs int (as had already been pointed out). And we got the ball at the 21 yard line. You want to tell me that the defense play a signifant role in that score?

You need to explain 4-0 with = +52 net points, not just one short field opportunity.

And it has already been noted that players were crying all through the Buffalo game - you'd think that just might effect their performance. Maybe a little?

I didn't see anybody crying. They were supposed to be jacked up.

They lost to Buffalo because they ran the ball on first down 14 times and Portis made one yard or less on 10 of those downs. Then there was the two timeout gaffe.

[bobzmuda]

You need to explain 4-0 with = +52 net points, not just one short field opportunity.

Why do you think net points is a good indicator of QB play when he directly impacts less than quarter of that equation?

[Thinking Skins]

You need to explain 4-0 with = +52 net points, not just one short field opportunity.

I didn't see anybody crying. They were supposed to be jacked up.

They lost to Buffalo because they ran the ball on first down 14 times and Portis made one yard or less on 10 of those downs. Then there was the two timeout gaffe.

So I guess it was Todd Collins who was inspiring the defense to stop Adrian Peterson and Marion Barber? I guess he inspired Smoot and Springs to get all those interceptions in the last few games. Yeah, all the credit goes to Todd Collins. How could I not see the influence a QB has on the performance of the defense. :doh:

[Morneblade]

Your theory registers zero probability for me.

Obviously you've never been there then. But then if it did register highly for you, I'd have to reconsider it.

They called Collins "Rainman" in K.C. because he learned Al's playbook over a weekend. They're football plays, Blade.

Yes, they are plays. And when you have 700 to learn, you might not be 100% positive in what your doing. Kinda how things went in OTA's for our players this year. It's mechanical, they are not sure of what they are doing, and therefore are "reduced " to thinking about. And when they were "thinking", they were not "executing".

The difficulty in Al's scheme was in the execution, making the read and throwing to the spot with timing and accuracy before the receiver made his break.

The WCO is built on the same idea. Jason still has to show he can do that. I think he needs to improve significantly.

That was part of the problem, but not the only one, the volume was another large part of the problem. As for playing in a WCO, Campbell was pretty accurate in that offense.

[Hooper]

I love JC and think he's going to be our guy for a long time, but you can't overrate how good Collins was last year. No qb played better than him the last month of the season. Knowing the system only goes so far. Todd was poised, tough, and ridiculously accurate. We should all be thrilled he is still on our team.

[Spitfire71]

I think that Todd Collins should get credit for what he did last year. But, you can't forget that there are ten other guys playing on his unit, as well as another eleven on another unit that doesn't depend on his performance at all.

Numbers crunching is irritating, so I'll give it to you guys straight.

You can really only expect so much from a guy's first year as a starter. Not everyone is going to be a Brady or a Roethlisberger and just kick everybody's ass the first full year out, even if they do have a good team around them (what the hell has been Leinart's excuse? He actually got benched for 36-year-old Kurt Warner.)

It's even harder to execute when your main receiver is either hurt or underperforming the first half of the season, you've got a coach that's so scared of making a mistake that he won't allow you to throw the ball deep (and JC has a big arm, BTW) every so often and just folds up the tent and tries to run the clock out with a 7-point lead, your OL's a mess because you're missing two starters and the coaching staff is trying to figure out how the hell they're going to fill the holes...

And your defense is giving up significantly more points because of missing several key players due to injuries - namely, Carlos Rogers, the rapidly improving Rocky McIntosh, and, of course, Sean Taylor (who was out for two weeks with an injury before he was tragically murdered).

You have to face it - a lot of these young quarterbacks who do well their first full year starting do so because the team is already prepared around them. Derek Anderson's stats might have looked a lot different if Braylon Edwards wasn't decided to flick on his BEAST MODE switch for the entire season. Big Ben had defense, good receivers, and a great running game working for him.

Far from having the best situation made for him when JC became the starting quarterback, it seems like the deck has been constantly stacked against him. Two of our starting 5 linemen got hurt out of the gate, which hurt our run and pass blocking. Then Santana gets off to a slow start, gets hurt. The only guy on our squad that produced as well as he could have under the conditions was ARE, who finished with 50 catches and 700+ yards. If Santana'd been somewhere closer to '05 form (when he was getting no help at all) on top of those numbers...watch out.

Gibbs showed no confidence in Campbell whatsoever because of Campbell's youth. The system had been treating him with kid gloves from day one and I daresay that the fact that we made the playoffs in '05 was a greater detriment to the long-term health of our franchise than anything else. If we had been eliminated from contention, there was a very good chance that Campbell would have come in at that point and been given a few chances to run an offense in a situation where he wouldn't be blamed for running the team into the ground if they happened to lose.

Then, move to '06. Mark Brunell was clearly underperforming and should have been benched long before we were eliminated. We should have already known we weren't going to make the playoffs halfway through because of the team's horrendous showing on defense, which had nothing at all to do with Campbell.

'07 was the reason I'm glad Gibbs is gone. Gibbs liked veterans and veterans did well around him, but he wasn't a good coach for young players - especially a young quarterback. I understand that Gibbs wanted to win right away, as a guy his age just doesn't know how long he'll be able to do it anymore. But I think that, at many points, he coached the game with the aim to avoid losing, and taught the team's quarterback to manage the same way. It looked at times like Campbell was afraid to let go of the ball for fear that something bad would happen. You just can't have that in a quarterback.

Now, we move on to '08. All that said, I expect JC to keep improving. Most WCO offenses traditionally favor slightly smaller quarterbacks. Keep in mind, though, that Hasselbeck isn't exactly a tiny guy - he stands 6'4" and weighs 225. Campbell's only a little bit bigger and I think he'll surprise a lot of people. He's had to prove since college that he's intelligent enough to pick up an offense. I think the only real question is whether or not he has the physical tools to execute it. That's what we need to find out before we either anoint or hang the guy - and we need to find it out in a season where the entire team isn't crumbling down around his ears.

[AAARedskin]

One thing is for sure: this season, we're all gonna find out if Jason Campbell is truly the real deal. You cannot avoid the fact that Todd Collins' performance last year really showed up Jason Campbell. This season, if Jason is average or below average, it opens the door for someone else to try being the starting QB and make the Skins a winner. If he does well, the Skins will have a great season and all the doubts about his ability to lead the team will be put to rest.

[Area51]

Are we overrating Todd Collin's performance? Hell no! The guy was so good that he even got Brandon Lloyd to catch his only TD pass as a Skin!

[Oldfan]

Bobzmuda: Why do you think net points is a good indicator of QB play when he directly impacts less than quarter of that equation?

Jason: 5-7 with -28 net points

Todd: 4-0 with +52 net points in the run to the playoff

There was a 10.67 points per game improvement. What was the most likely primary cause? We are looking for the major difference maker.

Your estimate that the QB directly impacts "less than a quarter" of the equation is about right in my judgment. Let's call it 20%.

I gave Todd an A and lowered Jason's grade from a C to a D after seeing what Todd did with the same supporting cast. So, Todd's 20% contribution at an A level was worth significantly more than Jason's 20% contribution at a D level.

This is a simple explanation, more likely to be true than the collection of other factors offered that would would have had to have happened coincidentally. Again, we are trying to find the major difference maker.

The mere fact that my opposition has offered a dozen other explanations should be considered evidence that there isn't another truly competitive theory.

[Oldfan]

That was part of the problem, but not the only one, the volume was another large part of the problem. As for playing in a WCO, Campbell was pretty accurate in that offense.

Volume was never a problem for Jason Campbell because they never gave him more than he could handle. His problem was consistency in execution. In fact, both he and Al thought he could handle more. Joe kept him reined in.

I didn't trust that 70% completion rate as evidence of accuracy and I don't trust his WCO college experience as evidence that he can handle the pro version.

From what I've read about it, the WCO doesn't sound like a good fit for Jason, but who really knows?

[fansince62]

One thing is for sure: this season, we're all gonna find out if Jason Campbell is truly the real deal. You cannot avoid the fact that Todd Collins' performance last year really showed up Jason Campbell. This season, if Jason is average or below average, it opens the door for someone else to try being the starting QB and make the Skins a winner. If he does well, the Skins will have a great season and all the doubts about his ability to lead the team will be put to rest.

again.....TC was also exposed as a MAJOR liability against even a modicum of pressure. everything had to be perfect for him to succeed. that is what the 5 game theorists/scientists are unwilling to include in their statistical historical reconstructionism.

[eljeasel]

Jason: 5-7 with -28 net points

Todd: 4-0 with +52 net points in the run to the playoff

There was a 10.67 points per game improvement. What was the most likely primary cause? We are looking for the major difference maker.

Jason Campbell avg Passing Yards per Game (excluding chicago game): 217

Average Points scored per game with Jason Campbell starting (excluding chicago game): 19

Jason Campbell Average Passing Touchdowns per game(excluding the chicago game): 1

Average Rushing TDs per game with Jason as the starter:0.75

Average Points given up while Jason is the starter: 21

Average Fumbles per game: 1 (.6 lost)

Todd Collins Average Yards passing per game (this includes the Chicago game cause he actually played great in that game):231

Average Points per game with Todd Collins at the helm: 24

TC Average Passing TDs per game: 1.4

Average Rushing TDs per game with TC at the helm: 1.2

Average points given up while TC is at the helm: 17.6

TC average Fumbles per game: 1 (.4 lost)

Im not a stat guy and Im not sure stats can actually prove anything. And I dont really think there is one explanation for a 4-0 reason and I certainly dont think its 100% Todd Collins.

With Collins starting, theres an increase in passing yardage. 14 yards per game. Was that the key difference?

+5 points per game increase. Thats pretty signficant. We lost 6 games by about that much.

.4 touchdowns per game increase from the passing game. Not sure how to statistically interpret .4 touchdowns per game but it clearly increased when Collins was in. He threw the passes, gotta be at least partly caused by him

.45 increase in TDs from the running game. Again, not sure what that means. Is this Collins's effect on the running game? maybe. Could also be less fumbles in the running game.

3.4 less points given up. Defense was playing hard during that stretch. Not sure that was the Collin's effect or if they were just balling. I tend to think their improved performace was independent of Todd Collins.

Fumbles are the same, but Collins lost slightly less.

My take: Effeciency. Zero interceptions. As someone pointed out, there were some passes that maybe should have been picked off but hey, happens to everyone right? His knowledge of the playbook and better decisions on when to not force a throw probably helped him out there. Clearly he had good run, but its really not like he carried the team.

[Oldfan]

again.....TC was also exposed as a MAJOR liability against even a modicum of pressure. everything had to be perfect for him to succeed. that is what the 5 game theorists/scientists are unwilling to include in their statistical historical reconstructionism.

I think you exaggerate, but your basic point is valid. I'm willing to grant that Todd needs to be protected. I've said so a few times, here, and in other threads.

I have compared him to Chad Pennington. He's a smart, accurate, weak-armed pocket passer, period. He can't scramble worth a damn. He's not going to create anything on his own.

I can admit that because I'm not arguing that he's our franchise QB or even that he should be starting. I'm engaging in debate those who contend that Jason Campbell wasn't seriously outplayed by Todd Collins last season.

Todd made Jason look bad by comparison. That's my position.

[Thinking Skins]

I think you exaggerate, but your basic point is valid. I'm willing to grant that Todd needs to be protected. I've said so a few times, here, and in other threads.

I have compared him to Chad Pennington. He's a smart, accurate, weak-armed pocket passer, period. He can't scramble worth a damn. He's not going to create anything on his own.

I can admit that because I'm not arguing that he's our franchise QB or even that he should be starting. I'm engaging in debate those who contend that Jason Campbell wasn't seriously outplayed by Todd Collins last season.

Todd made Jason look bad by comparison. That's my position.

This is where we disagree. I started this thread, not because I didn't think Collins performed 'better' than Campbell, but because I thought that Collins's performance had been overrated by many members here at Extremeskins. People like you say that Collins made Campbell look bad by comparison, and I just don't see that.

What we saw in the weeks before Campbell's injury are that Campbell was moving the ball a lot better, was getting much higher ratings (than when he first started off), his completion percentage was getting higher, he was moving the offense, and this offense was going through him.

Then he gets hurt and Collins comes in and plays beautifully. The question is how much better than Campbell did Collins play? I tend to think that the difference wasn't that great. In particular, I'm curious of what Collins did that Campbell couldn't do? What Campbell was having problems with is his late game heroics. We were in every game in that 4 game losing streak, and had chances to win them all late. The problem came with Campbell fumbling late in the Philly game, throwing late game pics in the Dallas and Tampa games and with Gibbs's double time outs in the Buffalo game.

But lets not act like Collins was put in those same situations. Actually he was against Seattle, and he threw pics too. So you can't say that Collins performed so much better than Campbell in those situations.

[Thinking Skins]

Also look at these stats:

Campbell against Eagles: 3 TDs, No pics (one fumble though on the last drive though)

The score going into the last drive was 26-25 Philly, so Campbell was doing a game winning drive when he fumbled the ball.

Campbell against Dallas: 2 TDs, No pics before the last drive (one early fumble though)

The score going into the last drive was 28-23 Dallas, so Campbell was doing a game winning drive when he threw that pic.

Campbell against TB: 1 TD, No pics before the last two drives (one early fumble though)

The score going into the last two drives was 19-16 TB, so Campbell was doing a game winning drive when he threw those two pics.

Campbell against Buff threw a pic at the end of the 3rd.

Compare that to Collins who had to do no game winning drives in his first 4 games, and threw 2 pics on his game winning drives in the Seattle game. So he played pretty similar to the way Campbell played against TB.

So, if we were to look at these games minus the last drive heroics, we see that JC has 6 TDs, 1 INT in his 5 games, giving him a rating of 88.1. DOing the same for TC, he has 7 TDs 0 INTs in his five games, giving him a rating of 99.8.

Does Campbell still look like a young QB who was just leading this team down a bad road? Does Collins still look like the guy who was doing what no other QB could do in Saunders offense? Nah, they look pretty similar.

Compare that to the defense giving up 17.6 points with Collins in there against 23.4 points with Campbell in there (in his last 5 games), and that could easily lead to more wins. Remember, with Campbell we were averaging 19.3 points per game, so that beats out 17.6 too. But the 23.8 points that we were getting with Collins is about dead even with the 23.4 points we were giving up with Campbell. So we don't know that Collins would have won those games.

[Oldfan]

eljeasel: Im not a stat guy and Im not sure stats can actually prove anything. And I dont really think there is one explanation for a 4-0 reason and I certainly dont think its 100% Todd Collins.

If you want to debate my position, then debate it. Where did I say that Todd Collins was 100% responsible for the improvement over the final four games? Quote me.

I said that Collins was the major difference maker -- and obviously there can be only one of those.

The net points stat is trusted as the best means of grading teams. It is superior to wins and losses because of the larger sample size. Breaking net points down as you did into avg points scored and given up per game serves no purpose because offensive, defensive, and special teams performances can affect both stats.

+5 points per game increase. Thats pretty signficant. We lost 6 games by about that much.

+10.67 net points per game is the difference, and, in this group, we have no way of statistically breaking that down to gauge the impact of offense, defense, or special teams. I used the stat to show the marked improvement that requires an explanation.

[Thinking Skins]

oldfan, I'm gonna show you how useless the net point differential is. In the Seattle game, we lost by 3 touchdowns. THat gives us a point differential of -21 points. So a naysayer would say it was just a blowout and so lets just keep moving. But anybody who watched that game would know thats not the case. It was a close game well into the fourth quarter when we were down by 7 and until Collins threw two pics that were returned for touchdowns. So that final stat is skewed by those late game heroics.

And as others have been saying, where does it take into account the conservative play calling? or the playing not to lose the lead - until we lose the lead, forcing Campbell into late game heroics and close game situations.

[Oldfan]

Thinking Skins: So, if we were to look at these games minus the last drive heroics, we see that JC has 6 TDs, 1 INT in his 5 games against TC having 7 TDs 0 INTs in his five games.

That's an interesting way to cherry-pick your stats, but Collins needed last-drive heroics in only one of the five games. That matters too.

I'll concede, though, that Jason seemed to be coming on against Philly and Dallas, that was encouraging, but he couldn't keep it up.

[LoudMouth12thMan]

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.

Ding ding ding!!!! We have a winner folks. That's what I'm saying. I see the potential (yes POTENTIAL) that Campbell has. But I question whether he can get it done in the fourth with the game on the line. Stats smats, who cares about stats really. It all comes down to that defining moment, whether you're a fan, a coach, or a teammate, where you know that said qb can march a team down the field and win it in the final minutes of the fourth.

Campbell has never defined himself as a winning quarterback. Zorn is here to change that. I think that 95% of the reason that he was hired is b/c this organization sees the potential for Campbell to be pretty special if not great. What better coach than Zorn to teach a quarterback? I see IT in Campbell. Remember the "IT" that OM talked about last year. Campbell has IT, but he needs that defining moment this year where he leads this team back in the fourth quarter of a big game. I believe it will happen, and when it does, he'll do it again. If it doesn't happen for him, then we can pretty much expect him to be what he's been the last year and a half. He needs that moment to give him confidence that he can put the team on his shoulders and come out with a "W". Look at E Manning, Romo sits to pee, Rivers, and even Vince Young. They've all proven that they can get it done with the game on the line. In order for Campbell to be lumped in with his peers as a reliable 4th quarter qb, he's gotta go out and get it done. :2cents:

HTTR