Are we overrating Todd Collins's performance?

[Oldfan]

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.

You aren't going to show anything important about statistics by using a one game sample.

The net points stat has a five-year study (.92 correlation to winning) backing it up.

[eljeasel]

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.

I didnt say you said it was 100% Collins. I thought I even quoted a sentence where you said he was the major difference maker. I am asserting that he is part of the difference but not the major difference maker.

If not, my bad.

[Oldfan]

I didnt say you said it was 100% Collins. I thought I even quoted a sentence where you said he was the major difference maker. I am asserting that he is part of the difference but not the major difference maker.

If not, my bad.

Just a misunderstanding. No problem.

[eljeasel]

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.

Is net points the best way of rating Todd Collins's performace?

Can offensive, defensive, and special teams play not affect net points?

[eljeasel]

+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.

Im not sure why you cant break down the individual causes (like passing, running, defense, turnover) to try to explain the difference. If you dont think you cant try to do that, then thats your perogative. But the marked performace you think requires an explanation is exactly what my post, and other people's post are saying.

Better running game + better defense + less Ints = marked difference

[Oldfan]

Is net points the best way of rating Todd Collins's performace?

Can offensive, defensive, and special teams play not affect net points?

In #197, I wrote that offensive, defensive, and special teams play affected net points. It's a team stat. I said that when I first mentioned the stat.

I used the stat to quantify the improvement, not to rate QB play. I have given reasons that the improvement seems most likely due to the difference in QB play.

[Morneblade]

In #197, I wrote that offensive, defensive, and special teams play affected net points. It's a team stat. I said that when I first mentioned the stat.

I used the stat to quantify the improvement, not to rate QB play. I have given reasons that the improvement seems most likely due to the difference in QB play.

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.

I'd say that Collins was a part of the puzzle on why the skins played better. It was a team effort and Collins was not the major factor.

[Jay Master Jay]

That's what a back up does he isnt a started and wouldnt start if he left the Redskins.

[Oldfan]

Im not sure why you cant break down the individual causes (like passing, running, defense, turnover) to try to explain the difference. If you dont think you cant try to do that, then thats your perogative. But the marked performace you think requires an explanation is exactly what my post, and other people's post are saying.

Better running game + better defense + less Ints = marked difference

It is less likely that four or five things just happened to improve at the same time to primarily cause the improvement than it is that the important QB position was upgraded significantly when Todd replaced Jason.

All theories are about what is most likely true.

[eljeasel]

I used the stat to quantify the improvement, not to rate QB play. I have given reasons that the improvement seems most likely due to the difference in QB play.

If its not rating QB play, Im not sure how its supports rating Collins performance as an A.

Sorry to ask you to repeat yourself OF, but I dont remember reading your reasoning as to why Collins is ranked so high besides the wins and the point differential. Is there anything else. Just tell me which post number it is and Ill read it myself, no need to repost. Thanks dude.

[Morneblade]

It is less likely that four or five things just happened to improve at the same time to primarily cause the improvement than it is that the important QB position was upgraded significantly when Todd replaced Jason.

All theories are about what is most likely true.

However something like a tragic death of a player would affect the entire team, while a QB change would at best affect only the offense.

[Oldfan]

If its not rating QB play, Im not sure how its supports rating Collins performance as an A.

Sorry to ask you to repeat yourself OF, but I dont remember reading your reasoning as to why Collins is ranked so high besides the wins and the point differential. Is there anything else. Just tell me which post number it is and Ill read it myself, no need to repost. Thanks dude.

The grades are my own subjective judgments for the QBs based on what I saw, however there is a relationship to the stats. For example, I had Jason graded C before his injury. If I had graded him much higher or lower, I would have had to see something extraordinary about his performance to contradict the 5-7 record and -28 net points over a 12 game span. Those results beg for a team grade of C minus (- 2.33 points per game).

In a nutshell, I had Jason graded a little higher than the team grade before the injury, then I dropped him a grade after seeing Todd run the offense.

I thought Todd's game against the Giants, given their pass rush and the wind conditions, was his best performance; but statistically, that game drags down the individual stats over a small sample.

[eljeasel]

The grades are my own subjective judgments for the QBs based on what I saw, however there is a relationship to the stats. For example, I had Jason graded C before his injury. If I had graded him much higher or lower, I would have had to see something extraordinary about his performance to contradict the 5-7 record and -28 net points over a 12 game span. Those results beg for a team grade of C minus (- 2.33 points per game).

In a nutshell, I had Jason graded a little higher than the team grade before the injury, then I dropped him a grade after seeing Todd run the offense.

I thought Todd's game against the Giants, given their pass rush and the wind conditions, was his best performance; but statistically, that game drags down the individual stats over a small sample.

I think I agree with the grade for Campbell. Some really good things, some bad. Didnt come through with the big comeback win, etc etc. C is probably right, maybe you go higher or lower but thats whatever.

But why is Collins an A. Your subjective judgement, I get that, but what goes into that. Net points? Accuracy? Turnovers? Records? Yardage? Points?

[Oldfan]

However something like a tragic death of a player would affect the entire team, while a QB change would at best affect only the offense.

The QB change can affect offensive and defensive stats.

As for Sean's death and its impact on the playoff run, there are three implied premises in your argument. You can't support any of them.

P1) Players inspired by the death of a teammate play better than they would normally.

P2) The team wasn't giving its best effort before Sean's death.

P3) The six-quarter delay before the inspiration kicked in is normal.

My own experience in amateur athletics was that trying harder to win worked against me. When I went out not giving a damn about winning or losing, but still giving 100%, I played much better. I wouldn't mention this except that I've read pro athletes saying the same thing. Trying harder adds tension which tightens muscles and slows reaction times.

I think you could make a more convincing argument that Sean's death was a factor in losing the Buffalo game. They guys just wanted it too much.

[Thinking Skins]

But the players themselves admitted to these things, saying things like "we're gonna win these games for Sean". In the Buffalo game however, there were several instances where the players (Fred Smoot in particular) were crying in the game. Others said that they found it hard to concentrate on the game because they kept thinking of Taylor. How you can just dismiss the influence of this on the performance of the defense, and just do some handwaving to say that the QB affected the defensive stats somehow is very surprising, even for you.

[eljeasel]

The QB change can affect offensive and defensive stats.

As for Sean's death and its impact on the playoff run, there are three implied premises in your argument. You can't support any of them.

P1) Players inspired by the death of a teammate play better than they would normally.

P2) The team wasn't giving its best effort before Sean's death.

P3) The six-quarter delay before the inspiration kicked in is normal.

My own experience in amateur athletics was that trying harder to win worked against me. When I went out not giving a damn about winning or losing, but still giving 100%, I played much better. I wouldn't mention this except that I've read pro athletes saying the same thing. Trying harder adds tension which tightens muscles and slows reaction times.

I think you could make a more convincing argument that Sean's death was a factor in losing the Buffalo game. They guys just wanted it too much.

6 quarter delay? Did the funeral and speech from Sean's father have no effect at all?

[Thinking Skins]

You aren't going to show anything important about statistics by using a one game sample.

The net points stat has a five-year study (.92 correlation to winning) backing it up.

Yeah I can. What you're trying to do is use another stat beyond its means. That one game shows ont limitation of the statistic. Hence, you're using the stat to lie (although the result you're trying to prove may in itself be true, this stat doesn't show that). All you can say is that the point differential was different.

I put this in the same category as the W-L record deciding how good a QB is. And like i said earlier (and I don't think anybody has refuted it), but going solely by W-L record implies that Rex Grossman was a better first year QB than Peyton Manning because in Grossman's first season as a starter he went 13-3 and Manning went 3-13.

These are all statistics, and they all have their limitations. I'm trying to take several things into account to compare the performances of Collins and Campbell, but it seems that you just want to simplify it to only those stats taht support your grades of Collins getting an A and Campbell getting a D. I just don't like that.

[Oldfan]

But why is Collins an A. Your subjective judgement, I get that, but what goes into that. Net points? Accuracy? Turnovers? Records? Yardage? Points?

I thought his accuracy and timing was phenomenal. Todd reminded me of Pennington.

The other big thing was the use of the RBs as receivers. The offense looked like Al's Kansas City offense. This is something that Jason might have learned in time, we'll never know now.

[Thinking Skins]

I thought his accuracy and timing was phenomenal. Todd reminded me of Pennington.

The other big thing was the use of the RBs as receivers. The offense looked like Al's Kansas City offense. This is something that Jason might have learned in time, we'll never know now.

Quick note: Pennington is riding the pine right now too.

[Oldfan]

6 quarter delay? Did the funeral and speech from Sean's father have no effect at all?

Did it get people jacked up? Sure.

Does getting jacked up help or hurt the effort on the field?

If it was a positive thing effort-wise, why did they play dully for six quarters after attending Sean's funeral?

[eljeasel]

Did it get people jacked up? Sure.

Does getting jacked up help or hurt the effort on the field?

If it was a positive thing effort-wise, why did they play dully for six quarters after attending Sean's funeral?

Maybe Im wrong here. Didnt they play the Buffalo game before they buried Sean. Then came the funeral and such. Then the Saturday night Chicago game.

So they played the Buffalo game in a super emotional state but didnt win. Then they laid their teammate to rest and began to lay to rest some of those emotions. Sean's dad give the "win for Sean" talk, and believe it or not, we were playing ok when Jason was in for the first 2 quarters or so, just hadnt got on the board yet.

[Oldfan]

Quick note: Pennington is riding the pine right now too.

Right now, Chad is still the best QB on the Jets' roster. let's hope that Todd isn't the best on ours.

[Oldfan]

Maybe Im wrong here. Didnt they play the Buffalo game before they buried Sean. Then came the funeral and such. Then the Saturday night Chicago game.

No, you were right. It was six quarters after Sean's death. I had forgotten that the funeral came after the Buffalo game.

It's not just this instance, though. When I hear these emotional, psychological explanations for how a football team performs -- and vague stuff like leadership and character -- I react with a blank stare. I think it 99% crap.

Football games are usually won by the best overall team in talent and coaching. Although, luck is a huge factor in a single game or a 16 game season.

[fansince62]

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.

I'm not sure on that Old. JC was an inch away from being 6-2 through the first half of the season. He had zero to do with the hose ups in the GB game. sanatana lost that game all by his lonesome.

6-2 would have been outstanding in my book.

[fansince62]

No, you were right. It was six quarters after Sean's death. I had forgotten that the funeral came after the Buffalo game.

It's not just this instance, though. When I hear these emotional, psychological explanations for how a football team performs -- and vague stuff like leadership and character -- I react with a blank stare. I think it 99% crap.

Football games are usually won by the best overall team in talent and coaching. Although, luck is a huge factor in a single game or a 16 game season.

cmon now...there is a reason there are expressions such as "we lost because we were flat today"....emotion has everything to do in football...especially when the talent level is evenly spread.

also, if I recall correctly, a major issue with those games was the time to prepare.