Early career stats of some HOF QBs -- JC related

[gortiz]

Stop it. Serisouly. Just stop it. It's all bull**** excuses.

Don't try to sell to us that going through training camp, preseason, an entire season worth of video and practice and riding on the bench is worthless. It seemed that it was very useful to Romo sits to pee to do that. So don't act like his rookie year doesn't count.

This is fourth year. Eli was behind Warner his rookie year, and he won the division in his second year (which you apparently would call his rookie year). Eli won the Super Bowl in his fourth year (which you apparently would call his third).

QUIT MAKING EXCUSES. It's put up time.

You got a point Snyder, but your examples are horrible.

Romo sits to pee sat for I think it was 4 plus years right. It was at least 3. There is big difference. Plus, like I said before, Romo sits to pee's first year was not all that, it wasn't worth a pro bowl. JC's rookie year, barely counted.

Eli was behind KW his rookie year, but he came in about halfway through the season and got a headstart. His second year was ANYTHING BUT HIS ROOKIE YEAR. Also, you ask a freaking Giant fan what they think of Eli. Their defensive line took them to the Super Bowl not Eli.

IT'S NOT PUT UP TIME. You got to cut that out and settle down.

[Oldfan]

bobzmuda: Well that doesn't make much sense. You're assigning a TD a point value of 6, which makes sense as it's a pretty safe assumption the QB had something to do with that TD.

Since the extra point is nearly automatic, I assigned a value of seven to a TD.

But why would you assign negative points to an INT when the QB isn't even on the field when the other offense scores (unless it's a pick 6)? What if that QB has a better defense so he's been instructed to be more aggressive and an INT doesn't hurt his team as much? What if that QB has a worse defense so he's been instructed to be more conservative and an INT hurts his team more.

I assigned four points to the INT because that is approximately the AVERAGE value of all turnovers -- fumbles and interceptions.

Assigning some average negative value to an INT seems to pre-suppose that all INTs are created equally - whether a hail mary to end the half or pick 6 thrown from your own endzone.

No an average does not pre-suppose that all values are equal. It's an average of all values.

I

f you wanted to get a truer gauge of QB performance you would be able to break down the different types of interceptions and place discrete values on each, instead of assigning an average value to all interceptions.

Yes, but we don't have the data to do that.

Football is full of fun rule of thumb objective analyses, but the best analysis is still probably the subjective.

I don't think "subjective" is the right word since it implies a personal bias. Some football stats are fairly good at quantifying what happened on the field, but most are not.

I say all this not to say that your analysis is wrong or worse, but just to point out that it, like most other supposed objective football analysis, is flawed.

The way I used the TD - INT stats made more sense math-wise than the OP. That's my only claim. I don't think it's a good way to measure QBs. I just worked with what the OP gave us.

[Larry Brown #43]

The way I used the TD - INT stats made more sense math-wise than the OP. That's my only claim. I don't think it's a good way to measure QBs. I just worked with what the OP gave us.

Oldfan, my intention wasn't to give TDs or INTs a numeric value at all. I was simply trying to say that QB 'x' threw this many TDs and this many INTs. The raw TD/INT numbers is what I was trying to convey. I probably shouldn't have even bothered doing the subtraction, because the raw TD vs. INT numbers illustrated the point.

Whether TD/INT is a good way to judge a QB--I guess that's a separate conversation. But using YOUR formula, which I am happy to do, still supports my initial premise. Here are the results using your formula. Again, I'm not saying this means anything other than it's too early to suggest pulling the plug on Campbell...

Aikman: -.15 points per start

Elway: +2.46 points per start

Favre: +3.55 points per start

Namath: +3.96 points per start

Young: -.37 points per start

Campbell: +4.30 points per start (according to your calculation)

[Oldfan]

... But using YOUR formula, which I am happy to do, still supports my initial premise.

We are agreed that it's too soon to pull the plug on Campbell, but I used your TD and INT premise to show that, using the same measure, Ramsey's performance with the Skins was better than Campbell's and Joe pulled the plug on him after 25 starts.

So, if you think you have made a good argument that it's too early to pull the plug, then you must also agree that Campbell's performance, verified by his stats, don't allow for too much more patience. He's on the bubble as I see it.

Jason has to improve just to equal Ramsey's stats. Which of them had more excuses? Jason has to win three of the first five games to equal Ramsey on their won-lost records as a starter.

[RocketCitySkins]

btw

im waiting for his next 4th quarter comeback, because it will be his first.....(none even in college)

with all that said, im very pumped to see him this year.....he better have improved on throwing the deep ball

Then I suggest you watch the 2004 Auburn/LSU game.

[bobzmuda]

We are agreed that it's too soon to pull the plug on Campbell, but I used your TD and INT premise to show that, using the same measure, Ramsey's performance with the Skins was better than Campbell's and Joe pulled the plug on him after 25 starts.

So, if you think you have made a good argument that it's too early to pull the plug, then you must also agree that Campbell's performance, verified by his stats, don't allow for too much more patience. He's on the bubble as I see it.

I don't think anyone is arguing Campbell has made it. I think most, including myself, think he's shown enough where he will get to, at the minimum, play out this season before any decision is made on whether to trade him, and get to play out his rookie deal through 2009 before any decision is made to let him go as a Free Agent. I think he has played well enough that he has value and that he should not be cut regardless of how he performs in 2008 (unless he has some sort of Leaf-esque meltdown).

At least in my mind, the decision points are after this season to see if the Skins want to trade/re-sign him, and after 2009 season if they don't decide to re-sign him but can't trade him.

Most of the "what should happen to Campbell" talk is premature. I like how he's trended so far - you can see the progress from his first few games to how he ended last season. But he hasn't played so well that the team should be dying to re-sign him before the season when there's no need to do so.

We're all in "wait and see" mode, but as we often do on message boreds, we don't wait - we offer wild ass conjecture.

[Larry Brown #43]

We are agreed that it's too soon to pull the plug on Campbell, but I used your TD and INT premise to show that, using the same measure, Ramsey's performance with the Skins was better than Campbell's and Joe pulled the plug on him after 25 starts.

So, if you think you have made a good argument that it's too early to pull the plug, then you must also agree that Campbell's performance, verified by his stats, don't allow for too much more patience. He's on the bubble as I see it.

Joe did pull Ramsey after 25 starts, but I don't think many agreed with the decision. We had made such a financial commitment to Brunell that the handwriting was on the wall, and Gibbs ultimately wanted Brunell to be his QB. Ramsey was jettisoned not because of his stats per se, but because Gibbs was committed to coaching the Skins for a limited time, and he felt Brunell gave us a more immediate chance to win because of his experience.

Campbell doesn't have a Brunell situation in front of him as Ramsey did. Now, has Ramsey turned into the QB many of us thought he would? No. And Campbell might not either. But I think most of us at the time felt Ramsey wasn't given a fair shake, and I'd like to see Campbell get that fair shake.

My main gripe is with the people who say they've already seen enough, and it's time to move on. Some seem to be so convinced that Campbell will fail that they almost appear to be ROOTING for him to fail. If you agree that it's too early to pull the plug, then we probably agree with each other more than we realize.

Jason has to improve just to equal Ramsey's stats. Which of them had more excuses? Jason has to win three of the first five games to equal Ramsey on their won-lost records as a starter.

Again, Patrick's stats are not what did him in with the Skins. Let's not forget that when a QB is evaluated, there's much more that goes into that evaluation than what happens on the field--although what happens on the field is the most important thing. The coaches are around these guys all the time. They see what they do in practice, in workouts, in meetings. Zorn has been working with Campbell individually since Zorn was hired.

If Zorn had wasn't comfortable with him, I'm sure he would have pushed for signing another QB, spending an early pick on a QB, or even pursuing Favre when that became an option. But none of that happened.

Heck, as a new coach coming in, there's no better time to bring in your own QB. Yet Zorn wants to ride with Campbell, and he has made that pretty clear. I think that says something. So when you look at Campbell's early career numbers in that context, I think we have a right to feel pretty good about his future.

[Fieldy]

he hasn't seen adversity are you crazy. especially from the fans on this board..lol..he has injuries..to O-line and Receivers..Unorganized coaching staff. ..Learning a new offense like every year...Oh..Troy Aikman and Steve Young saw so much adversity..Steve Young had a team set up for him and Jerry Rice (hall of famer) mind you..Troy Aikman had Michael Irvin (hall of famer) and Emmit Smith (hall of famer)..you loose brownie points dude..A lot of these teams had a lot more talent this us..bad assessment dude :doh:

this goes for the second statement too.

Wow dude..you lost me..this is good to compare him to hall of famers..you can even compare him to Peyton Manning his first 20 games..How many QBs that are rookies and thrown into the fire..and gamers on this list do you see have a positive TD to turnover ratio..No one comes into the league as a rookie and doesn't have a learning curve and I think he has done exceptionally well stating that. But people on here are too stubborn negative and bias to realize this. Wake up folks..that or either you just want to hate him..:cool:

First of all, the entire point of my post was saying that you can't judge him based off of the statistics provided. All we know is that JC has played above average for the first 20 starts of his career and those HoF QBs played below average for the first 20 starts of their career. There are plenty QBs who have started careers really good and finished and never ended up going anywhere, ala Brad Johnson. His first two seasons where he was the primary starting QB in Minnesota he played in 25 games. Through 25 games he had 37TD and 22 INT (a +15 turnover ratio). Based on his relation to the stats presented in the OP Brad Johnson should be a great QB. Yes, he was decent for a while, and he does have a SB ring with the Bucs (they certainly didn't win because of him). Where is he now? He's a journeyman QB currently 2nd string to Tony Homo. Just because the stats through the first 20 starts are good doesn't mean he's great...that's it, please don't read any more than that into my words.

Second, read the last line of my first post. I believe in Jason Campbell. I believe he has the potential to be our franchise QB. I don't believe he's there yet. I don't believe we can draw conclusions based on TD/INT ration through 1 1/2 seasons of starting.

Adversity doesn't just mean the quality of the team around him...it means the QB himself. HE personally has not struggled immensely...has not had the great desparity of having a horrible season (not necessarily a bad thing because if he had we probably would've run him out of town). He has always played well...which means he gets put into the same class as Brad Johnson...the Hall of Pretty Good.

Again, doesn't mean I don't want him to be a HoF caliber QB. I am seriously pulling for his success and I can't stress that enough. Stats can lie...especially if you're only looking at one of them.

Hope that explains everything.

Did I get my brownie points back:silly:

[HailYeah]

i got suckered in to this thread...

[REDSKINS8181]

This is it for him. No more excuses. Either he is Pro Bowl caliber this year, or he needs to be gone. We can afford to invest our future and a franchise-qb-level contract into someone we have questions marks about. He has to answer them.

No more excuses. Make the next step, JC.

He either makes the Pro Bowl or we run him out of town!

Landry had better make it as well. He's a first round pick and has had almost as many starts as JC! No more excuses Laron, Pro Bowl this season or you're gone!