SI: MMQB: Jason Campbell tidbits

[Oldfan]

Yeah, and Riggins didn't really improve his play in the playoffs back in 1982, even though his yards per carry and yards per game average both skyrocketed in the playoffs, and against better teams and better defenses. We'd be foolish to claim Riggins was a playoff-caliber running back, wouldn't we?

Team stats used to prove claims about individual performances are usually dumb. There's no getting around it. YPC is a team stat and the playoffs limit the sample size.

Same with Joe Montana...all of his effectiveness and production during those last-minute, pressure wins within the "Win or go home" environment of the playoffs and the Super Bowl really mean nothing, since hey, "stats are meaningless".

Isn't it obvious that QBs who play for dynasties will have more opportunities for heroics and more help in making it happen than those who don't? Montana had more much more success in winning games than Dan Marino. Try making your argument that he was a better QB.

[AKM311]

Why are we still arguing about Cutler?

It is done and over with. In all honesty, none of you know what will happen with Cutler. Whether he will be a true franchise QB or not, none of us know. These articles with NFC scouts and all mean nothing. Because I can look at ANY draft and hear the same comments about Ryan Leaf, Heath Shuler, etc.

Bottom line....Support who you got, because nothing you say or do will change it.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

You know so much, oh supreme one with a job in the NFL...

WAIT..... "PROSCOUT" is actually a PROSCOUT? :yikes:

*Put's on :dunce: cap.

Well ****! And here's me thinking he was just being uber arrogant in claiming to know more than anyone else and factitious with the nic. :doh:

And whom may he be per chance, or work for?

Or is that info one of those "Top Secret: Need to know basis" thingies?

Hail.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Is there where I say that there is no such thing as clutch?

I guess I will say it: There is no such thing as clutch.

Why does no one ever remember the fourth quarters where Joe Montana didn't come back? Did his clutchiness leave him at those points?

[Oldfan]

You know who the big loser in this trade is?

Cutler.

He's not going to be the same qb in Chicago -- at least not at first. Doesn't have the weapons, the linemen, and you simply don't throw for a ton of yards in that stadium.

If Cutler is the QB Jerry Angelo thinks he is, the supporting cast in Denver will suffer this season and Chicago's will look better.

The only hesitation I have in making that statement is that Shanahan did a good job in using Cutler's talent. We'll have to see what they do in Chicago.

[AKM311]

You know so much, oh supreme one with a job in the NFL...Oh, wait! Plus, I love your spelling of the word "no". Shows the "know"ledge you have.

First, I'm not new here; I actually have almost seven YEARS on you. So, get off off the jackass that you think is a high horse.

Second, you completely took the post of the person you had quoted and revamped it to say something it did not. If that is fair for you to do, than it it fair for other posters, including myself, to do to you. Hence my post.

Now, stop acting like your the second coming of Vince Lambardi, turn off your Madden game, and go take a shower. :laugh:

Couldn't this apply to you, Oh Mr. NFL Job guy?

You have an opinion he has one too. Neither of you probably work in the NFL, therefor neither opinion holds any more water than the other.

[bubba9497]

You have an opinion he has one too. Neither of you probably work in the NFL, therefor neither opinion holds any more water than the other.

ding!

my favorites are the ones who talk about a players future as if it's a known fact. More times than not, they end up with egg on their face.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I asked how he could prove he is playoff caliber on his own. You gave me three reasons that involve him playing for a team with a support system good enough to help him into the playoffs.

Those ARE situations in which he can prove "on his own" whether or not he should be considered a playoff -caliber QB. Because only Cutler can determine how effective HE is.

Not to mention that, when all the other variables remain constant, then the change in production from the QB position must be chalked up to the actual play of the QB.

Now, unless you have actual facts that show why Cutler's individual production nosedived during those last three games when the playoffs were on the line, then you have no real basis for taking up this stance other than A) being a Cutler lover, wanting to be argumentative for the sake of it, or 3) both. Not merely why the Bronco's lost, but why the effectiveness and production from the QB position took a nosedive.

And to show that I'm remaining consistent, I did that very same thing when discussing Collins and his effectiveness and production from the QB position during the playoff run at the end of 2007. Unlike you, I didn't merely keep repeating a mantra of "Stats are meaningless, it's a team game"...I actually pointed out and listed the other areas on the team that improved their effectiveness and production, as well as listed the stretches where Collins' production and effectiveness were mediocre at best. I wanted to actually back up my stance that, while Collins definitely provided more production from the QB spot over Campbell that year, the victories were due to an improvement in play team-wide, not just at QB, especially the defensive backs and Portis. I even acknowledged that it was arguable that each of these units' and players' improved production helped other units and players improve their production, but that it would be difficult to show exactly how much they did, if they did at all.

But here's the real issue: you can't prove yourself to be a playoff-caliber QB until you actually PLAY in the playoffs...which cutler has not done. So as of right now, no, Jay Cutler has not proven himself to be a playoff-caliber QB, no matter how you want to define that term and no matter what facts you want to use. And that was the point.

Oh, and if you missed this in my earlier post, I have a few others in agreement:

From a 2007 ESPN article:

"The kid in Denver, to me he is the future of this league," an AFC pro scout said.

"I would jump on that boat," an NFC personnel director said. "He isn't quite there, but you see those flashes of a guy who, once he has the whole playbook in his mind and he's made all the mistakes he needs to make in learning it, man, he's going to be a special player.

Notice the areas in red...Cutler is the "future" of the league...not the present. He isn't "quite there"...meaning, he hasn't quite arrived or proven himself yet. He is "going to be" a special player...not that is already is.

Those guys sound like they agree that Cutler has NOT proven himself yet.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Team stats used to prove claims about individual performances are usually dumb. There's no getting around it. YPC is a team stat and the playoffs limit the sample size.

Yards per carry is a TEAM stat? I'm curious as to how the long snapper plays just as significant a role in that stat as the running back does, fill me in...

Isn't it obvious that QBs who play for dynasties will have more opportunities for heroics and more help in making it happen than those who don't? Montana had more much more success in winning games than Dan Marino. Try making your argument that he was a better QB.

Isn't it obvious that playoff-caliber QBs play a significant role in helping make those teams into dynasties? Well, to the rest of us, anyway. They weren't merely good QBs who joined already-established dynasties, afterall.

Not to mention that BOTH of those QBs actually played IN the playoffs, unlike Cutler...so even if one of them proved himself to be a better playoff-caliber QB than the other, at least they WERE proven to be playoff caliber QBs. Cutler hasn't done anything even remotely close to proving himself as one. Which, again, was the point.

[SirClintonPortis]

Yards per carry is a TEAM stat? I'm curious as to how the long snapper plays just as significant a role in that stat as the running back does, fill me in...

One could argue that it was primarily the O-line rather than the RB, depending on the RB

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Is there where I say that there is no such thing as clutch?

I guess I will say it: There is no such thing as clutch.

Why does no one ever remember the fourth quarters where Joe Montana didn't come back? Did his clutchiness leave him at those points?

"Clutch" does not equate to "Never fails".

"Clutch" means "has shown with enough regularity to improve in high-pressure situations". Montana didn't have to win every game that was close in the last two minutes...he just had to win enough of them. He didn't have to win every single postseason game to be considered clutch...he just had to win enough of them.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

One could argue that it was primarily the O-line rather than the RB, depending on the RB

Definitely :yes:...but again, in order to argue that point, it would have to be shown that the O-Line's performance improved in the playoffs equal to (or moreso than) the running back's improvement. Or, it would have to be shown that the quality of defenses the running back and OLine went up against in the playoffs was beneath the quality of defenses they both went up against in the regular season.

If we're going to take a player's improvement in production completely away from that player and render it meaningless, then we need to assign the credit somewhere specific, and show why it deserves to be there. Until then, I see nothing wrong with perceiving a player's increase in production and effectiveness being due in large part to that player. :yes:

[SirClintonPortis]

If we're going to take a player's improvement in production completely away from that player and render it meaningless, then we need to assign the credit somewhere specific, and show why it deserves to be there. Until then, I see nothing wrong with perceiving a player's increase in production and effectiveness being due in large part to that player. :yes:

True. Just don't do it for T.O's QBs(Romo sits to pee is still iffy). That all have regressed statistically.:evilg:

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

"Clutch" does not equate to "Never fails".

"Clutch" means "has shown with enough regularity to improve in high-pressure situations". Montana didn't have to win every game that was close in the last two minutes...he just had to win enough of them. He didn't have to win every single postseason game to be considered clutch...he just had to win enough of them.

And Cutler's had like one shot. And his defense gave up 108 points.

Here is a brain teaser.

Is Ben Roethlisberger clutch?

On one hand, he posted the worst rating in Super Bowl history?

On the other hand, he led a long, last minute drive to win a Super Bowl.

If he never leads a last minute drive again, does that one really incredible drive make him clutch?

I need a ruling.

[SkinsWizCubsDukes]

or Chicago gave up a King's ransom for possibly the next Jeff George

That is the part that could wind up being a blessing in disguise, it was the Bears over paying, not the Skins

What is so wrong with Jeff George? The guy had a good career on the field he was a good QB. Even when he played for us.

Everyone was making that comparison and I was like, okay sure, but the guy can produce on the field. We just need to be able to "manage" our players.

[Oldfan]

Califan: Notice the areas in red...Cutler is the "future" of the league...not the present. He isn't "quite there"...meaning, he hasn't quite arrived or proven himself yet. He is "going to be" a special player...not that is already is...Those guys sound like they agree that Cutler has NOT proven himself yet.

You must have missed it. As I noted in my post, the first batch of quotes were from an article written in 2007 -- before Cutler's 2008 Pro Bowl season.

Those ARE situations in which he can prove "on his own" whether or not he should be considered a playoff -caliber QB.

The term "playoff-caliber QB" is your side's arbitrary measurement based on a logically unsound, implied premise -- namely that a QB can have playoff success regardless of the quality of his support system. Don't you see that it's ridiculous to compare Joe Montana and Dan Marino by that standard?

Knowledgeable fans know that Marino was the better QB because we saw them play. I, along with those experts I quoted, know that Jay Cutler is something special because we've seen him play. The Bears and the Redskins probably watched him too.

And to show that I'm remaining consistent, I did that very same thing when discussing Collins and his effectiveness and production from the QB position during the playoff run at the end of 2007. Unlike you, I didn't merely keep repeating a mantra of "Stats are meaningless, it's a team game"

I also used stats in the Collins v. Campbell argument because the team factor was the same for both QBs. You have never read the flat statement that "stats are meaningless" from me. I frequently rail against the use of team stats used to support claims about individual performances when the use is against all logic.

[laurent]

What is so wrong with Jeff George? The guy had a good career on the field he was a good QB. Even when he played for us.

Everyone was making that comparison and I was like, okay sure, but the guy can produce on the field. We just need to be able to "manage" our players.

Really???

[Oldfan]

Califan: Definitely ...but again, in order to argue that point, it would have to be shown that the O-Line's performance improved in the playoffs equal to (or moreso than) the running back's improvement.

In debate, if you make the Riggins claim, the burden of proof is on you. SCR is correct, you can't prove your claim. The higher YPC could be credited to the Hogs or, more likely, to an anomaly in a small sample size.

If we're going to take a player's improvement in production completely away from that player and render it meaningless, then we need to assign the credit somewhere specific, and show why it deserves to be there. Until then, I see nothing wrong with perceiving a player's increase in production and effectiveness being due in large part to that player.

What you are saying amounts to: I'm giving Riggins credit for the increase in YPC and, until or unless you prove me wrong, I must be right and my claim is proven. That's a common logical fallacy.

[mjm4soccer]

People that think that Cutler will produce the same type of stats with the Bears or if he had come here are mistaken. Denver's defense gave up nearly 450 points last year. Compare that to the Skins 296 and there is a huge difference in the style of play. Anytime you have to get in a shoot out you're going to be forced to throw more and coincidentally put up bigger stats. Unless Chicago's defense is awful this year, there is no way Cutler matches his stats from last year.

[Oldfan]

People that think that Cutler will produce the same type of stats with the Bears or if he had come here are mistaken. Denver's defense gave up nearly 450 points last year. Compare that to the Skins 296 and there is a huge difference in the style of play. Anytime you have to get in a shoot out you're going to be forced to throw more and coincidentally put up bigger stats. Unless Chicago's defense is awful this year, there is no way Cutler matches his stats from last year.

I think Jerry Angelo wants his Bears to win the division and, right now, you have to like his chances. I doubt if the stats concern him.

[PROSCOUT]

You know so much, oh supreme one with a job in the NFL...Oh, wait! Plus, I love your spelling of the word "no". Shows the "know"ledge you have.

First, I'm not new here; I actually have almost seven YEARS on you. So, get off off the jackass that you think is a high horse.

Second, you completely took the post of the person you had quoted and revamped it to say something it did not. If that is fair for you to do, than it it fair for other posters, including myself, to do to you. Hence my post.

Now, stop acting like your the second coming of Vince Lambardi, turn off your Madden game, and go take a shower. :laugh:

Don't own a madden game, didn't change the post title or content, just responded to a post, I had my shower for the day, and I'm not losing my temper as you obviously have. Ever considered going for anger management counseling?

Also, sorry about the "no", I had a grown up call me and ask me to pick her up, so I was rushing. We grown ups get busy sometime. You'll learn that someday.

[brlawson]

CB5 is the answer!

[Oldskool]

I think Jerry Angelo wants his Bears to win the division and, right now, you have to like his chances. I doubt if the stats concern him.

When you draft smart for several years and are missing one piece to being a perennial playoff contender, a deal like they made is acceptable.

A deal like this would have set the Skins back to a level not seen since the height of the Norval era a decade and a half ago.

[ExoDus84]

seems like people are missing this quote

before someone points out King isn't a coach, He has been around the Sport as long as McDaniels has been alive....and has talked with others like coaches and gms to help base his opinion of Campbell, and QB's in general.

Besides he may have come from NE, but he didn't pick the talent.... and his handling of this Cutler saga, proves he's no Belichick, or Pioli

You can spin this any way you want to. But mcdaniels coached the best QB in the league; a guy that set the touchdown record like it was childs play. He coached Cassel, and made a guy who didnt even start in college and had never played a down as a starter, have an almost pro bowl caliber year. I think I'd take the word of a coach who can do that, over the word of a sports writer. And coming from the guy that worked with the best QB in the league, I think it's telling and credible that he'd much rather take Orton over Campbell. If your quarterback is seemingly the anti-brady, that's pretty damn telling.

[SkinsNumberOne]

and the real implication behind that activity: the Skins do not view JC as a franchise QB. not now anyway.

It's all relative. They certainly view Cutler as a better chance to be a franchise QB. That much you can say with certainty.

Anything else is still speculation. Maybe they don't see JC as a good option long-term, maybe they do. It's unclear.

Another thing we can say for certain, the track record in Washington FO decisions is poor.

I think Jason can improve this year. I am not sure Cutler would have been a worthy upgrade given the cost - I'm glad the Bears got him. I think we need to be fixing up the lines, and then looking for a new QB *after* that is done if JC can't prove he's worthy by that time. But FIRST fix the lines before you go and get another QB to run for their lives.