Football Outsiders: Quick Reads (about JC)

[SoCalSkins]

I'm open to other interpretations, but that's how I read it.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/01/air-yards-2008.html

36th in the NFL in 2008. By the link you provided, nothing has changed.

JC is gutless and a check down machine. That is how to read it. Combine that with the number of PI calls his throws have drawn along with his W/L record and you end up with a player who loses games but puts up mediocre passing stats without a huge number of turnovers (except when the game is on the line and he has to throw).

[HailGreen28]

As I mentioned, Jason Campbell, the starting QB for your favorite team whether you like or not, is ranked 17th in 2009 DYAR.

As far as dead last in passing yards through the air, you would then think that he would probably rank last in total passing yards. Nope. He's ranked 15th. Why is this?

What we know is that he's in a west coast system (like pro bowl QB Matt Hasselbeck also listed), that the west coast system places a premium on short accurate pases, and that Zorn has admitted he could not call long developing pass plays for much of the season because of the OL's deficiencies.

A couple of ways you could interpret this are that his receivers are amazing at YAC. But if you look here

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?range=NFC&type=Receiving&rank=231&year=

Not 1 Redskin is in the top 20 in the NFC for YAC. It does not appear that any of the receivers are elite after the reception.

As a result, it appears to me that Campbell has been making short, accurate passes to the proper receiver allowing the receiver to gain some yardage because of the proper read, but the receivers themselves aren't great enough to rank highly in YAC.

I'm open to other interpretations, but that's how I read it.

Meh. Candle seems like a good guy, he's just so average, and rarely turns in any clutch performance. I don't like trying to rely on him to lead the team, when we've only made the playoffs without him.

From the stats, and impressions of the games, seems he makes more short passes than other QBs. And that gets hidden by YAC. Which begs the question are they checkdowns or well designed primary reads... sometimes I dunno.

Do we have more receivers (WR TE RB) catching passes than other teams do?

[SoCalSkins]

Just who is the nasty looking blond in your sig? FYI my dad was a star football and baseball player at Redondo HS. signed with the Red Sox in 1950.

Go to youtube and search for "leave Britney alone". When you are watching it, substitute Britney for JC in your head and you will think you are reading a JC thread on ES.

[Perky72]

You're not.

Campbell ranks middle of the pack for DYAR this year: 17th.

That's not bad with one of the worst OLs in the game. The other OL that I would compare it to would be Buffalo's or Detroits. Their QBs are ranked much lower (30's or lower).

That franchise QB that everyone thought could blow JC out of the water, Jay Cutler, he's ranked 35th. How could Cutler go from being ranked 5th in 2008 to 35th in 2009? Did he get that much worse?

No. He's still the same QB. It's just in Denver he had an elite pass blocking and run blocking OL with outstanding receivers. In Chicago he has a bad OL with bad receivers. With a proper surrounding cast, they minimized his mistakes and he looked great. With a poor surrounding cast, he's one of the worst QBs in the game.

That Campbell is ranked middle of the pack given his offensive line and running game is not an indictment against him. I think it actually speaks well to his ability to perform given an inferior supporting cast.

So DYAR is a measurement of gross ball-in-the-air yards, whereas JC's 45.1% ranking is % of his yards vs. receiver yards-after-catch? Why does the article spend its introductory paragraphs focusing on that % rather than on the gross DYAR that they instead used to rank QB performance that week? Particularly as they imply that the % is currently the best, though rudimentary, way of assesment? Pretty strange way to present things, and I'm left clueless as to which they think DYAR is the better measure of QB skill.

And what exactly does the DYAR acronym stand for?

[B&G808]

Go to youtube and search for "leave Britney alone". When you are watching it, substitute Britney for JC in your head and you will think you are reading a JC thread on ES.

:hysterical: I nearly wet myself, too funny!:hysterical:

[SoCalSkins]

You're not.

Campbell ranks middle of the pack for DYAR this year: 17th.

That's not bad with one of the worst OLs in the game. The other OL that I would compare it to would be Buffalo's or Detroits. Their QBs are ranked much lower (30's or lower).

Football outsiders also ranks offensive lines. No need to randomly make up your own rankings if you put so much value into their formulas as you apparently do with DYAR.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

2009: 21st run blocking 26th Pass blocking

2008: 5th run blocking 15th Pass blocking

2007: 17th run blocking 12th Pass blocking

2006: 14th run blocking 5th Pass blocking

[Oldfan]

It is about context and the level of failure. Predicting the Redskins will throw at least one pass against the Raiders on Sunday is not the same as claiming that Jason Campbell will win at least 11 games this year and make the Pro Bowl.

A prediction about throwing one pass against the Raiders?

Where did that come from -- and is there a point?

You randomly make up numbers regardless and aren't very accurate when you do. You percentages assigning value for the importance of each position on a team added up to more than 100%.

I do occasionally make minor errors. Sue me. But, my threads are out there for you and anyone else to challenge. You don't do too well at that when it counts.

The best you can do is badmouth my work in other threads like this one where you can get away with it without being made to look foolish. Pretty gutless if you ask me.

[HailGreen28]

HailGreen28 -- I'm not interested in your thoughts about me. I'll reply as best I can to the points you made which were on topic.

The approach taken by the guys at Football Outsiders is more logically sound than the QB rating. The QB rating is more useful as a quick-and-dirty "Team Passing Game" stat.

As for Campbell's high percentage of yards being YAC, that's sort of expected from a QB running a Walsh brand WCO. That's what Bill Walsh wanted.

As for me ignoring the biggest stat "WINS" when discussing QBs, I do that because it's not a QB stat. It's a team stat.

No prob about "football people". I'm trying to remember if you even made a couple comments I'm thinking of, like football people don't need to be in charge because they get promoted above their ability. I forget if you said that or someone else.

Isn't a flaw of DYAR what kind of backup QB a team has? Which has nothing to do with how good a QB is himself? Again, if we go by this, I don't think Candle sees the field after 2007 against a career backup. Collins had fewer yards overall, but more yards per attempt/catch.

If Peyton Manning had a good backup, and Jay Cutler had a horrible backup, wouldn't that skew the DYAR in the INT-machine's favor? Or am I misreading what DYAR is?

I think leadership and wins is an important quality for a QB. I think Rothlisberger is a better QB than stats indicate because of this, and wins ought to be included. For example, I don't know who had the better stats in 1987, Schroeder or Williams, but the team seemed better with Williams in charge. Brady seemed like nothing but checkdowns and crossing patterns when he came in for then big-armed Bledsoe, yet it was the start of a dynasty. I think wins do count when evaluating a QB.

edit: re-reading the article, they take a players peers, so instead of comparison for replacement its compared to other players in their position. Sounds like we're getting back to a general stat like QB rating, rather than an individual performance measured by itself.

[TotalRecall]

There was no double coverage on that play.

He had a defender about to hit him in the chest, which seemed to cause him to short arm the throw. Similar to what happened in the 3rd when he was hit in the leg and threw a ball that the defender dropped. But that one wasn't in the "clutch".

Ok, I stand corrected. I thought it was an over-under coverage on Moss, but it was Vilma single covering Davis. If Vilma had stayed inbounds, that would have ended the game with a TD.

[DeccanSkins]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/cover-3/2009/cover-3-man-named-suh

I hope the Skins draft Ndamukong Suh!

[bobzmuda]

Football outsiders also ranks offensive lines. No need to randomly make up your own rankings if you put so much value into their formulas as you apparently do with DYAR.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

2009: 21st run blocking 26th Pass blocking

2008: 5th run blocking 15th Pass blocking

2007: 17th run blocking 12th Pass blocking

2006: 14th run blocking 5th Pass blocking

Their OL stats are very, very different in my opinion because they're so dependent upon the skill players and their production. I'm not sure those stats are useful at all honestly.

That is unless you think Tennessee's OL is only 1 spot better than Washington's and that Minnesota's OL is even worse that Washington's.

[bobzmuda]

So DYAR is a measurement of gross ball-in-the-air yards, whereas JC's 45.1% ranking is % of his yards vs. receiver yards-after-catch? Why does the article spend its introductory paragraphs focusing on that % rather than on the gross DYAR that they instead used to rank QB performance that week? Particularly as they imply that the % is currently the best, though rudimentary, way of assesment? Pretty strange way to present things, and I'm left clueless as to which they think DYAR is the better measure of QB skill.

And what exactly does the DYAR acronym stand for?

DYAR is FO's method for rating QBs. Here's the blurb from the site.

"Quarterbacks are ranked according to DYAR, or Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement. This gives the value of the quarterback's performance compared to replacement level, adjusted for situation and opponent and then translated into yardage."

I think they discussed ball-in-the-air stats because of Jacobs' run and catch and wanted to look at it.

[NewCliche21]

Again you act like a little baby, rather than address the point I made in the post.

As for Candle, he is what he is.

Using "Candle" in lieu of Campbell's name is immature and idiotic.

I have no comment on your post because your post is worthless due to your use of "Candle."

[Oldfan]

Isn't a flaw of DYAR what kind of backup QB a team has?

No.

http://footballoutsiders.com/info/methods

[HailGreen28]

Using "Candle" in lieu of Campbell's name is immature and idiotic.

I have no comment on your post because your post is worthless due to your use of "Candle."

Yet you comment on what you deem immature and idiotic.

Why don't you take your garbage somewhere else, if you aren't going to discuss football?

[HailGreen28]

No.

http://footballoutsiders.com/info/methods

Yeah, I'm rereading that yet again. So it's a comparison with the other starting QBs, correct?

[SoCalSkins]

I do occasionally make minor errors. Sue me. But, my threads are out there for you and anyone else to challenge. You don't do too well at that when it counts.

The best you can do is badmouth my work in other threads like this one where you can get away with it without being made to look foolish. Pretty gutless if you ask me.

My post history is searchable like everyone's. I don't end up being made to look foolish because I don't post foolish thoughts, predictions and claims regularly not because I refrain from starting threads.

There are no shortages of threads here. There is nothing gutless about not starting a new Redskins thread in the stadium and utilizing existing ones instead. It is in fact a display of restraint, something many members here are forced into by starting far too many redundant ones.

I will say that most of your threads are pretty unique and interesting reads, however, you are off the deep end with Campbell. The guy is simply pure failure.

[NewCliche21]

Yet you comment on what you deem immature and idiotic.

Why don't you take your garbage somewhere else, if you aren't going to discuss football?

I agree. So let's act like grown men and use people's names. You have good points when you talk about football, but you look stupid when you call people names, especially when you do it EVERY SINGLE TIME you reference a person.

[NewCliche21]

My post history is searchable like everyone's. I don't end up being made to look foolish because I don't post foolish thoughts, predictions and claims regularly not because I refrain from starting threads.

There are no shortages of threads here. There is nothing gutless about not starting a new Redskins thread in the stadium and utilizing existing ones instead. It is in fact a display of restraint, something many members here are forced into by starting far too many redundant ones.

I will say that most of your threads are pretty unique and interesting reads, however, you are off the deep end with Campbell. The guy is simply pure failure.

I wish that we could just give a set deadline by which we could judge Campbell that BOTH sides could agree on, along with those of us with a more centrist view. I'd also like to see if we could develop specific criteria to define "success" and "failure", as I'd rather have a successful Campbell now and carrying on into the future rather than focusing on how bad he has been.

However, if he is, as however we may decide to define "a failure" for the last couple of weeks, then peace out.

Any way that we could get something objective written down, maybe something that people who are so adamant about Campbell on both sides can agree on? I'm thinking of SoCal/BLC/HailGreen/Shilsu for those against Campbell and Oldfan/Pasizzle/[[ghost]] for those who are in support of him?

[SoCalSkins]

Their OL stats are very, very different in my opinion because they're so dependent upon the skill players and their production. I'm not sure those stats are useful at all honestly.

That is unless you think Tennessee's OL is only 1 spot better than Washington's and that Minnesota's OL is even worse that Washington's.

As long as the numbers support Campbell they are valuable. The same organization creating stats that don't support the Campbell is great but his line sucks agenda suddenly is discredited?

[HailGreen28]

I agree. So let's act like grown men and use people's names. You have good points when you talk about football, but you look stupid when you call people names, especially when you do it EVERY SINGLE TIME you reference a person.

"Candle" is an appropriate nickname. I've explanied this multiple times. In reference to you, it's becoming more and more like shining a light in a dark place, revealing a ****roach, then seeing where he goes and try solving the problem?

So Newcliche, what is this strange obsession you have with the mediocre QB I call "Candle"?

[RocketCitySkins]

Jason Campbell has stated he was treated like used toilet tissue by the team.

Not by the team. By the Front Office.

"It's, well, tough sometimes," Campbell said on the sideline after practice. "I am fine now, but there were a couple of times in the off-season I felt like a piece of tissue they were flushing down the toilet."

From the same article concerning the team

Personable and hardworking, Campbell is as well-respected in his locker room as any quarterback in the league except maybe Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. "There's such great admiration for him around the team," says tight end Chris Cooley.

[B&G808]

Stats are great and all, but what we all need is some wins. Hopefully JC can get over the hump and get "CLUTCH"! I would love nothing more than to see a few W's and more O output like we've seen here the last couple of weeks. Nothing sucks more than loosing!:logo:

[NewCliche21]

"Candle" is an appropriate nickname. I've explanied this multiple times. In reference to you, it's becoming more and more like shining a light in a dark place, revealing a ****roach, then seeing where he goes and try solving the problem?

So Newcliche, what is this strange obsession you have with the mediocre QB I call "Candle"?

Calling names is juvenile and makes you look foolish. It doesn't matter if you're referring to Campbell, Romo sits to pee, a politician, a coworker, or anyone else. If your age is measured in double digits, then you shouldn't be name-calling. If you want to be taken seriously, then you shouldn't be name-calling.

I have no obsession with Campbell. Right now, I'm 55% for him staying, but I won't slit my wrists if he leaves. I'd like to wait and see for the rest of the season since all that a loss means now is that we have a better draft pick.

[HailGreen28]

Calling names is juvenile and makes you look foolish. It doesn't matter if you're referring to Campbell, Romo sits to pee, a politician, a coworker, or anyone else. If your age is measured in double digits, then you shouldn't be name-calling. If you want to be taken seriously, then you shouldn't be name-calling.

I have no obsession with Campbell. Right now, I'm 55% for him staying, but I won't slit my wrists if he leaves. I'd like to wait and see for the rest of the season since all that a loss means now is that we have a better draft pick.

And yet, when have you complained about another player being called names before "Candle"?