Football Outsiders: Quick Reads (about JC)

[TheItalianStallion]

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).

He doesn't throw all that many check downs. On our opening drive against Denver, we ran a PA-bootleg. He completed his pass to Davis for over 20 yards. The pass itself only gained about 2 yards, but Davis gained a bunch more by running with it. However, the reason why he was able to get so many yards was because of all the space in front of him due to the PA working. Although JC's throw only gained 2 yards out of 20, that's not a check-down; that's just the right play.

If you hadn't noticed, we've been running mostly short passes since Lewis came on board, so pretty much any completed pass won't gain many yards through the air. The NO game was the first time where we called a bunch of deeper passes.

[TheItalianStallion]

So Oldfan, do you think Candle's #1 performance last weekend in DYAR outweighs his DEAD LAST performance for the season in yards actually gained through the air?

I know this wasn't directd at me, but I really don't care much about yards through the air vs yac. Yards are yards.

[HailGreen28]

I know this wasn't directd at me, but I really don't care much about yards through the air vs yac. Yards are yards.

It matters whether they are designed primary reads or check downs though. Watching receivers streaking down field and Candle throwing to the short receiver, it looks like he throws a lot of checkdowns. Which maybe we don't take into account because of YAC. Not being able to throw the ball far downfield is a problem with us, right?

[wildbill1952]

You have a QB that has a career game and you have 4 more games to see if it was a fluke. Just look at the 4 games. If a decision had to be made tomorrow, hopefully management wouldn't come up with another "get Cutler" decision that was so stupid and shortsighted. But the point is you have the luxury to weigh the next four games in your decision. If it was a fluke, replace him. If the light has finally come on, then keep him and get him some protection.

Seems simple enough.

[gorebd82]

You have a QB that has a career game and you have 4 more games to see if it was a fluke. Just look at the 4 games. If a decision had to be made tomorrow, hopefully management wouldn't come up with another "get Cutler" decision that was so stupid and shortsighted. But the point is you have the luxury to weigh the next four games in your decision. If it was a fluke, replace him. If the light has finally come on, then keep him and get him some protection.

Seems simple enough.

Well said. The proof is in the pudding.

[Perky72]

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.

Thanks.

So, what's your conclusion so far. DYAR rates Campbell as the 17th QB in the league but as you say they don't take offensive line into account. What do you rate Campbell as? 14-17th seems about right for me, and it's around where he falls on the major stats categories, as well as this purportedly accurate DYAR rating.

The smell test gives me these as better QBs: Brees, both Mannings, Big Ben, Palmer, Rivers, Romo sits to pee, McNabb, Warner, Favre, Flacco, Rodgers, Schaub, Brady.

He'd compete for the 15th best spot with Ryan, Hasselbeck, A. Smith, Orton, Cutler.

As the QB is the most important position, and only 12 teams make the playoffs, I don't think we should ever be satisfied with a 15+ ranked QB, unless the rest of the team is so good we can afford it. We have at various times in the past been able to, but trying to make only average QBs work hasn't worked for a couple decades now. We have some O-lineman, WRs etc. that are far worse than 15th in the league, granted.

But I still don't think JC would be anything other than average even with a much better cast around him. In games where the O-line has given him tons of protection he's still made the same mistakes as when he was under a lot of pressure. In fact, his best games during this stretch came as a result of great decisions under pressure.

I guess I just don't think we should settle for good enough even if the rest of the team gets better. JC as QB means much less margin for error with other positions, compared to say a Rodgers or Big Ben overcoming their own O-line troubles. And, he is pretty inconsistent. IMO this recent good play is merely one upswing on the JC wave. Good playoff teams can't afford that, even if the rest of their team is excellent.

[Oldfan]

...There is nothing gutless about not starting a new Redskins thread in the stadium and utilizing existing ones instead. ..

If you attack any of my positions within the context of the thread in which I argue my position, I'll probably kick the crap out of you in debate. So, it would take guts for you to attack my positions in my threads.

In a thread like this, you can toss out broadsides at my positions with impunity since I can't produce context for a defense without a whole lot of effort.

[Oldfan]

...As the QB is the most important position, and only 12 teams make the playoffs, I don't think we should ever be satisfied with a 15+ ranked QB, unless the rest of the team is so good we can afford it...

I don't think we should ever be satisfied with an average player at any position. But, it's stupid to dump an average player before you have someone better to replace him. That's my position with Jason.

[NewCliche21]

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

1) Name-calling is juvenile and idiotic 100% of the time.

2) Using the attitude of "Everybody else does it!" is juvenile 100% of the time.

3) Many, many times I've explained that name-calling is always childish and idiotic whether it's a player, group of people, or anyone else.

[HailGreen28]

1) Name-calling is juvenile and idiotic 100% of the time.

2) Using the attitude of "Everybody else does it!" is juvenile 100% of the time.

3) Many, many times I've explained that name-calling is always childish and idiotic whether it's a player, group of people, or anyone else.

Dude, "name calling" good or bad is done every day, especially in sports. And useful when accurate, good or bad. Like "Candle". The name just fits JC. You been told this many many times.

Your crying is only in reference to Candle, or in a Candle-related discussion. There's some issue you have that you're not being honest about here.

But whatever. Candle is what he is, and if you can't stand me using a convenient and appropriate nickname for him....

Caliendo impersonation of Al Pacino: "Nyah Nya Nanny Boo Boo"

On second thought, don't click on that link, Newcliche. It's all too juvenile and idiotic for you, right? You couldn't handle it, if you believe the crap you just said.

[SoCalSkins]

If you attack any of my positions within the context of the thread in which I argue my position, I'll probably kick the crap out of you in debate. So, it would take guts for you to attack my positions in my threads.

In a thread like this, you can toss out broadsides at my positions with impunity since I can't produce context for a defense without a whole lot of effort.

If you could kick the crap out of me in debate, you would simply do it and wouldn't whine about why you think it is not fair as to why you are not able to do it.

The context here includes all of your posting as does mine. Whether the other posts were made in a thread you started or did not is irrelevant. Establishing a reputation of making outlandish claims based on conjured up numbers that don't even add up correctly is your own doing.

Pretending they never took place is something that is not going to happen. That is the inherent beauty of the archives. Everything posted is permanent. However, times and circumstances do change. Look at ASF's coach killer thread, the first post never changed but the perception of its accuracy fluctuated wildly in both directions. Same can take place with your posts not involving Campbell.