Jason Campbell junk time statistics (edited, additional QB's added)

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Even still, I doubt he's got the number of times a prevent was actually faced correct, because he set-up scoring parameters rather than just saying "these teams went into prevent at this point, and here are the stats compiled then."

Plus, the JC '09 stuff has been argued relentlessly, it's a year old argument. Silly me for assuming there was talk of JC's performance THIS year in relation to garbage time stats, lol. I see how a comparison from '09 JC to '10 JC would help, but how does a comparison to a different Redskins team count as a valid comparison when there is no indication whatsoever of how the rest of the league fared in those situations, plus I don't see how it's relevant moreso than JC's '10 performance in determining if JC is decent or if he compiles a lot of his stats in junk time.

How about taking all his stats from the first 3 quarters and seeing how much that % is of his whole stats, and then comparing that % to the other QBs in the NFL? Then you could see if JC really is padding stats in the 4th or if he's on par with the rest of the league?

Oh, I don't disagree with you at all lol...and I even made some of these same arguments earlier in the thread.

[Mahons21]

"Garbage time" stats are a "garbage time" argument.

Answer me this Mahons? Yes or No. Do you consider Vicks performance in the big comeback against the Giants this year "padding his stats in junk time"?

No, but in only one of the games I showed you with Campbell did the defense even have an opportunity to get back on the field. Every other instance an onside kick recovery was required. In addition I would argue that the performance by Vick and the Eagles, was more the exception and not the rule. Also I don't remember the game exactly but I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants were in a much softer defense at the end of that game, which would resemble junk time statistics.

---------- Post added January-11th-2011 at 02:27 PM ----------

Even still, I doubt he's got the number of times a prevent was actually faced correct, because he set-up scoring parameters rather than just saying "these teams went into prevent at this point, and here are the stats compiled then."

Again I don't have the game film, if you have an indicator you believe that on average will be more accurate than the definition I have set, please share.

Plus, the JC '09 stuff has been argued relentlessly, it's a year old argument. Silly me for assuming there was talk of JC's performance THIS year in relation to garbage time stats, lol. I see how a comparison from '09 JC to '10 JC would help, but how does a comparison to a different Redskins team count as a valid comparison when there is no indication whatsoever of how the rest of the league fared in those situations, plus I don't see how it's relevant moreso than JC's '10 performance in determining if JC is decent or if he compiles a lot of his stats in junk time.

Silly for you not reading the OP, it would have been quite obvious I wasn't discussing the Raiders Campbell had you done that much.

How about taking all his stats from the first 3 quarters and seeing how much that % is of his whole stats, and then comparing that % to the other QBs in the NFL? Then you could see if JC really is padding stats in the 4th or if he's on par with the rest of the league?

That would be silly. What about QB's that lead a game winning drive in the 4th qtr? Should that be considered padding their stats?

[Conn]

Thing is I wasn't really trying to make a point in the OP. Only trying to put forth a set of numbers to see what conclusions others drew from them. Still waiting on that..

Well, I think its entirely fair that the conclusions they came to were that your statistics were pretty subjective, and slanted towards an argument that they know you support.

You have to know that's going to happen...you're a well-known "JC-debater". You can't post an OP like that and expect people to believe that its unbiased...because its not.

[tiger187126]

Thing is I wasn't really trying to make a point in the OP. Only trying to put forth a set of numbers to see what conclusions others drew from them. Still waiting on that..

you're almost right, you haven't made a point yet.

saying that throwing 3 tds instead of 3 ints means you didn't want to win is the most insane argument i've ever seen.

you were obviously trying to make a point, that's why you only broke down jc vs. mcnabb/grossman and said that a "decent (which is SIC in your OP) percentage of JC's numbers are in junk time"

what you failed to do is present valid evidence anywhere in the thread as to why we should buy your nonobjective stat cherry picking.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Thing is I wasn't really trying to make a point in the OP. Only trying to put forth a set of numbers to see what conclusions others drew from them.

So you agree your thread was pointless lol ...

Put in reality, you were trying to make a point in the OP:

At first glance these numbers make it appear that Jason Campbell didn't actually gain his stats in "junk-time." So I decided to take it a step further and compare that to the starting QB of the Redskins in 2010...

When "junk-time" stats are removed from season totals all together the stats look like:

2009 Campbell: 3,342 yds, 17 TDs, 15 INTs

2010 Rex/Donovan: 4,142 yds, 21 TDs, 16 INTs

When compared to QB's of the Redskins this year, you can clearly see Campbell actually did gain a descent portion of his stats in "junk-time."

You were making a point when you reached a conclusion that we could "clearly see" that JC got a good percentage of his stats in junk time. How you could claim otherwise is nonsense. You were also making a point when you compared his stats specifically to McNabb and Grossman, the guys who replaced him...and the point would be that his replacements were better than he was because they didn't have as much of their stats during junk times of games.

It's laughable that you'd expect us to believe otherwise

Still waiting on that..

You've already received tons of opinions on that question...and they are mostly saying that nothing of value can be gained from the stats you posted.

[Mahons21]

Well, I think its entirely fair that the conclusions they came to were that your statistics were pretty subjective, and slanted towards an argument that they know you support.

Then they should be showing me statistics of other QB's who have had similar #s.

You have to know that's going to happen...you're a well-known "JC-debater". You can't post an OP like that and expect people to believe that its unbiased...because its not.

Stats weren't cherry-picked nor was the review biased at all, the parameter was chosen prior to me looking over the statistics. I even mentioned in the OP that after only looking at Campbell's statistics, I personally didn't believe that a large portion of his stats were gained during junk-time.

[jflow78]

exactly, if you don't agree, don't post.

we get your "logic" mahons.

So you guys expected EVERYONE to agree with you? This isn't Nazi Germany, it's ES and NO ONE agrees with each other 90% of the time. (It's actually like 50/50 during garbage time though, jk )

And those are official stats.

[addicted]

man you're right! if only we had a franchise qb who could throw deep and not check down all the time:

donovan mcnabb: 7.2 average

jason campbell: 7.26 average

This proves nothing and is just throwing out a worthless stat.

I take it you want to argue the point JC is a Franchise QB because that's what I said the man isn't. I also take it that you disagree with me that without a running game JC is nothing because that's also what I said. I don't know the stats to back up this claim for what he did this year in Oakland but I do remember from his days here him having 5 games out of 50+ where he actually threw more then 300 yards and at the same time throwing 3 or more TD's in a single game below that in all of the games he played here. I also recall too well the 2008 season where Clinton Portis rushed for 1000 yards by mid season and the team jumped out to a 6-2 start and then Portis goes down and the team falls apart under JC's watch and slumps to a 2-6 finish because he didn't have the ability to hand off any more. And finally what's the bigger story out of Oakland this year? JC or McFadden's resurgance? Of course it's the come back player of the year McFadden and how he racked up all of those yards. You can credit JC for Oakland's turn around but to do so is foolish.

[elkabong82]

Rather than attacking the OP, why not bring forth stats of your own? Why not show Jason Campbell's stats this season if you believe they are more relevant. I put stats forth for the reader to draw a conclusion, if you don't want to draw a conclusion I won't force you, but please make an attempt to bring something to the debate. Stop acting like congressmen.

Most in here have been bringing stuff to the debate, you simply will only acknowledge it as attacks on you, when really it is serious questioning o the logic you used in your argument. They are valid retorts, and the cnclusions being drawn are that we can't derive a conclusion from your OP because your evidence is based off asumptions.

Under your parameters, Campbell only had 26 pass attempts when down by 9+ (going off split stats from ESPN, other range is 1-8) this year, so that alone is not enough over the course of a season to establish a trend.

As far as quarters go, 94 of 329 pass attempts occurred in 4th, 756 of 2387 pass yards in 4th, 4 of 13 TDs in 4th, 1 of 8 INTs in 4th. Each one is less than 1/3 of his total stats for 2010.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/splits?playerId=8440

As far as 2009 goes, 137 of 507 pass attempts in 4th, 842 of 3618 pass yards, 4 of 20 TDs, 4 of 15 INTs all in 4th. So, just over 20% of JC';s pass attempts were in the 4th, less than 25% of his yards were in the 4th, exactly 20% of his TDs came in the 4th, just over 25% of INTs came in 4th. So none of JC's important '09 stats in the 4th comprised more than 1/4 of his overall performance.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/splits?playerId=8440&sYear=2009

Just for fun, here's Tom Brady from this season, a QB who rarely was playing from behind: 97 of 492 pass attempts in 4th, 736 of 3900 yards, 8 of 36 TDs, 2 of 4 INTs, or about 20% of pass attempts, just under 20% of yards, 22% of TDs, 50% of INTs in 4th, but INTs is skewed due to such a low number overall of them. But the percentages are relatively the same 20-25% range of total stats for both QBs.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/splits?playerId=2330

So, how can JC be padding stats and putting most stats up in garbage time when his 4th quarter stats don't equate to more than 20-25% of his total stats, a range Brady hits in as well? You know, the same question that was asked when "garbage time" was argued previously.

[Passizle]

No, but in only one of the games I showed you with Campbell did the defense even have an opportunity to get back on the field. Every other instance an onside kick recovery was required. In addition I would argue that the performance by Vick and the Eagles, was more the exception and not the rule. Also I don't remember the game exactly but I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants were in a much softer defense at the end of that game, which would resemble junk time statistics.

Sound contradictory to me. You say that you dont think Vick padded his stats in junk time, but in the same post say you think the Giants were probably in a softer coverage.

Was tha that not your "concrete" definition? Down by 2 or more scores with 5:00 or less to play. By your own definition, Vicks stats are padded in junk time. What probably changes that inyour mind is that they won that game. That begs the question about your "concrete" definition. You should add to that, that its only junk time if it results in a losing effort. If its a win, all bets are off.

I think your whole premise is silly. You did your math your self and probably did not like the results... which is why you had to dig deeper to "prove" a point. you said all you need to say right here:

This would all add up to 276 yds, O INTs and 3 TDs or 15% of his TDs, 7% of his total yardage and 0% towards his INTs.

Sorry Mahons. No matter which way you slice it, whether its 7.6% of his yards or 15% of his TD's... in no way, shape, or form are those numbers EVER "most of" or even a "decsent" amount of 100%.

[elkabong82]

Oh, I don't disagree with you at all lol...and I even made some of these same arguments earlier in the thread.

you know what they say about great minds, lol

[Clutch03]

I believe Mahons21 is being made the "Scapegoat" in this thread

[tiger187126]

This proves nothing and is just throwing out a worthless stat.

not nearly as worthless as the "junk time stats" stat that's being tossed around in this thread. i don't see how a qb who you refer to as checking down all the time having the same/slightly better YPA stat is worthless btw.

I take it you want to argue the point JC is a Franchise QB because that's what I said the man isn't.

take it however you want to take it. you'll just look dumber for it, although that doesn't seem to stop you. i never said anything close to what you're implying. you've come into a thread without reading anything and just started spraying negative JC stuff. had you actually read anything you would know this thread has nothing to do with JC being a franchise qb. but put those fingers back in your ear and go on.

I also take it that you disagree with me that without a running game JC is nothing because that's also what I said. I don't know the stats to back up this claim for what he did this year in Oakland but I do remember from his days here him having 5 games out of 50+ where he actually threw more then 300 yards and at the same time throwing 3 or more TD's in a single game below that in all of the games he played here. I also recall too well the 2008 season where Clinton Portis rushed for 1000 yards by mid season and the team jumped out to a 6-2 start and then Portis goes down and the team falls apart under JC's watch and slumps to a 2-6 finish because he didn't have the ability to hand off any more. And finally what's the bigger story out of Oakland this year? JC or McFadden's resurgance? Of course it's the come back player of the year McFadden and how he racked up all of those yards. You can credit JC for Oakland's turn around but to do so is foolish.

no, the foolishness would be to say that i said anything that you just tried to put in my mouth in a thread about something that has nothing to do with JC in oakland.

thank you for playing but you're in left field.

again, you're off topic and just hating on JC.

if you want to talk JC in oakland, lets talk 8-4 as the starter and 6-0 in the division. lets also talk what gradkowski did with the same team when he got to start.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Then they should be showing me statistics of other QB's who have had similar #s.

Why?...Should we remind you of what you yourself just said?

"Thing is I wasn't really trying to make a point in the OP. Only trying to put forth a set of numbers to see what conclusions others drew from them. Still waiting on that.."

You said you were "still waiting" to see what conclusions we reached from "them"...meaning, from YOUR stats. You wanted us to look at your stats and draw a conclusion from them. And most of us drew the conclusion that your stats held little value. So you can stop waiting lol...

Stats weren't cherry-picked nor was the review biased at all, the parameter was chosen prior to me looking over the statistics. I even mentioned in the OP that after only looking at Campbell's statistics, I personally didn't believe that a large portion of his stats were gained during junk-time.

So when you said this:

"...you can clearly see Campbell actually did gain a descent portion of his stats in "junk-time"...

How were we supposed to define that statement?

[tiger187126]

I believe Mahons21 is being made the "Scapegoat" in this thread

it's not like he's some innocent bystander who accidentally posted something wrong. he created a thread, form of stats, and argument all to try to bash a player who isn't on the team anymore.

this is what happens when you bring a knife to a gun fight.

[Clutch03]

it's not like he's some innocent bystander who accidentally posted something wrong. he created a thread, form of stats, and argument all to try to bash a player who isn't on the team anymore.

this is what happens when you bring a knife to a gun fight.

Oh I know ... you might want to turn your sarcasm detector up a bit. I was refrencing the JC quote that he felt he was a the scapegoat for the '09 season.

[Mahons21]

Sound contradictory to me. You say that you dont think Vick padded his stats in junk time, but in the same post say you think the Giants were probably in a softer coverage.

Was tha that not your "concrete" definition? Down by 2 or more scores with 5:00 or less to play. By your own definition, Vicks stats are padded in junk time. What probably changes that inyour mind is that they won that game. That begs the question about your "concrete" definition. You should add to that, that its only junk time if it results in a losing effort. If its a win, all bets are off.

Passizle this type of game is not the norm I think we both will agree to that, and I'm by no means saying my concrete definition is 100% accurate. I am claiming that on average a team will be playing a softer defense at that point in the game, its only logical.

As I've said if someone has a more concrete definition for when a QB might be going against a "junk-time" D, by all means please share. The only person I've seen put forth something else is Elkabong who suggested the fourth qtr, which in my opinion is pretty silly because that would include games winning drives. Hardly "junk-time" stats. If a QB drive the field in a 4 pt game and gets TD with 30 secs left on the clock, would you consider that junk-time?

I think your whole premise is silly. You did your math your self and probably did not like the results... which is why you had to dig deeper to "prove" a point. you said all you need to say right here:

I chose the parameters prior to the research. In addition, I dug further because I needed to put the statistics in some context, which I chose to do through comparison.

Sorry Mahons. No matter which way you slice it, whether its 7.6% of his yards or 15% of his TD's... in no way, shape, or form are those numbers EVER "most of" or even a "decsent" amount of 100%.

When compared to other numbers it is though.

[renaissance]

I don't get it. You guys do know he's not our QB anymore, right?

[tiger187126]

Oh I know ... you might want to turn your sarcasm detector up a bit. I was refrencing the JC quote that he felt he was a the scapegoat for the '09 season.

i forgot that's the new one. i still remember the used toilet tissue one. and with that quote i must say i can't really disagree that he was the scapegoat. especially after being on the boards last year.

[addicted]

not nearly as worthless as the "junk time stats" stat that's being tossed around in this thread. i don't see how a qb who you refer to as checking down all the time having the same/slightly better YPA stat is worthless btw.

Please quote me as saying he checked down all the time...I'm waiting. You can't because I didn't say that.

take it however you want to take it. you'll just look dumber for it, although that doesn't seem to stop you. i never said anything close to what you're implying. you've come into a thread without reading anything and just started spraying negative JC stuff. had you actually read anything you would know this thread has nothing to do with JC being a franchise qb. but put those fingers back in your ear and go on.

Another completely incorrect statement made by you. I read this entire thread and was going to argue that the OP never proved anything but that was covered. When I saw some one speaking the truth about this player I quoted him and gave my opinion. You got your panties in a wad because I wasn't swinging on the line of "6-0 as a starter in his devision" as you are. How was JC's record against the NFC East in all of those games he played here anyway? Does that deem worthy of comparrison or is it just "all good" with you and no room for truth?

You can call it "hate" but I call it the truth and had you not felt like you do now you wouldn't call it "hate". Simple minded people always throw out labels and false accusations like this because your trying to defend your wrong ideas and beliefs. I don't "hate" JC but he's entirely misunderstood by some of the posters on this forum that need to be taught how to spot talent and you can't. Stop posting and start reading more and you might get it but with your stupidity I doubt it

[Clutch03]

I don't get it. You guys do know he's not our QB anymore, right?

Exactly what makes this thread even more ridiculous. It's like it's somehow '09 all over again. But I guess this is what happens when your team doesn't get to play any games in January.

[elkabong82]

The only person I've seen put forth something else is Elkabong who suggested the fourth qtr, which in my opinion is pretty silly because that would include games winning drives. Hardly "junk-time" stats. If a QB drive the field in a 4 pt game and gets TD with 30 secs left on the clock, would you consider that junk-time?

.

In theory, if JC really did compile most of his stats, or even a "decent portion" of them as I believe you stated in the OP, in "garbage time" then his stats for the 4th quarter should be more than 1/4 of his total stats. In fact, using the entire 4th quarter should strengthen your argument, but it doesn't. All of this means JC's "garbage time" stats this year or last, are no more a significant chunk of his overall stats than Brady's, rather his 4th quarter stats are proportional to an even ratio of 25% for each quarter.

Another way to explain it is that if not even the total 4th quarter stats comprise a significant or even decent chunk of JC's total stats, then there is no need to break those 4th quarter stats down further to reflect garbage time because the garbage time argument has thus been disproven.

[Clutch03]

i forgot that's the new one. i still remember the used toilet tissue one. and with that quote i must say i can't really disagree that he was the scapegoat. especially after being on the boards last year.

Agreed.

I said it in the another thread he was definitely the scapegoat. Especially after watching the team play this season. I mean the QB changed (probowler/future hall of famer), coach changed(super bowl winning coach), offensive line upgraded (finally drafted a tackle!) and even a real offensive coordinator (#1 in passing the year prior). And the team still managed to get double digits in the loss column.

I thought everything would be great for this team once JC stopped holding them back? Right?

[Mahons21]

In theory, if JC really did compile most of his stats, or even a "decent portion" of them as I believe you stated in the OP, in "garbage time" then his stats for the 4th quarter should be more than 1/4 of his total stats. In fact, using the entire 4th quarter should strengthen your argument, but it doesn't. All of this means JC's "garbage time" stats this year or last, are no more a significant chunk of his overall stats than Brady's, rather his 4th quarter stats are proportional to an even ratio of 25% for each quarter.

So you think entire 4th qtr statistics are a more accurate gauge of a QB padding stats, then statistics compiled in the 4th qtr of a 2 score game and 5 minutes or less to play?

You realize you're including QB's that are driving down the field and winning the game for their team, which happens quite often in the NFL where most games are decided by a single score.

I would argue that on average a defense will be playing much softer in the parameters I've given, than the parameters you have suggested.

[Passizle]

Passizle this type of game is not the norm I think we both will agree to that, and I'm by no means saying my concrete definition is 100% accurate. I am claiming that on average a team will be playing a softer defense at that point in the game, its only logical.

I disagree. I dont think any team plays a softer coverage at the end of a game any more or less than they do at any other part in the game.

As I've said if someone has a more concrete definition for when a QB might be going against a "junk-time" D, by all means please share. The only person I've seen put forth something else is Elkabong who suggested the fourth qtr, which in my opinion is pretty silly because that would include games winning drives. Hardly "junk-time" stats. If a QB drive the field in a 4 pt game and gets TD with 30 secs left on the clock, would you consider that junk-time?

I think padding stats in junktime" is a myth fashioned by a sect of QB experts on ES to over simplify the shortcoming of our team. Its much easier to say we just need a new QB rather than we need to rebuild our entire team from the ground up.

I chose the parameters prior to the research. In addition, I dug further because I needed to put the statistics in some context, which I chose to do through comparison.

I disagree. I think you dove deeper to skew the numbers as the result you received was nowhere near what you expected.If you wanted to give true contrast, you would have compared JC numbers to every other QB in the league. Its alot of work, but if you did that, you would see that JC play in that aspect is not much different than any other.

When compared to other numbers it is though.

No. It does not. If anything, it shows that JC faired better than McNabb/Grossman late in games. As in, he played better against soft coverage (so you say) than McNabb or Grossman. Basically you are penalizing a QB for taking what the defense gives. IMO, thats assanine.