The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

This isn't very scientific but ...

Whenever we played Philly over the past 10 years I dreaded them getting the ball late within a score because they had McNabb.

(During that time Philly had a good D and 3 other things - McNabb, Westbrook, and a kicker. They went to the NFC championship again and again and lost the Super Bowl to one of the great teams of recent times after McNabb led them down the field late to take the lead - but their D couldn't stop the Pats.)

Over the past 5 years when we had the ball late within a score I was virtually resigned to losing becaue our QB was JC (or Rex!).

I think most fans across the land shared these feelings when they played Philly and shared them in reverse when they played us.

PS - This thread is no more useless than any other IMO.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:This isn't very scientific but ...

Whenever we played Philly over the past 10 years I dreaded them getting the ball late within a score because they had McNabb.

(During that time Philly had a good D and 3 other things - McNabb, Westbrook, and a kicker. They went to the NFC championship again and again and lost the Super Bowl to one of the great teams of recent times after McNabb led them down the field late to take the lead - but their D couldn't stop the Pats.)

Over the past 5 years when we had the ball late within a score I was virtually resigned to losing becaue our QB was JC (or Rex!).

I think most fans across the land shared these feelings when they played Philly and shared them in reverse when they played us.

PS - This thread is no more useless than any other IMO.

DarthMonk

For the most part I agree. I say Mcnab is or was way better but....If the same excuses for JC aren't good enough for Mcnab then we are being two faced aren't we?

Let's face it...JC under Zorn is different than Mcnab under MS. Both teams had sorry lines but I see an improvement under the Shanahans for offense. Much more going on than meets the eye. Also, once they(Philly) made Mcnab stay in the pocket and throw instead of having that run threat that he does now; made him much worse. I know he got them to the superbowl eventually but true colors come out at that point. I think he still can be a huge factor in this league but not until they simplify things for him. Word on the street from Philly fans is he really isn't that smart and that is why they had to make an offense that was so simple that he could run. Just sayin.

SAP_Pete wrote:And Vince Young is ranked #1 in QB rating, so clearly he's the best QB in the league.

Look dude, I don't make up the stats. They are what they are.

It's no surprise that half of the teams with QBs ranked in the top ten are also having good seasons:

Tennesse (with partial play by Vince Young): 5-3
Indy: 5-2
San Diego: 3-5
Jacksonville: 4-4
New England: 6-1
Dallas: 1-6
Denver: 2-6
New Orleans: 5-3
Buffalo: 0-7
Kansas City: 5-2

Good team effort, good QB play. We have little of both, even when McNabb is by all means a better QB than JC.

El Mexican wrote:It's no surprise that half of the teams with QBs ranked in the top ten are also having good seasons:

If half the teams with a good QB rating have a good season, and half the teams with a good QB rating are having a bad season, that can only mean that the QB rating doesn't mean all that much.

SAP_Pete wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

SAP_Pete wrote:And Vince Young is ranked #1 in QB rating, so clearly he's the best QB in the league.

he's actually 3 behind Fitzpatrick and P Manning.

Hmm, I was going by the stats on nfl.com.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats? ... 447263-p=1

Weird...I just checked on NFL.com as well before I posted and it didn't that. It is what it is.

SAP_Pete wrote:

El Mexican wrote:It's no surprise that half of the teams with QBs ranked in the top ten are also having good seasons:

If half the teams with a good QB rating have a good season, and half the teams with a good QB rating are having a bad season, that can only mean that the QB rating doesn't mean all that much.

Or it means the other 51 players on the team actually do help/hurt the teams chances of winning games dramatically.

langleyparkjoe wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Before we go pining for JC over McNabb, can we PLEASE keep in mind that JC "led" the Redskins to a 4-12 season????

It took McNabb less than 8 games to match Jason's win total during this rebuilding year.

I'm not excited about McNabb's stats, but his win-loss record, even at 4-4, reminds me that the Skins made the right choice in letting go of Jason.

Home run hit Redeemed.. as soon as you said JC "led" us to 4-12.. and just for effect, let's not forget that JC is currently playing because the other guy is hurt.

Thanks, LPJ.

The icing on that 4-12 record are the losses to the '09 Rams, and the same Lions team that once went 0-16.*

*While McNabb has lost THIS year to those same teams, Jason played, as I recall for ALL 60 minutes of BOTH games. *

SAP_Pete wrote:

El Mexican wrote:It's no surprise that half of the teams with QBs ranked in the top ten are also having good seasons:

If half the teams with a good QB rating have a good season, and half the teams with a good QB rating are having a bad season, that can only mean that the QB rating doesn't mean all that much.

I means you have a better chance of winning with one of them on your team.

El Mexican wrote:

SAP_Pete wrote:

El Mexican wrote:It's no surprise that half of the teams with QBs ranked in the top ten are also having good seasons:

If half the teams with a good QB rating have a good season, and half the teams with a good QB rating are having a bad season, that can only mean that the QB rating doesn't mean all that much.

I means you have a better chance of winning with one of them on your team.

Because a 50% probability means it's more likely. Seriously ?

We're clearly not getting anywhere with math, so let me just say that a high QB rating doesn't necessarily mean you have a great QB, and vice versa.

For example, if you have a great red zone ground game, your team will be more likely to run the ball in (no risk to get intercepted). Lesser passing TDs = lower QB rating. That doesn't mean your QB sucks.
If your receivers keep dropping perfect passes, it lowers the QB rating as well. Doesn't mean the QB sucks.

It's like measuring the quality of your defense by yards allowed only. It's a piece of the puzzle, but it's far from telling the whole story.

http://www.nfl.com/help/quarterbackratingformula

El Mexican wrote:Not that I would ever petition for JC to return to Washington, but still this is interesting:

Donovan McNabb

Comp. - 159
Att. - 277
Pct. - 57.4
Yards - 1,971
Avg - 7.1
Yds/Game - 246.4
TDs - 7
INTs - 8
Long - 62
Comp +40 - 7
Sacks - 22
Rating - 76

Jason Campbell

Comp. - 78
Att. - 138
Pct. - 56.5
Yards - 1,023
Avg. - 7.4
Yards/Game - 170.5
TDs - 6
INTs - 4
Comp +40 - 5
Sacks - 15
Rating - 82.5

Now some of you will say that JC has had less playing time that McNabb and always skews these numbers. It's true. JC is also playing with the Raiders, mind you. That's what is surprising. Could also mean that Oakland has a much better running game that we do.

Source: NFL.com

And where in those stats do you see JC playing better than DM? INT and Sacks? If JC had played as much as DM, those numbers would be worse, too.

SKINFAN wrote:LoL with your stats, here's some for ya.

JC has a game high (yards) 310 on week 8, on a 33-3 win. 300 yds and change after 33 plus points and a beating to the other team, hmn, shouldn't he have more yards than 310, or is the running game just kickin arse that the passing was easier. He had 204 yards on week 7 after the raiders scored 59 pts. Shouldn't he have more yards you think? Or was it the running game again. Dmac has 400 plus on a loss after our team scored 27, basically, we were on Dmac's arm, coz no run game. Dmac has constant 200 plus yds, with our turnstyle O line and suspect running game.

EDIT: And Dmac is not even in Fottball shape yet, or has not grasped the O to run the 2 min drill.

...just sayin.

Exactly! JC is not havng a better year in Oakland, DMac is...





































The only problem is DMac is Darren McFadden.

El Mexican wrote:

SAP_Pete wrote:And Vince Young is ranked #1 in QB rating, so clearly he's the best QB in the league.

Look dude, I don't make up the stats. They are what they are.

It's no surprise that half of the teams with QBs ranked in the top ten are also having good seasons:

Tennesse (with partial play by Vince Young): 5-3
Indy: 5-2
San Diego: 3-5
Jacksonville: 4-4
New England: 6-1
Dallas: 1-6
Denver: 2-6
New Orleans: 5-3
Buffalo: 0-7
Kansas City: 5-2

Good team effort, good QB play. We have little of both, even when McNabb is by all means a better QB than JC.

He didn't make up his stat either. What's your point? And half those teams are having crappy seasons. So again, what's your point?

Deadskins wrote:

El Mexican wrote:

SAP_Pete wrote:And Vince Young is ranked #1 in QB rating, so clearly he's the best QB in the league.

Look dude, I don't make up the stats. They are what they are.

It's no surprise that half of the teams with QBs ranked in the top ten are also having good seasons:

Tennesse (with partial play by Vince Young): 5-3
Indy: 5-2
San Diego: 3-5
Jacksonville: 4-4
New England: 6-1
Dallas: 1-6
Denver: 2-6
New Orleans: 5-3
Buffalo: 0-7
Kansas City: 5-2

Good team effort, good QB play. We have little of both, even when McNabb is by all means a better QB than JC.

He didn't make up his stat either. What's your point? And half those teams are having crappy seasons. So again, what's your point?

I'm only saying that you have a much better probability of winning with one of those QBs than without one.

Take Buffalo for example: terrible season but that dude from Harvard has constantly kept the Bills in a lot of games. Can you imagine what he could do in a decent team?

Big throw by JC to win the game.

Shame he could never hit a deep receiver in stride in prior years.

Kilmer72 wrote:Look, I was a serious JC supporter. He had his chance here and failed. If I am man enough to admit this then others need to be like this a say McNabb isn't all that yet. Not for the skins.

Our line really sucks but is way better than last years. We have better receivers than last year.

What happened to stats do not matter just wins?

I am looking at threading the needle which JC has done for the Raiders. Too bad he didn't as a skin. Doesn't matter. I think Dmac is way better because of potential only and he has a nice deep ball. Actually they say but haven't really seen except preseason that Grossman has the most pretty deep ball out of all 3.

I cannot even believe this thread ... and the ridiculous comments .. that frankly show how illiterate some Redskin fans actually are.

Comparing the 6 time Pro Bowler, McNabb, to Jason "the only way I'll see a pro bowl is with a ticket" Campbell is so ludicrous, it's really not worthy of being dignified with a response.

But ... how anyone can say this o-line is better than last year is beyond me. With McNabb's mobility, we're still on pace for more sacks, and this year's line is providing the same run blocking that last year's third stringers and guys brought in off the street produced.

Offensively, McNabb is averaging 230+ yards/g passing compared to JC's stellar numbers of 218 yards/g last year .... and scoring an average of 19.4/g versus JC's 16.3/g, last year, which is significant.

And that is with McNabb .... according to you all ... playing poorly ... while last year, Jason racked up "great" stats, but was just victim of a bad o-line.

I swear, one hooked on Kool-Aide .... apparently it's harder to kick than heroine, and makes you dumber than weed.

Countertrey wrote:Shame he could never hit a deep receiver in stride in prior years.

And when he did they dropped it.

brad7686 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Shame he could never hit a deep receiver in stride in prior years.

And when he did they dropped it.

I only ever saw ONE of those... most of the time, he led receivers out of bounds, or forced them to slow down...


of course, you already know that...

Congratulations to Jason Campbell. He is making some big plays and enjoying some success. The Raiders are looking a lot better than anyone expected, and J.C. has been a big contributor. I wish him the best.

Happy w/ McNabb and happy that JC is having success. Not sure if he could have had the same success in DC that he's having in Oakland. Having a team behind you is big and it seems that he does. Having a running game makes you a better QB - which he does. They still can't pass block worth a dang and he's still got to make some smarter decisions but good improvement on his part.

I expect to see DMac step up after the bye week.

The JC supporters gave excuses for him not performing greatly in DC (I was one of them). The guys against JC didn't feel the excuses were valid and felt a PRO Bowler would improve our offense. Well thus far the pro bowl star qb is not performing well and it is because of the same excuses that were given to JC. No qb can be comfortable behind this offensive line.

Countertrey wrote:

brad7686 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Shame he could never hit a deep receiver in stride in prior years.

And when he did they dropped it.

I only ever saw ONE of those... most of the time, he led receivers out of bounds, or forced them to slow down...


of course, you already know that...

I saw Thomas and Kelly drop two or three that were right in their grill last year. But we know now they shouldn't be on the field anyway.

As far as Moss, he may drop one here or there, but its more that he doesn't make catches that other receivers would. That will always be his biggest issue.

Even this year, most of the deep targets have been to armstrong and galloway, two guys who weren't here last year.

I watched this game and the Raiders did not win because of Campbell - they won in spite of this loser of a QB

SkinsJock wrote:I watched this game and the Raiders did not win because of Campbell - they won in spite of this loser of a QB

Gotta agree. JC had only 67 yards in the first 3 quarters and it's not the first time he's been sub-75 through 3 this year. He had a decent 4th, although I think the receives made great plays on bad throws. Bottomline, he's not any better then when he was here. Glad he won and I wish him the best, but he's not playing better then the average McNabb.

SkinsJock wrote:I watched this game and the Raiders did not win because of Campbell - they won in spite of this loser of a QB

That's hateful, even to joke about. What did he do to you? And what qualifies you to be so royal as to judge these football professionals? I can understand having an opinion. And I can even understand an emotional outburst, but to result to constant insults only reflects bad on you.