Skins-Raiders Post Game

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:01 pm

SkinsJock wrote:^^^ good post Frank - the foremost thing to me is that this franchise is not playing and acting like a team - actually the idea of just bringing in a GM and giving him the power to make any changes he needs and keeping Zorn but surrounding him with both the coaches and players he needs, could work - I'm not against keeping everybody, I just want this group to consistently be competitive

The only way that we are going to be a competitive team again is for everybody to be on the same page and we do not have that and have not had that for about 10 years

I don't automatically attribute the recent offensive improvement solely to Sherm Lewis' play calling, but I'm not big on "coincidences" either. Unfortunately, one must at least consider that it has had a significant and positive effect ... and with Campbell's recent elevated play, it stands to reason that part of it might be that Lewis is tailoring his play calls to what he perceives is Campbell's strengths and ability to execute. If that is indeed the case, then the case for keeping Zorn has no foundation, since he was hired primarily to coach up Campbell and improve the offense. What purpose would it serve to keep a lame duck, totally undermined HC that can't be trusted with the duties you specifically hired him to perform?

Continuity is a good thing only when you like what you see ... you don't continue what you don't like seeing, do you?

As I've maintained all along, the skill positions on offense may not be all pro calibre across the board, but obviously good enough to put significant points on the board with proper execution, as we've seen these past 2 weeks. That, along with a very good defense tells me that there never has been a need for wholesale roster cleaning on the team. Fortify the O-line, and set out to secure a "franchise" quality QB should be the two top priorities, and make a couple of offensive roster moves to help facilitate that.

No matter what is said ... Jason Campbell is not a "franchise" quality QB .. and that should be the goal, as it is with all teams.

If you want consistency and competitiveness, year in and year out in this league you simply have to have a top tier QB. The Colts, Pats, Saints, Chargers, Giants, Cowboys, Cardinals, Vikings, Eagles are all examples of teams that would be mediocre to average without their well above average QBs.

And you have to be willing to resign yourself to growing pains with a young QB, since you're unlikely to come across a Drew Brees type deal like the Saints pulled off.

The Sooner you get started, the sooner the rewards. I think most agree Campbell is never going to be a top tier QB in this league.

Want to remain average ... keep struggling with Campbell. Want to win championships? You have got to get a top 10 QB ... ideally, top 5.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:04 pm

RayNAustin wrote:Want to win championships? You have got to get a top 10 QB ... ideally, top 5.

That's just not true.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:14 pm

The only person whose job should be terminated as soon as the season is over is Vinny Cerrato - a new GM can then come in and be given the task to evaluate everyone and how they suit his vision for what we need to do to begin the process of restoring respectability to this franchise

I am not against Zorn, Lewis or any of the many talented players and coaches we have here offensively but I would be intrigued if the new GM thought that many of these guys suited his plans to have this offense get back on track in the NFC East

LET's GET IT ON

mastdark81 · Post by **mastdark81** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:24 pm

SkinsJock wrote:I'm all for Campbell having a great finish here - I think there's a great chance that there's no CBA and we'll get something for him

I'm still not thinking Campbell is anything but a good QB but he's still not good enough to be a really good QB - but it's all good with me if he stays until we can get someone behind center that is a really good QB

Whats the difference between Peyton Manning, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson? No difference...they all have only won one Super Bowl. You have probably the most acclaimed qb in NFL history...he will go to the Hall of Fame, multiple pro bowls, but has only won 1 SUPERBOWL. Brett Favre = 1 super bowl and he's played about 20 years. It isn't about having a great QB it is about having a great team and facts show a qb doesn't have to be a hall of famer to win a superbowl. Football is a team sport.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:40 pm

I think you meant Eli Manning - Peyton is one of the best "all time" QB's.

...but, I do agree with your post though.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:39 pm

mastdark81 wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:I'm all for Campbell having a great finish here - I think there's a great chance that there's no CBA and we'll get something for him

I'm still not thinking Campbell is anything but a good QB but he's still not good enough to be a really good QB - but it's all good with me if he stays until we can get someone behind center that is a really good QB

Whats the difference between Peyton Manning, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson? No difference...they all have only won one Super Bowl. You have probably the most acclaimed qb in NFL history...he will go to the Hall of Fame, multiple pro bowls, but has only won 1 SUPERBOWL. Brett Favre = 1 super bowl and he's played about 20 years. It isn't about having a great QB it is about having a great team and facts show a qb doesn't have to be a hall of famer to win a superbowl. Football is a team sport.

We do not need a great QB but it sure helps - we just need a great team - that is ONLY possible if someone comes in here with the ability to begin putting one together - a truly great QB is only as good as his offensive line and his support cast - look at how well Dan Marino did and it was primarily because his supporting players were not up to the task

I have never maintained that we need to go all out for a QB but if you can find a Peyton or a HOF QB then hopefully the new GM will bring him in, BUT, at the same time - you have to have a really good offensive (and defensive) line and it takes a while to get that in place and with decent depth - unless someone can make me feel that the next Peyton Manning is available when we pick then we don't take any chances and pick the best OT

we need a GM with a plan - we do not need great coaches and great players - they will become great when we have a team - that's what Snyder fails to see - he just buys the most expensive watch without knowing that it does not keep perfect time - he just likes that it looks good on his finger and the fact that it's his

what is the fixation with who won a Super Bowl - the only thing this group ever wins is the off season trophy - we need to get this group into a team before we can even think about playing in the playoffs - we need to be consistently competitive

WE NEED A GM

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:44 pm

mastdark81 wrote:Whats the difference between Peyton Manning, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson? No difference.

are you really serious - hopefully you will not be asked to help in the selection of who plays QB here

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:04 pm

I'm sure he meant Eli Manning.

mastdark81 · Post by **mastdark81** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:10 pm

SkinsJock wrote:
mastdark81 wrote:Whats the difference between Peyton Manning, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson? No difference.

are you really serious - hopefully you will not be asked to help in the selection of who plays QB here

haha. Of course there are differences and Peyton is the better qb of the three but in the amount of Super Bowl wins they are no different. Sorry I was not specific in my original post. My point is the superstar qb, while they may sell tickets, get a few commercials, doesn't necessarily equal greater success over a good serviceable qb. For our management and fans to want a Qb in the draft 1st round this year at least with other higher priority holes is not wise.

Paralis · Post by **Paralis** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:24 pm

RayNAustin wrote:
Paralis wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:Personally, and I said this last year too, Jason needs to play well for more than two or three games. Consistency is the key, and winning. Stats mean NOTHING when your record is 6-15 over a long 21 game stretch.

Again, it's not 2-3 games. It's 7 games. It's also his 7 most recent games, which coincidentally happen to be his 7 best games.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Against Dallas & Philly, both losses, and 4 and 3 weeks ago respectively, his comp % was below his career average, so was his yards per comp, his TDs to ints (2/3) below, and his QB rating in each of those 2 games were 15 points below his average (73 in both games). In the Cowboys game, Zero TDs and the offense scored 6 points. In the Philly game he had 2 TDs but also 2 ints .. and his comp % at 59.5 and yards per comp at 6.2 are weak. I would also add that he was sacked ONCE in each of those two games.

Funny how the facts tend to derail these arguments when closely examined.

Paralis wrote:The point you miss--the point you always miss--is that if you chart Campbell's performance, despite the peaks and valleys, the trend is upward. His play now is better than any of his play in 2008; his first 6 weeks in 2008 were better than any of his play in 2007, and his play in 2007 was better than in 2006.

Funny again ... do you think that it should go unnoticed the DRAMATIC DECLINE from the first half of 2008 and the second half? Or the continuation of that poor play well into the 2009 season all the way to the KC game just 8 weeks ago when his QB rating for that game was a whopping 46.1 and even the uber patient Coach Zorn benched him for poor play? The worst game and the lowest rating of his entire 49 game career, against a hapless, winless, defenseless opponent? My my how the memory works. Nice if you can remember only the good times.

Paralis wrote:It's one thing to be impatient--I was impatient with Campbell last year, wanting him to make that leap faster. It's another to stick your head in the sand and deny that the progression's happening. Over the last 7 weeks, Campbell has played more like a pro bowler than an average QB, and although his true value's probably somewhere in the middle, that should be determined by his play going forward, and not his play from over a year ago.

Like I said ... that 7-6 loss against Dallas was three weeks ago, and my head ain't in the sand. It wasn't last year either, or the year before when a career backup came in and played circles around Campbell.

He's played well the past TWO weeks. But over the course of this entire season, against what could only be described as one of the easiest schedules in recent memory, we lost to previously winless and hopeless teams like the Lions and the Chiefs, while enjoying a pretty decent defense all along.

As a starting QB 2006, he was 2-5. 2007 5-7 2008 8-8 and 2009 4-9 so far. With three games to go, he's still GUARANTEED to have a losing record and the Redskins may wind up with their worst finish since 1994 unless they win one of the final three games.

Face it ... he's played well for 2 weeks. Over these past 7 games you cite, the skins are 2-5, which is the same record they were with Campbell at the helm in 2006 in his first 7 starts.

This may seem like steady improvement to you ... it looks a lot like MORE OF THE SAME to me.

This is a real pretty wall of text and I'm just flattered that you took the time, but you may want to take a deep breath and read up on terms like "average" and "statistical significance."

The short version? a "career average" statistic will be the result of data points that come in both below and above that average. Its value as a statistic comes from the fact that it's a description of a typical instance in that set, because IT ACCOUNTS FOR AND INCLUDES THOSE VALUES IN THE SET THAT ARE BELOW THE AVERAGE.

And statistical significance? Well, the gist of that one is that a set of data gets more meaningful--i.e. is less likely to be explained by random chance--as it gets larger. Which is why I'm using the 7 games under Lewis, which is a nice easy chunk of time for the kids at home to wrap their heads around. Because even though Campbell's numbers look better if you just count the last two weeks, it doesn't mean as much.

Good and bad--and, yes, there's been some of both--Campbell's playing at a borderline pro-bowl level right now, well above his performance in 2008, and without the benefit of anything resembling a league-leading rushing offense. And that's going to continue until it stops. Which might be next week, and it might be never. But we won't know until we get there.

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:38 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:Want to win championships? You have got to get a top 10 QB ... ideally, top 5.

That's just not true.

Name some Super Bowl teams that didn't have a top 10 QB at the helm?

Of course there is an exception here and there, but the vast percentage of the time championship calibre teams have elite QBs.

To argue this is pointless. You're wrong, plain and simple

Let's look at some examples ... lets go way back to when the redskins were in the Super Bowl?

1992 Rypien (2nd) - Kelly (3rd)
1993 Aikman (3rd) - Kelly (10th)
1994 Aikman (2nd) - Kelly (13th)
1995 Young (1st) - ***Humphries (11th)
1996 Aikman (3rd) - ***O'Donnell (12th)
1997 Favre (2nd) - Bledsoe (6th)
1998 Elway (7th) - Favre (3rd)
1999 Elway (5th) - Chandler (4th)
2000 Warner (1st) - ***McNair (16th)
2001 ***Dilfer (20th) -***Collins (12th)
2002 Warner (1st) - Brady (6th)
2003 Johnson (3rd) - Gannon (2nd)
2004 Brady (10th) - ***Delhomme (14th)
2005 Brady (9th) - McNabb (4th)
2006 Big Ben (3rd) - Hasselbeck (4th)
2007 Maning (1st) - ***Grossman (24th)
2008 Brady (1st) - ***Manning (25th)
2009 Roethlisberger (24th) - Warner (3rd) (Roethlisberger (2nd in 07)

Arguably, the only QBs on the list that were not exceptionally good QBs were Grossman and O'Donnell, Delhomme, and statistically Eli Manning, though Eli is still considered a top level QB by most. Grossman is the one clear example of making it to the big show without a good QB.

And this pattern shows closely with teams making the playoffs, and especially teams making the final 4 each year.

Once in a while a team makes it with an average QB ... but these cases are few and far between.

This IS a QB driven game, no matter how strenuously you deny it, and it's hard enough to win Super Bowls with a great QB ... expecting to that with with a very average one is foolishness.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:03 pm

How many of those "Great" QB's are in the league and how often are they available?

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:11 pm

On the list you provided, it's no stretch to say that Eli Manning, Grossman, Roethlisberger (the 1st time), Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Dilfer, Collins, Chandler, O'Donnell, Humphries, and Rypien were not "exceptionally good" quarterbacks and they took their teams to the Super Bowl. You are stretching here. These QBs often had good statistical seasons in the year their team went to the Super Bowl, but their careers hovered around average. In most cases you can make a strong case that a solid cast is what elevated the QBs level of play. We've seen that Campbell isn't a bottleneck until much greater talent surrounds him.

That list is actually a rather nice proof that top-5 QB talent is NOT needed to lead a team to the championship. Thanks for the help; I likely wasn't going to take the time to look it up myself.

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:11 pm

Paralis wrote:This is a real pretty wall of text and I'm just flattered that you took the time, but you may want to take a deep breath and read up on terms like "average" and "statistical significance."

I'm all too familiar with the terms ... Modern Statistical Analysis is an art form for liars and cheats. With statistical analysis techniques, you can prove that the sun doesn't rise in the morning.

This world is FILLED with "not statistically significant" claims that require the complete abandonment of common sense to agree with.

Paralis wrote:The short version? a "career average" statistic will be the result of data points that come in both below and above that average. Its value as a statistic comes from the fact that it's a description of a typical instance in that set, because IT ACCOUNTS FOR AND INCLUDES THOSE VALUES IN THE SET THAT ARE BELOW THE AVERAGE.

And statistical significance? Well, the gist of that one is that a set of data gets more meaningful--i.e. is less likely to be explained by random chance--as it gets larger. Which is why I'm using the 7 games under Lewis, which is a nice easy chunk of time for the kids at home to wrap their heads around. Because even though Campbell's numbers look better if you just count the last two weeks, it doesn't mean as much.

Good and bad--and, yes, there's been some of both--Campbell's playing at a borderline pro-bowl level right now, well above his performance in 2008, and without the benefit of anything resembling a league-leading rushing offense. And that's going to continue until it stops. Which might be next week, and it might be never. But we won't know until we get there.

What bloody nonsense. Pro Bowl level? I didn't know they had a 6th alternate for Pro Bowls LOL. You've just compared Campbell to Brees, and their is no comparison. Then there is Rogers, Warner, Favre, Romo, manning .... If he changed leagues? It would be Peyton Manning, and again there is no comparison. Then ... Rivers, Brady ....

Pro Bowl level indeed. And he does all of this while dragging that heavy cross on his back too.

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:34 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:On the list you provided, it's no stretch to say that Eli Manning, Grossman, Roethlisberger (the 1st time), Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Dilfer, Collins, Chandler, O'Donnell, Humphries, and Rypien were not "exceptionally good" quarterbacks and they took their teams to the Super Bowl. You are stretching here. These QBs often had good statistical seasons in the year their team went to the Super Bowl, but their careers hovered around average. In most cases you can make a strong case that a solid cast is what elevated the QBs level of play. We've seen that Campbell isn't a bottleneck until much greater talent surrounds him.

That list is actually a rather nice proof that top-5 QB talent is NOT needed to lead a team to the championship. Thanks for the help; I likely wasn't going to take the time to look it up myself.

I listed their rankings as compiled by the NFL. You can argue that Chandler wasn't an exceptional QB if you wish, but he played exceptionally well, and was 2nd among NFL QBs in 1997, 4th in 1998 10th in 1995, and tied for 8th in 2001 (with Peyton Manning). OK

Campbell has managed nothing except a losing record and a middle of the pack statistical record (as long as you don't use TDs as a data point.)

All of the QBs, with the exception of perhaps Grossman, were far better than Campbell. As shown, even Chandler had several good years (he played for 18 ) where he was situated in the top 10.

But you can spin like a top.

brad7686 · Post by **brad7686** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:36 pm

RayNAustin wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:On the list you provided, it's no stretch to say that Eli Manning, Grossman, Roethlisberger (the 1st time), Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Dilfer, Collins, Chandler, O'Donnell, Humphries, and Rypien were not "exceptionally good" quarterbacks and they took their teams to the Super Bowl. You are stretching here. These QBs often had good statistical seasons in the year their team went to the Super Bowl, but their careers hovered around average. In most cases you can make a strong case that a solid cast is what elevated the QBs level of play. We've seen that Campbell isn't a bottleneck until much greater talent surrounds him.

That list is actually a rather nice proof that top-5 QB talent is NOT needed to lead a team to the championship. Thanks for the help; I likely wasn't going to take the time to look it up myself.

I listed their rankings as compiled by the NFL. You can argue that Chandler wasn't an exceptional QB if you wish, but he played exceptionally well, and was 2nd among NFL QBs in 1997, 4th in 1998 10th in 1995, and tied for 8th in 2001 (with Peyton Manning). OK

Campbell has managed nothing except a losing record and a middle of the pack statistical record (as long as you don't use TDs as a data point.)

All of the QBs, with the exception of perhaps Grossman, were far better than Campbell. As shown, even Chandler had several good years (he played for 18 ) where he was situated in the top 10.

But you can spin like a top.

Well he has 3 weeks to crack the top ten. He's 13th if you take out Vince Young, who just started playing. He would have to catch Brady, though. Maybe 11th or 12th. Still, not bad for how bad this team has been.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:40 pm

brad7686 wrote:Well he has 3 weeks to crack the top ten. He's 13th if you take out Vince Young, who just started playing. He would have to catch Brady, though. Maybe 11th or 12th. Still, not bad for how bad this team has been.

Nope, and if he had an even better cast around him there's no doubt he could post top-10 numbers, even if he retained all of the flaws that plague him. IOW, a good enough performance to be one of those non-stud QBs that were a part of a Super Bowl team.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:39 pm

RayNAustin wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:On the list you provided, it's no stretch to say that Eli Manning, Grossman, Roethlisberger (the 1st time), Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Dilfer, Collins, Chandler, O'Donnell, Humphries, and Rypien were not "exceptionally good" quarterbacks and they took their teams to the Super Bowl. You are stretching here. These QBs often had good statistical seasons in the year their team went to the Super Bowl, but their careers hovered around average. In most cases you can make a strong case that a solid cast is what elevated the QBs level of play. We've seen that Campbell isn't a bottleneck until much greater talent surrounds him.

That list is actually a rather nice proof that top-5 QB talent is NOT needed to lead a team to the championship. Thanks for the help; I likely wasn't going to take the time to look it up myself.

I listed their rankings as compiled by the NFL. You can argue that Chandler wasn't an exceptional QB if you wish, but he played exceptionally well, and was 2nd among NFL QBs in 1997, 4th in 1998 10th in 1995, and tied for 8th in 2001 (with Peyton Manning). OK

Campbell has managed nothing except a losing record and a middle of the pack statistical record (as long as you don't use TDs as a data point.)

All of the QBs, with the exception of perhaps Grossman, were far better than Campbell. As shown, even Chandler had several good years (he played for 18 ) where he was situated in the top 10.

But you can spin like a top.

I keep reading your posts and two words resonate through my head continually. TRENT DILFER.

Also, looking at Campbell's stats for this year, I'd argue that he's having about as good a year as Brad Johnson did for the Bucs when they won the SB.

Having a great QB gives you a better chance to be a consistently excellent team...but it in no way does having only an average or good QB preclude a great team from winning a Superbowl.