Reasons for drafting Sanchez

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Do we disqualify him being our best offensive player in consecutive years? Sure, hasn't meant a whole lot in terms of playoff appearances or victories, but we haven't had much by way of a defense since Grilliams left (except boundless consistency) and the running game has been quite spotty during the last two years. The passing offense has really been the only thing the Redskins have had during the Zorn era, and clearly, it alone was very insufficient to get the Redskins to the playoffs.

Perhaps it's accurate that quarterbacks need to win to be considered franchise QBs, and QBs on teams that don't win are expendable based on the principle that you can lose just as effectively with worse QB play. I wouldn't agree with that, but at the very least, it makes some sense.

On a 4-12 team, all players are expendable. But that doesn't mean they are all worthless.

When was this? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

When was this? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

By approximate value, Campbell's 11 in 2008 isn't overly impressive, but it's tied with Portis' 11 in the same season, and is probably roughly as valuable (in the abstract sense, more valuable in the literal sense) as Chris Samuels' 9 or Chris Cooley's 8 or Mike Sellers' 8.

It's approximate, but if you're being honest with yourself, you'd probably say that's accurate, or close to accurate.

This year, no approx. value has been calculated yet, but it's not like any individual on our offense was even close to Campbell. It was a pretty bad year for individuals, yes, but Campbell took small strides as well.

More on approximate value from the above link:

If you don't read all that, here is the very short version:


AV is not meant to be a be-all end-all metric. Football stat lines just do not come close to capturing all the contributions of a player the way they do in baseball and basketball. If one player is a 16 and another is a 14, we can't be very confident that the 16AV player actually had a better season than the 14AV player. But I am pretty confident that the collection of all players with 16AV played better, as an entire group, than the collection of all players with 14AV.


Essentially, AV is a substitute for --- and a significant improvement upon, in my opinion --- metrics like "number of seasons as a starter" or "number of times making the pro bowl" or the like. You should think of it as being essentially like those two metrics, but with interpolation in between. That is, "number of seasons as a starter" is a reasonable starting point if you're trying to measure, say, how good a particular draft class is, or what kind of player you can expect to get with the #13 pick in the draft. But obviously some starters are better than others. Starters on good teams are, as a group, better than starters on bad teams. Starting WRs who had lots of receiving yards are, as a group, better than starting WRs who did not have many receiving yards. Starters who made the pro bowl are, as a group, better than starters who didn't, and so on. And non-starters aren't worthless, so they get some points too.