Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

[MTK]

Amazingly enough he still put up better numbers than half the QBs in the league.

Why can't we just call him what he is at this point, a middle of the pack QB. I know the haters want to make him out to be the worst starting QB ever... but we could have a bunch of other guys starting that would be far worse.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Amazingly enough he still put up better numbers than half the QBs in the league.

Why can't we just call him what he is at this point, a middle of the pack QB. I know the haters want to make him out to be the worst starting QB ever... but we could have a bunch of other guys starting that would be far worse.

There's not a QB on our roster that get a unanimus vote of approval. All four have been critized and ridiculed to the extent I sometimes wonder how they're even in the league.

If Jason emerges as the starter, I'll be one of his staunchests supporters because he's has to endure so much being the QB of the Redskins.

[doughtydoubter]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

There's not a QB on our roster that get a unanimus vote of approval. All four have been critized and ridiculed to the extent I sometimes wonder how they're even in the league.

If Jason emerges as the starter, I'll be one of his staunchests supporters because he's has to endure so much being the QB of the Redskins.

But see this is why we need the "franchise Qb" the sammy bradford or peyton or brees...somebody that unanimously is "the man" that we can build around.
That mike and kyle feel can be the cornerstone of their office. So we can make more than one semi push to the playoffs!
i like jc..but i think inthe long run there is no future for him here. I think that was decided the moment we started drooling over sanchez and cutler.

[Gtothearry]

There are only 7-8 franchise qb's in all of the NFL. Seems like we complain about our QB situtation much more then other teams fans. Maybe we should open our eyes and realize the situation at QB for us isn't that bad.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Gtothearry

There are only 7-8 franchise qb's in all of the NFL. Seems like we complain about our QB situtation much more then other teams fans. Maybe we should open our eyes and realize the situation at QB for us isn't that bad.

Not really, though we're listed as one of the teams needing one in the media frequently. Plenty of Philly fans hate McNabb and so on and so on.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Gtothearry

There are only 7-8 franchise qb's in all of the NFL. Seems like we complain about our QB situtation much more then other teams fans. Maybe we should open our eyes and realize the situation at QB for us isn't that bad.

Hmm, let's see.

The "never-dying legend" tier
Favre

The "certainly established" ones
P. Manning
Brady
Brees
Rivers
Ben you-know-who
Rodgers

The ones who "probably are"
Schaub
Palmer
E. Manning
Romo
McNabb
Ryan
Flacco

The "high-hope bringers"
Moore
Freeman
Sanchez
Stafford
Cutler

The "still good has-beens"
Hasselbeck

"Has-been"
Bulger


The "ok ones"
Orton
Pennington
Gradkowski

The "wildcards"
Alex Smith
Vince Young
Cassel

"Doubtful"
Leinart

The "very doubtful ones"
Campbell
Garrard

Utter suck
Derek Anderson
JaMarcus _______

[Player_HTTR]

O-Line = Field of Dreams

[tryfuhl]

I'd swap McNabb and Rodgers

[BigHairedAristocrat]

i'd be tempted to put Gerrard in utter suck and Alex Smith in very doubtful. otherwise, great list.

[GTripp0012]

Ben and Rodgers are out of place with Manning/Rivers/Brees/Brady, but with that said, I think I would just give them their own category. They could conceivably rate anywhere from 5-6 to 13-14 overall in the NFL based on how you see this year going for them, but even in the best case scenario, neither is going to be confused four one of the Elite Four.

The rest just seems really arbitrary. Campbell and Garrard don't bring any hope, while Bruce Gradkowski, and Kyle Orton, Matt Moore, Alex Smith and Matt Cassel do? If those were two separate lists, I know where my hope is going: not with the sucky guys. Is Hasselbeck really still good? How's Bulger any different?

Also are those listed in order of quality from top to bottom? Is being a "has-been" better than being just OK?

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ben and Rodgers are out of place with Manning/Rivers/Brees/Brady, but with that said, I think I would just give them their own category. They could conceivably rate anywhere from 5-6 to 13-14 overall in the NFL based on how you see this year going for them, but even in the best case scenario, neither is going to be confused four one of the Elite Four.

The rest just seems really arbitrary. Campbell and Garrard don't bring any hope, while Bruce Gradkowski, and Kyle Orton, Matt Moore, Alex Smith and Matt Cassel do? If those were two separate lists, I know where my hope is going: not with the sucky guys. Is Hasselbeck really still good? How's Bulger any different?

Also are those listed in order of quality from top to bottom? Is being a "has-been" better than being just OK?

Favre's tier is a tad tounge-in-cheek because I have to account for the fact that he may not be coming back.

Ben has ridiculous pocket presence and by extension, ability to extend the play along with sufficient accuracy and late-game reliability.

I'm not the biggest proponent of using stats, but Rodgers has been amazingly consistent production-wise.

Besides, all that tier means is whether or not one should be certain that they've established themselves as QBs that the franchise can rely on, not whether they're going to the HOF.

Gradkowski has better pocket presence than Campbell and is stuck on bad team with arguably the most toxic work environment as well.

Moore helped revitalize a stagnant Carolina team and posted good stats against Minny.

Smithy can at least run the spread well.

Orton is a good game manager who doesn't shit things up and has good accuracy on shorter passes.

Lack of durability doesn't imply lack of ability in the case of Hasselbeck.

Bulger's "has-been" tier means just that. He may not be able to win outright against Campbell in a QB war NOW, but he would have crushed him in his prime.

Individual order within tiers doesn't matter. I've had enough of that reading debates on Fire Emblem units.
I'll move the "ok" tier above the wildcard one to stay consistent with the principle that tier represent [perceived] diminishing quality, with Bulger's tier and Favre's tier being the exception.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Favre's tier is a tad tounge-in-cheek because I have to account for the fact that he may not be coming back.

Ben has ridiculous pocket presence and by extension, ability to extend the play along with sufficient accuracy and late-game reliability.

I'm not the biggest proponent of using stats, but Rodgers has been amazingly consistent production-wise.

Besides, all that tier means is whether or not one should be certain that they've established themselves as QBs that the franchise can rely on, not whether they're going to the HOF.

Gradkowski has better pocket presence than Campbell and is stuck on bad team with arguably the most toxic work environment as well.

Moore helped revitalize a stagnant Carolina team and posted good stats against Minny.

Smithy can at least run the spread well.

Orton is a good game manager who doesn't shit things up and has good accuracy on shorter passes.

Lack of durability doesn't imply lack of ability in the case of Hasselbeck.

Bulger's "has-been" tier means just that. He may not be able to win outright against Campbell in a QB war NOW, but he would have crushed him in his prime.

Individual order within tiers doesn't matter. I've had enough of that reading debates on Fire Emblem units.
I'll move the "ok" tier above the wildcard one to stay consistent with the principle that tier represent [perceived] diminishing quality, with Bulger's tier and Favre's tier being the exception.

The tier's thing was just a clarity issue, I have no problem with tiering off data and throwing it in whatever order, I just had no idea what was and was not being implied by the order.

The one consistent principle that permeates your list is that you've put a premium on potentially random events in a small sample (Gradkowski's three wins with Raiders, Moore's excellent Vikings game, looking at Smith's replacement level performance as a vast improvement rather than a regression to mean), while devaluing consistent but unspectacular performance over a long period of time.

There's no way I would put a guy who was last productive in 2007 (Hasselbeck) over a guy who was even better in 2007, and has maintained a consistent level of average production since (Garrard). And the dudes who haven't proven that they can play at this level one way or another also don't get the nod over average performers, because that implies that average isn't valuable, which is a falsehood.

That would be the justifications for the differences in my list.

[GTripp0012]

GTripp's qualitative QB analysis

Elite quarterbacks: The elite few who are both excellent and would be as good anywhere as they are where they are now.

Peyton Manning, Rivers, Brees, Brady (Brees and Brady are on the fringe).

Franchise Passers: Play at somewhat below an elite level, but would be as good on any team as they are on their current team.

Eli Manning, Matt Ryan (I think), Carson Palmer, Tony Romo, Kurt Warner and Chad Pennington were here.

Top System Related Performers: these guys are top performers who probably wouldn't be if you took them off their current rosters. They are a big part of their teams success, but not much by themselves (Marc Bulger/Matt Hasselbeck used to be this player). [This is where Sam Bradford projects]

Old-man Brett Favre, Matt Schaub, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco, Jake Delhomme used to be here.

Flawed players who are productive: You could make an argument for all of these guys as franchise quarterbacks, but every one of their teams has at least entertained the notion of going in a different direction. Difference between this category and the above isn't skill, it's context.

Donovan McNabb, Jason Campbell, David Garrard, Vince Young, Jay Cutler, Trent Edwards, Chad Henne (maybe?), Kyle Orton

Players who have no meaningful history of success, but offer plenty of speculative value

Matt Leinart, Brady Quinn, Matt Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, Charlie Whitehurst, Dan Orlovsky, Nate Davis, Matt Moore, the tattered remains of Tim Rattay from 2006

Players who have failed early in their careers, but might have a second act (though unlikely)

Bruce Gradkowski, David Carr, Derek Anderson, SexyRexy Grossman, Tarvaris Jackson, Byron Leftwich (probably out of place here, but can't force him into McNabb/Campbell category), and Alex Smith's mother wants me to put him here

Valueless players of various sorts:

Matt Hasselbeck, Marc Bulger, JaMarcus Russell, Matt Cassel, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Kyle Boller, Kerry Collins, Drew Henson, Drew Stanton, Jon Kitna, JT O'Sullivan

QB Grab Bag (have no current or future value, but could possibly get some with some investment):

Mark Brunell, Patrick Ramsey, Daunte Culpepper, Jim Sorgi, Gus freakin Frerotte, Charlie Frye, Chris Redman, Tyler Thigpen, Shaun Hill, Josh Johnson, Seneca Wallace

[SirClintonPortis]

You're slightly different metrics than I am. My list was made in response to a poster saying there were only 7-8 actual franchise QBs and we shouldn't be whining as much about it since others were in similar situations. Thus, I was trying to weight the concepts I call "[perceived] benefit provided to their respective franchises/fanbases" and "worthiness and likeliness to be invested in either in the future" along with their actual ability and their "objective" utility QBs provided to any team. There's no way Pitt is not going to withdraw their commitment to Ben and he is very skilled QB to get a team with an outright terrible o-line to the SB and win it, even if he may stink as a person. Romo, Eli, etc, all have their teams committing giant contracts to them and they're good QBs, but they have their flaws.
And yeah, "franchise QB" can come with a ton of definitions. I guess I was using one that factored all of the aforementioned elements.

Trying to engage in sabermetrics trying to discretize, for lack of a better word, how much utility comes from the QB and how much comes from everyone else is a giant pain in the arse, hard to measure, and would not have addressed the point I was responding to, although I do consider it an exercise worth undertaking to get "even closer" to what actually goes on on the field.

The tier's thing was just a clarity issue, I have no problem with tiering off data and throwing it in whatever order, I just had no idea what was and was not being implied by the order.

Perhaps I should make Hasselbeck and Bulger's sub-tiers for the "ok" tier. Thoroughness was not my main concern when posting.

The one consistent principle that permeates your list is that you've put a premium on potentially random events in a small sample (Gradkowski's three wins with Raiders, Moore's excellent Vikings game, looking at Smith's replacement level performance as a vast improvement rather than a regression to mean), while devaluing consistent but unspectacular performance over a long period of time.

Pocket presence is something that's easy to tell. I only watched the Raiders-Cowboys game, so I'm stuck with the qualitative equivalent of t-distribution inference. But since the Pukes have one the best damn pass rushes in the league, he was almost always having to "feel" the pressure, and not once did he display complete ignorance or oblivious to it. His accuracy was subpar, but he got rid of the ball when he had to and with a small margin for error.
Also, in the same game, the commentators were talking about how Gradkowski was able to place the ball where his receiver can make the play. You can't tell very well whether JC17 meant to place it somewhere or it just happened to be there.

Moore only had one bad game against NE, and he at least played adequately for the others, if not better.

There's no way I would put a guy who was last productive in 2007 (Hasselbeck) over a guy who was even better in 2007, and has maintained a consistent level of average production since (Garrard). And the dudes who haven't proven that they can play at this level one way or another also don't get the nod over average performers, because that implies that average isn't valuable, which is a falsehood.

That would be the justifications for the differences in my list.

Hasselbeck still has the human capital to work the WCO like a charm for his team and probably can adjust to another O if needed since he was able to comprehend the WCO. Garrard can do what at the age of 32? Be blessed with a good running game and still post fewer TDs than even JC17? Seattle still can use Hasselbeck, Garrard is on his way out the door by now.

[SmootSmack]

Anyone else remember that episode of South Park when the kids dress up as characters from Lord of the Rings and they go on some secret mission to return a videotape, and as they're crossing the neighborhood in full LOTR garb, they run into some kids dressed us as characters from Harry Potter? And Cartman looks at them in his LOTR gear and says "Ha...nerds!"

That's sort of what it feels like I'm watching as I see Tripp and SirClinton go back and forth

Seriously though, good points on both sides