Can Jason Campbell bounce back?

[superpunk]

If we want to play firehawk's little game, and count every game missed by every player consistently on the active roster, let's see how that plays out.

Hoyte - 6 games
TO - 1 game
Gurode - 2 games
Glenn - 15 games
Anderson - 8 games
Crayton - 1 game
Newman - 3 games
Henry - 3 games
Ferguson - 15 games
Ratliff - 1 game
Johnson - 4 games
Ellis - 3 games
Thompson - 8 games
Davis - 2 games
Watkins - 2 games

Which puts us at 75 games missed by players who were all bigger contributors than Brandon Lloyd and Todd Yoder. That number inflates a bit when you consider that even though Newman, Ellis and henry are listed as missing 3 games each, they all missed more and did not appear in games due to nagging injuries even though they were active.

Then when you consider injuries to guys like Rogers and Campbell HELPED the Commanders, whereas the only injury that helped the Cowboys understand what they had was the one to Ferguson, and it's not like Ferguson was a bad player like Campbell and Rogers, and this just gets even worse for Skins fans dreams that they'd have been so much better if not for the injuries.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I don't really feel like posting an answer to your blathering up there, as you may be the worst hypocrite I know on this board (you bash me for not quoting you yet you can't quote peplaw and expect us to dig through a thread to find your point for you).



And your evidence is two guys posting on a message board? That's great dude, clearly critical thinking is your forte. Okay using peplaw's numbers on your side...



I count 57 here son. If the Skins signed Tank, I'm sure you wouldn't be quoting him as a missed game statistic.

Anyways, I updated the Skins numbers (holy research batman!) using games active from NFL.com (I omitted guys like Shaun Bodiford, Cory Boyd and David Macklin given they weren't consistently on the active roster)...
Sellers - 2 games
Campbell - 3 games
ARE - 1 game
Moss - 2 games
Thrash - 4 games
Lloyd - 8 games
Jansen - 15 games
Thomas - 14 games
Wade - 5 games
Rabach - 1 game
Yoder - 1 game
Smoot - 3 games
Rogers - 9 games
Daniels - 1 game
Golston - 1 game
Washington - 4 games
Rocky - 2 games
Taylor - 7 games

Bringing the grand total to 83 games missed. 57 vs. 83 or a difference of 25 games. If you include the playoff game the Skins' figure sits at 90 and the Boys' sits at 58 (Jason Ferguson is the only guy I can figure, but I might be wrong). So a total of 32 more missed games by the Skins.

So, can we please dispel this rumor that the Boys were as injury riddled as the Skins?

For further statistical fun, the Skins had 147% of the Cowboys injuries (almost half again) in the reg season and including the playoff game that number resides at 155%. For the record, in case you wanted to know, the Cowboys win total sits at 144% (which is bizarrely close to those other numbers, don't you think?) of the Skins total wins.

I'm not here to say you're wrong, or that you didn't have a lot of injuries, but how is that you guys are here saying that guys like Tank or the back up fullback for Dallas shouldn't count in their numbers, yet you put 5 or 6 guys into your numbers that were not starters in order to inflate your starter numbers?

 

[AmishCowboy]

I thought you had to be good to "Bounce Back", What has Campbell done?, Is he supposed to improve under Zorn when he had according to Skins Fans, Two Offensives minds in Gibbs and Saunders?. He's a decent prospect but that's all.

 

[firehawk350]

I gave you the link to the thread, which is EXACTLY what you asked for. If you had wanted a quote, you might have said that, instead of asking for a link and then calling me a hypocrite for giving you what you asked for.



I gave you exactly what you asked for, before you even asked for it. Wipe that egg off your face later, ok hon?

This really is getting absurd. I'm not arguing this further as we both are just turning into complete ***es

What happened to all the injury reports in your inbox?

Still there, I just wanted to use a universely accessible source so nobody calls shenanigans.

The guys highlighted were not starters. Wade became a starter due to Thomas' injury, if you want to get technical, but was not a starter to begin the season. With those taken out, you're down to 61 games missed by starters. With Wade, you're up to 66. Still not a significant difference considering how much better the guys replacing Rogers and Campbell were than Rogers and Campbell.

Sit down kid, I'm getting embarassed for you.

All those guys were expected to have major contributions. Name a guy who wasn't. Golston is in the DT rotation pretty heavily, Smoot and Lloyd were the number three at their positions and as we all know, the number 3 corner and receiver are used pretty frequently. Thrash isn't a contributor? He just scored 2 TDs the game before he went out... Yoder wasn't a starter but the 2nd TE so really, it's up for grabs. He didn't do much before he went out.

If you want to get real technical here, we can go ahead and get rid of Golston and Yoder (2 games, that's what you are arguing over???) if you go ahead and get rid of Anderson, Thompson (3rd running back) and Tank (again, NOT an injury). You are counting 20 games from some guys who was signed inactive, a 3rd running back and a back-up fullback. I included a rotational guy at DT and a 2nd TE who missed 2 games. So, based off your logic, I'm seeing it as 81 vs. 55 which is about the same as the numbers I posted earlier.

You wanna go with straight starters then? My count is Dallas missed 48 games and the Skins sit at 66 (the difference being the Skins' starters missed 138% of the games that the Boys starters missed, which is close to the numbers I've been posting). Including the playoff game, that Taylor (obviously), Rogers, Rocky, Thomas, Campbell and Jansen that number jumps to 72 while the Cowboys sit at 48 still.

 

[firehawk350]

I'm not here to say you're wrong, or that you didn't have a lot of injuries, but how is that you guys are here saying that guys like Tank or the back up fullback for Dallas shouldn't count in their numbers, yet you put 5 or 6 guys into your numbers that were not starters in order to inflate your starter numbers?

I never claimed them as starters. But I posted the starters numbers and the proportion stays about the same. Superpunk wants to argue that "but our starters weren't at 100% either, they played a couple of games injured" but I point to Smoot who was injured the entire second half of the season but had to suck it up because Rogers was out.

 

[superpunk]

This really is getting absurd. I'm not arguing this further as we both are just turning into complete ***es

So it's absurd that you decided to call me a hypocrite when I was just providing you what you asked for?

I don't really feel like posting an answer to your blathering up there, as you may be the worst hypocrite I know on this board (you bash me for not quoting you yet you can't quote peplaw and expect us to dig through a thread to find your point for you).

Really, how do you figure???

How do you define a game missed, would they have to miss the entire game or just not start?

If you had a thread about this, some linky goodness would be helpful.

Too bad you can't own up to it, and just want to move on and drop it. Typical.

All those guys were expected to have major contributions. Name a guy who wasn't. Golston is in the DT rotation pretty heavily, Smoot and Lloyd were the number three at their positions and as we all know, the number 3 corner and receiver are used pretty frequently. Thrash isn't a contributor? He just scored 2 TDs the game before he went out... Yoder wasn't a starter but the 2nd TE so really, it's up for grabs. He didn't do much before he went out.

If you want to get real technical here, we can go ahead and get rid of Golston and Yoder (2 games, that's what you are arguing over???) if you go ahead and get rid of Anderson, Thompson (3rd running back) and Tank (again, NOT an injury). You are counting 20 games from some guys who was signed inactive, a 3rd running back and a back-up fullback. I included a rotational guy at DT and a 2nd TE who missed 2 games. So, based off your logic, I'm seeing it as 81 vs. 55 which is about the same as the numbers I posted earlier.

You wanna go with straight starters then? My count is Dallas missed 48 games and the Skins sit at 66 (the difference being the Skins' starters missed 138% of the games that the Boys starters missed, which is close to the numbers I've been posting). Including the playoff game, that Taylor (obviously), Rogers, Rocky, Thomas, Campbell and Jansen that number jumps to 72 while the Cowboys sit at 48 still.

The number is 66 with Wade, who was not slated to be a starter.

The number for Cowboys starters is 56. That number is actually higher since there were games that Ellis, Newman and Henry were active for, but did not play in.

So you were missing .625 starters more per game than the Cowboys. And the thing is, you missed 12 games from starters Campbell and Rogers that actually benefitted your team, because their backups played much better than they could, and contributed to your playoff run. No need to subtract that from your total, just recognize that's how it went down.

There was no amazing difference between the two teams injury situations, whether you count starters, significant contributors, or just every injury sustained. That's just a myth you've created to make yourselves feel better about a mediocre season. Heck, if Campbell had never gotten injured, you'd have probably never made the playoffs, and then you'd just be blaming your terrible season on injuries that weren't any more significant than the ones sustained by the 13-3 Cowboys or Colts.

Everyone deals with injuries every year. Alot of them. The Commanders just don't have the talent to deal with them as effectively as a team like Dallas or Indy.

Time to come to grips with the truth.

 

[firehawk350]

So it's absurd that you decided to call me a hypocrite when I was just providing you what you asked for?

Too bad you can't own up to it, and just want to move on and drop it. Typical.

You provided me with a link that didn't go to something you were trying to reference, hardly my fault. It's like giving me a book as evidence and not telling me the wrong page because you have the large type version.

If you wanted to avoid this whole scenario, you could have just straight quoted the post but for some reason, you didn't. You are a hypocrite because you made fun of me for not using the quote feature and expecting me to spend an hour searching through my email when you wouldn't even quote a post. That's why. An overreaction on my part, and I'm sorry, but that's where I was coming from. Either way, I wanted to move on so we wouldn't get bogged down over something irrelevant.

The number is 66 with Wade, who was not slated to be a starter.

The number for Cowboys starters is 56. That number is actually higher since there were games that Ellis, Newman and Henry were active for, but did not play in.

Wade was injured when he WAS slated to be a starter. Technically, he was a starter since Jansen was on IR. Jansen couldn't have played even if he was healed magically by lil baby jesus but Wade would still have to play.

How did you get 56??? Here's what I counted (I forgot to count Crayton, since he was a starter when Glenn was out...

Hoyte - 6 games
TO - 1 game (7)
Gurode - 2 games (9)
Glenn - 15 games (24)
Anderson - 8 games
Crayton - 1 game (25)
Newman - 3 games (28)
Henry - 3 games (31)
Ferguson - 15 games (46)
Ratliff - 1 game
Johnson - 4 games
Ellis - 3 games (49)
Thompson - 8 games
Davis - 2 games
Watkins - 2 games

How did you pick up 7 more games???

So you were missing .625 starters more per game than the Cowboys. And the thing is, you missed 12 games from starters Campbell and Rogers that actually benefitted your team, because their backups played much better than they could, and contributed to your playoff run. No need to subtract that from your total, just recognize that's how it went down.

Rogers was playing WAY better than Smoot, Smoot just picked it up at the end of the year, as did our entire team. Rogers was arguably the best corner when he went out. Campbell obviously was struggling. But again, you can't say, well who did better and who did worse? I could argue that Ratliff ended up doing better than Ferguson and Anderson did better than Hoyte so please, don't take those from your total, but that's the way it went down.

was no amazing difference between the two teams injury situations, whether you count starters, significant contributors, or just every injury sustained. That's just a myth you've created to make yourselves feel better about a mediocre season. Heck, if Campbell had never gotten injured, you'd have probably never made the playoffs, and then you'd just be blaming your terrible season on injuries that weren't any more significant than the ones sustained by the 13-3 Cowboys or Colts.

So if Peyton Manning died, it wouldn't have affected the Colts? Is that what you are saying? Or *insert the best player on the Cowboys, I'm going with Romo* died, you guys wouldn't have been affected? To act like having a player died, as I've seen plenty of people do in this thread, is the best thing to happen to a team is downright laughable if it wasn't so tragically offbase.

The difference between 49 and 66 games is almost an entire season for a starter BTW. Move it into the playoff game again, that number jumps up to a season and a quarter.

Everyone deals with injuries every year. Alot of them. The Commanders just don't have the talent to deal with them as effectively as a team like Dallas or Indy.

Time to come to grips with the truth.

Indy is a different level, you thinking you are on the level as them is laughable. They just won a super bowl, you guys are coming off an early exit in the playoffs, again... Dallas didn't face nearly what Indy faced or nearly what the Skins faced. A little bit of research and you'll find PLENTY of Cowboys fans remarking on the same thing throughout the season... Which I shall do now.

 

[superpunk]

You provided me with a link that didn't go to something you were trying to reference, hardly my fault. It's like giving me a book as evidence and not telling me the wrong page because you have the large type version.

If you wanted to avoid this whole scenario, you could have just straight quoted the post but for some reason, you didn't. You are a hypocrite because you made fun of me for not using the quote feature and expecting me to spend an hour searching through my email when you wouldn't even quote a post. That's why. An overreaction on my part, and I'm sorry, but that's where I was coming from. Either way, I wanted to move on so we wouldn't get bogged down over something irrelevant.

You asked for a link to the thread. You got a link to the thread.

Wade was injured when he WAS slated to be a starter. Technically, he was a starter since Jansen was on IR. Jansen couldn't have played even if he was healed magically by lil baby jesus but Wade would still have to play.

How did you get 56??? Here's what I counted (I forgot to count Crayton, since he was a starter when Glenn was out...

Hoyte - 6 games
TO - 1 game (7)
Gurode - 2 games (9)
Glenn - 15 games (24)
Anderson - 8 games
Crayton - 1 game (25)
Newman - 3 games (28)
Henry - 3 games (31)
Ferguson - 15 games (46)
Ratliff - 1 game
Johnson - 4 games
Ellis - 3 games (49)
Thompson - 8 games
Davis - 2 games
Watkins - 2 games

How did you pick up 7 more games???

Anderson was a starter, and Crayton wasn't, except by injury. Our FB situation was up in the air, and they each ended up missing about half the year. We could add more since Thompson was our starting KR, but that gets a little silly.

Rogers was playing WAY better than Smoot, Smoot just picked it up at the end of the year, as did our entire team. Rogers was arguably the best corner when he went out. Campbell obviously was struggling. But again, you can't say, well who did better and who did worse? I could argue that Ratliff ended up doing better than Ferguson and Anderson did better than Hoyte so please, don't take those from your total, but that's the way it went down.

Rogers played terrible all year. He can't cover, catch, or cover.

Indy is a different level, you thinking you are on the level as them is laughable. They just won a super bowl, you guys are coming off an early exit in the playoffs, again... Dallas didn't face nearly what Indy faced or nearly what the Skins faced. A little bit of research and you'll find PLENTY of Cowboys fans remarking on the same thing throughout the season... Which I shall do now.

Dallas and Indy faced just much as the Skins. They're just on a different talent level than Washington. Noone in the league has as much talent as teams like Indy, San Diego, New England and Dallas. Not even close. And that's why your injuries dropped you to 9-7, and ours propelled us to 13-3.

 

[firehawk350]

You asked for a link to the thread. You got a link to the thread.

Letting it go...

Anderson was a starter, and Crayton wasn't, except by injury. Our FB situation was up in the air, and they each ended up missing about half the year. We could add more since Thompson was our starting KR, but that gets a little silly.

Anderson and Hoyte split starts, with a total of 12 starts between the two. Hoyte got the nod more often (8) and Anderson never started a game when Hoyte was in (the only two games they were both healthy for was week 1 and 2 and Hoyte got the nod in both of those). No FB started in weeks 16, 17 or the divisionals (though Hoyte played).

Rogers played terrible all year. He can't cover, catch, or cover.

Maybe he should just switch to dodgeball, all he has to do is dodge, dip, duck, dive and dodge... Either way, we clearly have divergent opinions on Rogers. That will have to wait until the assumed, can Rogers bounce back? thread.

Dallas and Indy faced just much as the Skins. They're just on a different talent level than Washington. Noone in the league has as much talent as teams like Indy, San Diego, New England and Dallas. Not even close. And that's why your injuries dropped you to 9-7, and ours propelled us to 13-3.

Indy had a horrible time of it too, I'm not saying they didn't. I'm saying they are among the elite teams, and you are looking up to them, not equals. You listed a team who has two first ballot HOFers and a pretty new looking lombardi in Indy, San Diego who has the generation's best RB and went to the AFCCG, a team that has won three trophies since you've won one playoff game. You aren't on the same level as those guys. I also find it comical that you omitted the Giants. Won the super bowl in 07, posted a very similar record in 06 and went as far in the playoffs, won 2 more games in 05.

Da Bears had a 14-2 record and the Ravens had 13-3 in 06 and both fell pretty hard the next year (and aren't considered in the league's elite). Post a double digit record (and make some noise in the playoffs) more than just a year or two before you declare yourself among the best.

 

[superpunk]

Letting it go...

That's probably wise. You'll look less like a fool that way.

Anderson and Hoyte split starts, with a total of 12 starts between the two. Hoyte got the nod more often (8) and Anderson never started a game when Hoyte was in (the only two games they were both healthy for was week 1 and 2 and Hoyte got the nod in both of those). No FB started in weeks 16, 17 or the divisionals (though Hoyte played).

They were both injured, and starters. Anderson may have started had he not been injured. We don't know. But both were starters.

Maybe he should just switch to dodgeball, all he has to do is dodge, dip, duck, dive and dodge... Either way, we clearly have divergent opinions on Rogers. That will have to wait until the assumed, can Rogers bounce back? thread.

Your opinion is based on nothing at all. There was never a time when Rogers looked anything less than pathetic out there. He has been a terrible CB so far. Getting him injured was a boon.

Indy had a horrible time of it too, I'm not saying they didn't. I'm saying they are among the elite teams, and you are looking up to them, not equals. You listed a team who has two first ballot HOFers and a pretty new looking lombardi in Indy, San Diego who has the generation's best RB and went to the AFCCG, a team that has won three trophies since you've won one playoff game. You aren't on the same level as those guys. I also find it comical that you omitted the Giants. Won the super bowl in 07, posted a very similar record in 06 and went as far in the playoffs, won 2 more games in 05.

Da Bears had a 14-2 record and the Ravens had 13-3 in 06 and both fell pretty hard the next year (and aren't considered in the league's elite). Post a double digit record (and make some noise in the playoffs) more than just a year or two before you declare yourself among the best.

Talent is different than results. Noone would have argued that San Diego wasn't one of the most talented teams in the league before they won a playoff game last year. Noone without severe mental retardation would argue that Dallas isn't one of the most talented teams in the league just because they didn't win a playoff game.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Da Bears had a 14-2 record and the Ravens had 13-3 in 06 and both fell pretty hard the next year (and aren't considered in the league's elite). Post a double digit record (and make some noise in the playoffs) more than just a year or two before you declare yourself among the best.

Da Bears actually were 13-3 in 2006. Anyway, IMO I don't think Grossman or McNair at this point of his career are anywhere near as good as Romo and essentially that's why their win totals dropped dramatically in '07. It's one thing to have talent on the team like the Bears and Ravens do, but it's another thing to have talent w/some of that talent being at QB. Not mention that the Bears played in a horrible division that year. They also only had a QB Rating Differential (QB Rating - QB Rating allowed) of 7.0. Of the last 60 teams to go to the last 30 Super Bowls, the '06 Bears QBRD was 51st. The '07 Cowboys had a QBRD of 22.0 which would've put them 24th our 60 had they made the Super Bowl.

The '06 Bears were a bit of an abberation (not as big of an abberation as the '07 Giants), but it's quite easy to see why they only won 7 games last year given their QB situation. Unless Romo gets hurt or something dramatic happens to his game, it's going to be difficult to find ways for the Cowboys to lose more than 6 games.






YAKUZA

 

[Wolfpack]

What does the 350 in your name stand for ??

 

[firehawk350]

That's probably wise. You'll look less like a fool that way.

Right dude...

They were both injured, and starters. Anderson may have started had he not been injured. We don't know. But both were starters.

No, there was never a game that both were healthy that Anderson got the nod over Hoyte. This crap where they were both starters is just that, crap... Hoyte was the starter in the fact he started more games and he started the games where they were both healthy. So you counted both of their games missed as games missed by starters??? That's some ridiculous spin right there. Name me one team that starts two fullbacks...

Your opinion is based on nothing at all. There was never a time when Rogers looked anything less than pathetic out there. He has been a terrible CB so far. Getting him injured was a boon.

Right, we are just two guys who are on a forum who disagree on a given player. Unless you can show you evaluate talent for a NFL team, your opinion holds no less or more weight then my own. I am at least smart enough to realize that we won't ever see eye to eye.

Talent is different than results. Noone would have argued that San Diego wasn't one of the most talented teams in the league before they won a playoff game last year. Noone without severe mental retardation would argue that Dallas isn't one of the most talented teams in the league just because they didn't win a playoff game.

And a lot of people's ideas of who's talented changes from year to year. You eat it up now because it panders to you, but if a couple things go wrong and you end up 6-10 or 7-9, all of sudden you are just average again. If you can't see that teams fortunes rise and fall each year, I can't help you here.

 

[firehawk350]

What does the 350 in your name stand for ??

I own a firehawk and the engine is 350 cubic inches.

 

[firehawk350]

Da Bears actually were 13-3 in 2006. Anyway, IMO I don't think Grossman or McNair at this point of his career are anywhere near as good as Romo and essentially that's why their win totals dropped dramatically in '07. It's one thing to have talent on the team like the Bears and Ravens do, but it's another thing to have talent w/some of that talent being at QB. Not mention that the Bears played in a horrible division that year. They also only had a QB Rating Differential (QB Rating - QB Rating allowed) of 7.0. Of the last 60 teams to go to the last 30 Super Bowls, the '06 Bears QBRD was 51st. The '07 Cowboys had a QBRD of 22.0 which would've put them 24th our 60 had they made the Super Bowl.

The '06 Bears were a bit of an abberation (not as big of an abberation as the '07 Giants), but it's quite easy to see why they only won 7 games last year given their QB situation. Unless Romo gets hurt or something dramatic happens to his game, it's going to be difficult to find ways for the Cowboys to lose more than 6 games.






YAKUZA

Well, I think Romo is a good QB, but I think your offense has a lot more to do with TO than anything else, just like I felt like the Bears defense had more to do with Tommie Harris than Brian Urlacher. QBRD, is there anybody else that uses this stat?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

QBRD, is there anybody else that uses this stat?

Not that I know of. I ran a correlation analysis of QBRD to wins over the last 5 years in the NFL and it came out to 0.8 which means that there's an extremely high correlation to QBRD and wins in the NFL. Even stronger than turnover margin.





YAKUZA

 

[Wolfpack]

I own a firehawk and the engine is 350 cubic inches.

I road race a Z28

What year?

 

[firehawk350]

I road race a Z28

What year?

Look for the PM.

 

[firehawk350]

Not that I know of. I ran a correlation analysis of QBRD to wins over the last 5 years in the NFL and it came out to 0.8 which means that there's an extremely high correlation to QBRD and wins in the NFL. Even stronger than turnover margin.





YAKUZA

What parameters did you use? Because a QBRD of like 5 points isn't very much and you can pretty much call it a draw whereas a QBRD of 25 is obviously a major difference. Like being plus 1 in the turnover column doesn't actually help out in the stats column.

 

[burmafrd]

Campbell may become a good QB. Its doubtfull he will ever be as good as Romo.
13 Pro Bowlers on one team. Not even a foreskin moron should be able to deny talent like that.