Akh's Thoughts: Week 4

[akhhorus]

Link (http://www.hailredskins.com/?p=589)

Leave your guff so Akh can take it when he officially comes back from vacation lol.

[shally]

Link (http://www.hailredskins.com/?p=589)

Leave your guff so Akh can take it when he officially comes back from vacation lol.

does drinking too much bourbon count as a vacation ?? lol

[skinsfan36]

Link (http://www.hailredskins.com/?p=589)

Leave your guff so Akh can take it when he officially comes back from vacation lol.

good stuff as usual akh

[Biggie]

I think you were too generous with MW's rating.

[shally]

great post

stat of the day: of the 60 plays the cowboys ran, 21 of them were aimed at TO

and yet, he stilled whined about not getting enough touches


second stat of the day: barber gets 8 touches total. jones gets zero offensive touches... you cannot win in the nfc east with that little production from your runners

[Dolla Bill]

great post

stat of the day: of the 60 plays the cowboys ran, 21 of them were aimed at TO

and yet, he stilled whined about not getting enough touches


second stat of the day: barber gets 8 touches total. jones gets zero offensive touches... you cannot win in the nfc east with that little production from your runners

I think that's a reflection on Garrett moreso than anyone. But, ultimately it should be left at Wilson's feet. He should of told Garrett that they needed to run the ball more, or to get it into other people's hands.

TO is a crybaby, pure and simple.

[shally]

I think that's a reflection on Garrett moreso than anyone. But, ultimately it should be left at Wilson's feet. He should of told Garrett that they needed to run the ball more, or to get it into other people's hands.

TO is a crybaby, pure and simple.
wilson ??

[Dolla Bill]

wilson ??

Lol, my bad. Phillips. Haha, dunno where I got Wilson from. I'm tired, and need to get to sleep :D

[jaylen]

That was like a cool drink of water on a hot day

I thought Portis was spectacular for all the crap he gets from some in the media he plays like he's facing the firing squad the next day. All out effort bone crushing blocks, hard leg churning runs. Give me Portis, you can have everyone else.

I'd imagine our secondary will get some credit eventually, we haven't gotten a break yet by playing a suspect qb, we've faced some good qb's and our secondary has stood strong in man coverage. Landry isn't involved in many balls coming his way but I think he's the reason we're not giving up big plays.

we could be so much better we're still kicking too many fg's but when we eventually get our big youngsters at wideout involved at some point that will open up as well.

Worrying alittle bit about Rabach, aside from the mental lapses he's allowing some gaps in the middle. He's gotta step up his play.

[shally]

Lol, my bad. Phillips. Haha, dunno where I got Wilson from. I'm tired, and need to get to sleep :D

thought you might have meant that.. BUT wade is a DEFENSIVE coach and i think he defers to garrett on all things offensive.. besides, we all know who will be the head coach next year.. this might be the first nail in wade's coffin this year..

if the cowboys have some kind of swoon i could see jones yanking the rug out from under phillips during the season

[cal_junior]

stat of the day: of the 60 plays the cowboys ran, 21 of them were aimed at TO

and yet, he stilled whined about not getting enough touches

Here's what the Dallas Morning News had to say about that:

"He was targeted 18 times, catching seven (38.9 percent). The Redskins loaded up on the run, leaving T.O. in a ton of one-on-one battles, and the Cowboys couldn't take advantage with the exception of the second half's opening series. Take that TD drive out of the mix, and T.O. caught four of 15 passes thrown to him.

Maybe, just maybe the Redskins' cornerbacks did an outstanding job on him. Shawn Springs blanketed him the entire first half. Once Springs went out, Carlos Rogers clamped down on T.O., holding him to one catch (on seven pass attempts) for the final quarter and a half.

If T.O. wants the ball more often, he ought to try getting open."


http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/to-should-either-shut-up-or-give-credit.html

[shally]

Here's what the Dallas Morning News had to say about that:




http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/to-should-either-shut-up-or-give-credit.html

dont forget the end around as well

still about a third of the offense was designed to go through TO.. he is a great player, but that distorts any offense..

[inevitable]

Great read Akh, one play I was really disappointed with was on T.O's touchdown, Landry kind of observed as TO forced his way into the end zone. This was an opportunity for Landry to light up an exposed TO in a completely legal fashion, but instead stood < 2 yards away and watched him plug into the end zone.

Theres no question that Landry's presence was evident, as you pointed out in your thoughts, and for that he is to be commended, but he didn't seem to match the passion of some of his teammates for the full 60 minutes.

[InsomniaKiller]

dont forget the end around as well

Ah, don't forget. TWO runs by Owens today. Two runs. 18 passes thrown his way. The dude is losing his mind complaining about not getting the ball. He should be pissed at Romo for not finding someone to throw it to who wasn't covered like a blanket.

[FanFromArizona]

I agree with you that if we beat Philly next week we have the inside track on the NFC East.

I like how well we took the passing game away from the Girls, but I don't like how dinged up we are at Corner Back that it's forcing us to use 3 Safeties (Landry, Doughty, and Horton).

We are a few players(SS and SLB) away from being elite. I can honestly say I like our Dline for the first time in years, getting JT back will be a boon, and getting Erasmus James healthier and healthier will certainly help keep our Dline rotation fresh as we get into the colder months.

At this point in his career, Marcus Washington needs to be used for run-defense. Pull him on passing plays. Same thing with Doughty. On pass plays, we need to have Taylor, Golston,Corny and Carter on the Dline, Macintosh and LFB at LB, and a combination of Springs, Rogers, Smoot, Landry, Horton, and Torrence in there. End of story.

[inevitable]

At this point in his career, Marcus Washington needs to be used for run-defense. Pull him on passing plays. Same thing with Doughty.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but Marcus right now doesn't belong on the field period. Barbers only decent run of the day, the 15 yarder, was a direct result of Marcus getting OWNED by Witten. Witten is a good blocker, but it was inexcusable. Id rather go through the pains of having a young guy in there then be frustrated with Washington in there. It's time for a change, Blache needs to take a note from Zorn and replace the vet (although Jansen played a hellova game)

Also, Reed doesn't bring anything to the run D that Horton doesn't. Horton is much more physical, and, despite what Troy and Joe suggested, met The Golden Boy Marion Barber shoulder pad to shoulder pad, and held his own. Horton has "it". He's a playmaker. He should be on the field ALL THE TIME. At this point in time, I'd like to see Kareem Moore on there in Cobra instead of Reed. I appreciate what Reed has done, and I don't want to sound negative in light of an absolutely outstanding performance from our boys/organization, but in the ever changing NFL teams will exploit these two weak points of our defense if we don't adjust ourselves.

[Biggie]

I like how well we took the passing game away from the Girls, but I don't like how dinged up we are at Corner Back that it's forcing us to use 3 Safeties (Landry, Doughty, and Horton).
How both Springs and Smoot come out of this game will be a big factor. Carlos has really stepped up and Torrence has shown that he can contribute to the defense, but we have nothing behind them and only Carlos is a bona fide starter out of the two.

[FanFromArizona]

The problem we are running into is Political Incorrectness....I believe Marcus has the highest cap hit and is also a locker-room leader. It's "unpopular" for us to sit him despite the fact that we need to move in a different direction.

This is the reason I think we can achieve the best of both worlds, keep the morale in tact, and use MW the same way Doughty was used: OCCASIONALLY.

They are both liabilities in the passing game, and as stubborn as Blache is, we all know that he will not remove either one entirely, so let's just put MW and RD in for run-defenses.

[Death_Venom]

Marcus Washington & Reed Doughty need not to be on the field.......Each of them have shown they are liabilities to our defense. Rabach two penalties were definetly frustrating when they happened yet our defense held its own and they did not come back to haunt us.

All things considered great article and completely in-line with my thoughts on the game.....

[redskin_rich]

Great read Akh, one play I was really disappointed with was on T.O's touchdown, Landry kind of observed as TO forced his way into the end zone. This was an opportunity for Landry to light up an exposed TO in a completely legal fashion, but instead stood < 2 yards away and watched him plug into the end zone.

Theres no question that Landry's presence was evident, as you pointed out in your thoughts, and for that he is to be commended, but he didn't seem to match the passion of some of his teammates for the full 60 minutes.

Landry made me want to puke on that play. No excuse for that BS. There is only one thing that a player can control on any and every play and that is their effort.

[shally]

Landry made me want to puke on that play. No excuse for that BS. There is only one thing that a player can control on any and every play and that is their effort.

i am more charitable i guess because TO is simply a brute.. you cannot take that away from him.. i think there is only one player who puts TO down on that play-- and he is of beloved memory now...

[redskin_rich]

i am more charitable i guess because TO is simply a brute.. you cannot take that away from him.. i think there is only one player who puts TO down on that play-- and he is of beloved memory now...

I didn't want to say that but that is exactly what I thought on that play. Sean would would have ripped his head off.
Still, there is no excuse for Landry backing off and watching. I thought he was supposed to be a wrecking ball.

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

I didn't want to say that but that is exactly what I thought on that play. Sean would would have ripped his head off.
Still, there is no excuse for Landry backing off and watching. I thought he was supposed to be a wrecking ball.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who caught that and was disappointed.....

[jaylen]

I didn't want to say that but that is exactly what I thought on that play. Sean would would have ripped his head off.
Still, there is no excuse for Landry backing off and watching. I thought he was supposed to be a wrecking ball.

I'm wondering is Landry's psyche okay, since he got trucked against the Giants and now with his brother getting dinged I'm wondering is he holding back some.

He definitely should be flying up and making more plays. I think missing camp has hindered him quite a bit its like he's having his camp now physically maybe. I think he picks things up in the next few ball games. he doesn't have a pick in his career yet regular season wise.

[HanburgerBum]

Another great write-up on a great day in recent Redskins history.

I totally agree that the Skins dominated this game--far more than the final score indicated. I must admit that I am shocked by it. I am beginning to think that I have under-estimated this current Wash team.

Beating the Saints and Arizona at home is one thing, soundly beating Dallas on the road is another. For those of us who were upset at the ESPN's apparent lack of respect for the Redskins, we are getting a ton of it now. But, with that respect comes the burden of pressure. We may have trouble with Philly this coming Sunday, but we are going to have to beat the next three sisters of the poor (Rams, Browns and Lions) on the schedule and finish the first half at no worse than 6-2 in order not to squander the opportunity the Dallas game has brought us.

[smoak]

great post

stat of the day: of the 60 plays the cowboys ran, 21 of them were aimed at TO

and yet, he stilled whined about not getting enough touches


second stat of the day: barber gets 8 touches total. jones gets zero offensive touches... you cannot win in the nfc east with that little production from your runners


Exactly why I talk about him not being a good player. Of course physically he is probably the best WR out there... B ut when push comes to shove, do you really want to rely on someone like TO??? He is great when he gets on a roll against some team like NO, but do you trust him in the playoss and big games? The guy drops more balls than any marquee WR I can remember.

[smoak]

Akh

do you really think ANY running back can be judged after 8 touches??? Granted I think we win this one either way, but I have to say that Garrett not MB3 crapped the bed.

[Keino]

No love for Shawn Springs? He literally shut down TO by his lonesome in the first half. Be sure to mention him in the apology thread to Moss.

[Moe]

Great read Akh, one play I was really disappointed with was on T.O's touchdown, Landry kind of observed as TO forced his way into the end zone. This was an opportunity for Landry to light up an exposed TO in a completely legal fashion, but instead stood < 2 yards away and watched him plug into the end zone.

Theres no question that Landry's presence was evident, as you pointed out in your thoughts, and for that he is to be commended, but he didn't seem to match the passion of some of his teammates for the full 60 minutes.

Yeah it looked like Landry hesitated right before TO caught the ball which put him a step away from the play and then he just kinda watched, which was uncharacterisitc of him. Granted, he's been great back there but any chance to pound TO left untaken does leave me frustrated.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

If we beat Philly next week, we have a very good chance of entering the halfway point of the season at 7-1.

Wow.

[Moe]

Exactly why I talk about him not being a good player. Of course physically he is probably the best WR out there... B ut when push comes to shove, do you really want to rely on someone like TO??? He is great when he gets on a roll against some team like NO, but do you trust him in the playoss and big games? The guy drops more balls than any marquee WR I can remember.

The thing with TO is that despite him being almost always physically bigger and stronger than the CB he's facing, he is not a physical player. He doesn't like being pushed and bumped and it gets him off his game. He wants to get out there and run free and credit the Skins for not allowing him to do that.

All of this can't help but remind me of how Taylor affected him.

[shally]

If we beat Philly next week, we have a very good chance of entering the halfway point of the season at 7-1.

Wow.

hang on for a sec.. we proved we can beat a team when we arent supposed to.. lets see what happens when we play a team we are SUPPOSED to beat- especially on the road... we are not there yet..

[Battle Cat]

No need to say Battle Cat you were right about S. Moss your apology thread to him will be more than enough for me.

[skinsfan36]

commenting on some things here
i was wondering what landry was doing but maybe he didnt want to hit to because one of our corners were wrapping him up and he didnt want to take them both out(smart) i wanted him to take out to though
the comment about the elite defense we still need a dt,slb im comfortable with horton if you ask me

[skinsfan36]

If we beat Philly next week, we have a very good chance of entering the halfway point of the season at 7-1.

Wow.

calm down lets take this one game at a time

[saratogan]

Ahk good write up.

Overall, the team won the game. Not just one individual; although you can spot several individual's who had outstanding individual efforts that contributed to the team's win (Springs, Rogers, Moss, Campbell, etc).

But I would have to say the coaches had an outstanding game plan on both sides of the field. It was not just Zorn calling plays, but Sherman Smith up in box helping design the game plan; and, it was Greg Blache and his staff doing some very different things with different guys taking on the top offensive team in the league in designing a defensive game plan. I was really impressed with what the coaches did. For rookie coaches, they have learned quickly. Blache, obviously, is not a rookie, but it is his first time actually calling the plays and making key, live game time decisions. The defense kept the best offense throttled. The offense scored enough so we could win. Overall, we kept the Cowboys off-balanced, and you could even see it on their faces.

I think this team is really confident now: they know they have talent, they now know they can move the ball, they know they can defend, and they now know the new coaches game plans work. Campbell said it in a post game interview that this team has a chemistry which breeds success, something he last felt with his Auburn's national title team.

I hope the Redskins remember the frustrations from last year and remain hungry. I believe Moss or Randle-El responded to one question and said we play one game at a time. Staying hungry vs getting fatheaded are two different things. I hope this team stays hungry and focused.
Go SKINS!!

[sinskin]

Another great write-up on a great day in recent Redskins history.

I totally agree that the Skins dominated this game--far more than the final score indicated. I must admit that I am shocked by it. I am beginning to think that I have under-estimated this current Wash team.

Beating the Saints and Arizona at home is one thing, soundly beating Dallas on the road is another. For those of us who were upset at the ESPN's apparent lack of respect for the Redskins, we are getting a ton of it now. But, with that respect comes the burden of pressure. We may have trouble with Philly this coming Sunday, but we are going to have to beat the next three sisters of the poor (Rams, Browns and Lions) on the schedule and finish the first half at no worse than 6-2 in order not to squander the opportunity the Dallas game has brought us.

I agree 110% here.... Philly's blitze packages are something to watch and I for one am just as nervous going into this next game as I was this week. I agree with AKH here if we win next week then I am convinced all the way that we are to be reckoned with as a major player!

I think our secondary deserves as much credit as anyone on this team... Springs played just an incredible incredible game as did Rodgers.

Horton ...what can you say... I think we made a hell of a steal in the draft and I am glad that finally we get one of those "diamonds in the ruff" kinda of players for a change eh.

I disagree that Samuals had some "bone headed" plays. Ware had only 1 sack I think... that 1 sack came when his help from Kendall left and there was an obvious breakdown there. I feel Samuals felt there was help to the right and wasn't. Tis why his hands went up in disgust. Blocking Ware (the obvious best player on their line) all day with just that to say is fantastic.
Other then that I felt you hit everything on the head!!

Moss and Cambell.... jesus! Just wow.

Zorn's playcalling and obvious coaching abilities is remarkable. Blache's playcalling and game prep. was and are equally remarkable.


Anyone here have that feeling that if we had played the Giants the way we have played the last 3 weeks we would have won big? I should not jinx it should I.

[Moe]

I think this team is really confident now: they know they have talent, they now know they can move the ball, they know they can defend, and they now know the new coaches game plans work. Campbell said it in a post game interview that this team has a chemistry which breeds success, something he last felt with his Auburn's national title team.

I love that this team has confidence, and they should, but it's times like these when I get worried that the team loses its edge and let's a game or two slip away that shouldn't. This team should believe in themselves and even enjoy these last few wins, but I hope that they don't get comfortable as a result.

[hockeygoalie29]

Nice writeup Akh, it has to be a lot more fun writing about a winning team for once.

Great game yesterday all around. The offense completely dismantled the Cowboys defense and kept them guessing the entire game with very balanced play calling. I am loving the goal line play selection, it is very refreshing to not know what is coming every single time (run, run, play action to Cooley). I also loved the physical play of our O-line, by the time the game was in the 4th quarter the Dallas defense was completely beat up and exhausted. That was very evident on the final 55 yard drive which took 7 minutes off the clock in the 4th quarter and was made up of 10 runs and only 1 pass.

The defense completely locked down the league's #1 defense. Barber had only 26 yards and only 3.25 yards per carry. Owens was pouting during and after the game. Sure, Romo had 300 yards passing but 150 was on the two drives at the end of both halves when we went into prevent and gave him 10-15 per play. Other than those 2 drives, we held the Cowboys to only 191 total yards of offense and only 14 points. Very impressive. That's 3 straight weeks they've held elite passing teams in check.

[walton40]

Nice write-up.

Do you have any concerns about the pass rush? I know we pretty much locked them down, but a lot of the time Romo had a ton of time. Awesome secondary play made up for this but can we do that every week with limited pass rush?

Just a concern, not criticising our awesome game .

[hockeygoalie29]

Akh, one thing I wanted to point out is that although Horton had a good game overall and a very nice pick, he completely blew the coverage on Witten's TD. Everyone (including he announcers) put the blame on Marcus Washington for biting on the double move of Witten but Horton was responsible for the deep coverage.

I believe Washington made the right play by cutting underneath Witten to take away the short throw since Horton should have covered the deep route. However, Horton bit hard and ran towards Witten before realizing the ball was going to the end zone and at that point he had no chance of recovering.

Edit: Here's LaCanfora's report of the play:

Chris Horton again showed his quickness and instincts on his interception. He was caught out of position on the TD to Witten - the coverage stuff is a problem for rookie safeties, and that will come - but he made up for it with his coverage of Witten throughout the game and that turnover provided a massive swing.Link (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2008/09/monday_morning_h_back.html#more)

And again:

Rookie Chris Horton, who had another big interception but also blew coverage on the touchdown pass to Jason Witten, was among those who heeded Fletcher's call. Horton got yanked from the base package after that TD, with Reed Doughty regaining his spot. Then Horton was called upon with the Skins back in a three safety set, and he got the interception by manning Witten on the inside, then peeling outside into his zone responsibilities to jump an outside route to Miles Austin. Link (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/)

[hockeygoalie29]

Nice write-up.

Do you have any concerns about the pass rush? I know we pretty much locked them down, but a lot of the time Romo had a ton of time. Awesome secondary play made up for this but can we do that every week with limited pass rush?

Just a concern, not criticising our awesome game .

I actually thought we got some good pressure at times but Romo is very good at making defenders miss and escaping from pressure. There were 2-3 times I was sure we had him for a sack only to see him get away and make a play.

[walton40]

I actually thought we got some good pressure at times but Romo is very good at making defenders miss and escaping from pressure. There were 2-3 times I was sure we had him for a sack only to see him get away and make a play.

True, he does seem to be good at making people miss, he just seemed to have loads of time in the pocket too often.

[akhhorus]

I think you were too generous with MW's rating.

Agreed.

That was like a cool drink of water on a hot day

I thought Portis was spectacular for all the crap he gets from some in the media he plays like he's facing the firing squad the next day. All out effort bone crushing blocks, hard leg churning runs. Give me Portis, you can have everyone else.

I'd imagine our secondary will get some credit eventually, we haven't gotten a break yet by playing a suspect qb, we've faced some good qb's and our secondary has stood strong in man coverage. Landry isn't involved in many balls coming his way but I think he's the reason we're not giving up big plays.

we could be so much better we're still kicking too many fg's but when we eventually get our big youngsters at wideout involved at some point that will open up as well.

Worrying alittle bit about Rabach, aside from the mental lapses he's allowing some gaps in the middle. He's gotta step up his play.

Yeah, but he's still calling great games.

Akh

do you really think ANY running back can be judged after 8 touches??? Granted I think we win this one either way, but I have to say that Garrett not MB3 crapped the bed.

My comment was more about the hype surrounding MB3 and how overhyped he is.

No love for Shawn Springs? He literally shut down TO by his lonesome in the first half. Be sure to mention him in the apology thread to Moss.

If he(like Moss) keeps it up, I will.

No need to say Battle Cat you were right about S. Moss your apology thread to him will be more than enough for me.

As Shakespeare wrote: "I tend not to please you with my answers"

Nice write-up.

Do you have any concerns about the pass rush? I know we pretty much locked them down, but a lot of the time Romo had a ton of time. Awesome secondary play made up for this but can we do that every week with limited pass rush?

Just a concern, not criticising our awesome game .

I'm not to going to get to critical of it. Romo is a tough QB to sack and we were without Taylor.

Akh, one thing I wanted to point out is that although Horton had a good game overall and a very nice pick, he completely blew the coverage on Witten's TD. Everyone (including he announcers) put the blame on Marcus Washington for biting on the double move of Witten but Horton was responsible for the deep coverage.

I believe Washington made the right play by cutting underneath Witten to take away the short throw since Horton should have covered the deep route. However, Horton bit hard and ran towards Witten before realizing the ball was going to the end zone and at that point he had no chance of recovering.

Edit: Here's LaCanfora's report of the play:

And again:

I'd like to see some video/photos of that. Horton might have been out of position, but Marcus needs to do a better job of coverage also.

[AliBabba]

Agreed.



Yeah, but he's still calling great games.



My comment was more about the hype surrounding MB3 and how overhyped he is.



If he(like Moss) keeps it up, I will.



As Shakespeare wrote: "I tend not to please you with my answers"



I'm not to going to get to critical of it. Romo is a tough QB to sack and we were without Taylor.



I'd like to see some video/photos of that. Horton might have been out of position, but Marcus needs to do a better job of coverage also.
The Horton play is correct. The angle they showed on TV wasn't the best for determining the coverage scheme but I would say 99% that Horton blew deep coverage on that play. Regardless, MW was pwned on that play by Witten. He would have looked smoother had he just sat down

[bergiemoore]

The Horton play is correct. The angle they showed on TV wasn't the best for determining the coverage scheme but I would say 99% that Horton blew deep coverage on that play. Regardless, MW was pwned on that play by Witten. He would have looked smoother had he just sat down

Horton made like he was trying to undercut the rout Jones was running, and didn't recover when Witten ran by him. link (http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80b38cfa) This vid has a better angle on the replay than on the regular TV view.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

2? I don't think Washington could start for the Raiders, presently.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Good to see the Light of the Tanaman has managed to shine into even the darkest of crevasses.

:p

[akhhorus]

Good to see the Light of the Tanaman has managed to shine into even the darkest of crevasses.

:p

So much for Colt being an option eh?(couldn't resist lol).

[Keino]

Good to see the Light of the Tanaman has managed to shine into even the darkest of crevasses.

:p

It's good to see Tanaman remove his head from his ass so that we could all see this light you speak of......

[jtovb2005]

The Defensive grades for the front 7 seem kind of low for the team pretty much shutting down the offense. Not necessarily disagreeing. Would like to have seen a sack or two.

You mention a few of things that I think deserve a thread on its own. Here are a few things that is playing out differently compared to many previous seasons and I think are critical to success:

-Playing into the 4th Quarter. How many good games have we played but left the other team hanging around then blowing it in the 4th by some dumb play?

-Turnovers both ways. This is how it is supposed to be done.

-Play calling. Hitting big plays and mixing it up. Converting on third down.

-Just plain old getting into the end zone.

It just feels different. Lets keep it up.

It just feels different. Lets keep it up.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

So much for Colt being an option eh?(couldn't resist lol).

Oh, he's an option, if JC goes down. :p

Never said that Jason wouldn't succeed, just that Colt would be a viable option if we did indeed need him. Seems like we don't, which works for me, because it means that we'll have the best backup in the NFL for the foreseeable future. ;)

It's good to see Tanaman remove his head from his ass so that we could all see this light you speak of......

I've heard that there's a theory, shrouded in mystery like knowledge of the Illuminati or Skull and Bones, that Santana may have had his head out of his ass the whole time, and merely suffered from bad quarterback play/handcuffs....

[akhhorus]

Oh, he's an option, if JC goes down.

Never said that Jason wouldn't succeed, just that Colt would be a viable option if we did indeed need him. Seems like we don't, which works for me, because it means that we'll have the best backup in the NFL for the foreseeable future. ;)

Why, are we signing Kerry Collins next year? :p

I've heard that there's a theory, shrouded in mystery like knowledge of the Illuminati or Skull and Bones, that Santana may have had his head out of his ass the whole time, and merely suffered from bad quarterback play/handcuffs....

To drop the cuteness: impossible. We knew he could play well with Campbell and adjust to the way Campbell threw it(see Dallas game in Texas last year, at Saints in 2006), he clearly wasn't in the game mentally with any consistency when Campbell was his QB until this season.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Why, are we signing Kerry Collins next year? :p

Haaahaha, figured something like that was coming. Just wait, if Jason misses a game next year, Brennan will come in and post a 90+ quarterback rating. Book it.

To drop the cuteness: impossible. We knew he could play well with Campbell and adjust to the way Campbell threw it(see Dallas game in Texas last year, at Saints in 2006), he clearly wasn't in the game mentally with any consistency when Campbell was his QB until this season.

*shrug* You've got your theory, I've got mine, impossible to prove either one. I'll just sit back and enjoy another Pro Bowl year from the Tanaman.

[akhhorus]

Haaahaha, figured something like that was coming. Just wait, if Jason misses a game next year, Brennan will come in and post a 90+ quarterback rating. Book it.

Only if we're playing the Toronto Argonauts lol.

*shrug* You've got your theory, I've got mine, impossible to prove either one. I'll just sit back and enjoy another Pro Bowl year from the Tanaman.

Except that its not two evenly matched theories thats there's no evidence of JDS. Moss has played 18 games with Campbell before this year, and he has 5 games of 80 yards or more and 6 games of 30 yards or less. Along with increased production from Cooley and ARE with Campbell. And 1/3 of Moss' fumbles have come with Campbell as his QB in 06 and 07(3 of his 9 in 95 games before 08). Moss clearly wasn't in the games with Campbell mentally. I'm enjoying eating every bit of the crow watching Moss thrive, maybe you should be less self congratulatory in your posts?

[dj_stouty]

Just wait, if Jason misses a game next year, Brennan will come in and post a 90+ quarterback rating. Book it.

Yeah, and the same thing could be said about Chad Pennington, but that doesn't translate into a "W".

[shally]

Yeah, and the same thing could be said about Chad Pennington, but that doesn't translate into a "W".

pennington is looking pretty good for the fins, regardless of what rating he is putting up..

[Patrick]

Haaahaha, figured something like that was coming. Just wait, if Jason misses a game next year, Brennan will come in and post a 90+ quarterback rating. Book it.

I think you're closer to reality than Akh is ........ ;)

[AliBabba]

I've heard that there's a theory, shrouded in mystery like knowledge of the Illuminati or Skull and Bones, that Santana may have had his head out of his ass the whole time, and merely suffered from bad quarterback play/handcuffs....

Uh, no, it was definitely much more Moss than it was JC before this season. I'm ecstatic that they've built this chemistry so quickly over the last 3 games but things were looking pretty bleak for this combo prior to that. The same could not be said for ARE, Cooley, or even Portis' production in the passing game with JC so I definitely hold Moss largely responsible.

In fairness though that means that he is also largely responsible for 180 thats occurred since the Gints game.

[Keino]

*shrug* You've got your theory, I've got mine, impossible to prove either one. I'll just sit back and enjoy another Pro Bowl year from the Tanaman.

The difference being one is grounded in factual analysis while the other is grounded in fantasy and hero worship......

[JoeDaSchmoe]

The difference being one is grounded in factual analysis while the other is grounded in fantasy and hero worship......

Factual analysis? It's a fact that Moss was inexplicably slacking off during JC's games last season? Where did you find this fact?

[Keino]

Factual analysis? It's a fact that Moss was inexplicably slacking off during JC's games last season? Where did you find this fact?

Please see Akhhorus' post with regard to statistical performance for the answer to your question. After your review, feel free to reconcile the "Bad QB theory" with the Fact that every other weapon in the offense enjoyed increased performance and then look at the Fact that Tanaman was the only WR to not spend any off-season time with his new starting QB to get timing down.......

While we are discussing this "Bad QB theory", why not go ahead and attribute Brandon Lloyd's poor performance to Campbell as well......I mean he is productive Orton, right?

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Please see Akhhorus' post with regard to statistical performance for the answer to your question. After your review, feel free to reconcile the "Bad QB theory" with the Fact that every other weapon in the offense enjoyed increased performance and then look at the Fact that Tanaman was the only WR to not spend any off-season time with his new starting QB to get timing down.......

While we are discussing this "Bad QB theory", why not go ahead and attribute Brandon Lloyd's poor performance to Campbell as well......I mean he is productive Orton, right?

Santana didn't spend any time with Collins, either. And if you're going to argue that Cooley and ARE had "lower production" with Collins because Collins spread the ball around more, and specifically got it to Moss a lot more - who, again, inexplicably had no "mental issues" as long as Collins was under center - then I suppose you think that Matt Cassell is better than Tom Brady because Kevin Faulk gets a lot more receptions now that Randy Moss isn't getting the ball so much. If Santana gets more receptions, they have to come from somewhere.

Akh also mentioned Santana's fumbles - all nine of them. Using that kind of sample size, we can also come to the conclusion that Raymond James Stadium has some sort of Mysterious Fumbling Power over Clinton Portis, since he lost the ball three times there in something like a quarter and a half last year. Pointing to three out of nine fumbles is like me isolating Kyle Orton's game on Sunday and claiming he's better than Peyton Manning.

As for Lloyd, he's doing the exact same thing he did in San Francisco - putting up numbers because they literally have virtually no one else to play wide receiver.

[akhhorus]

Santana didn't spend any time with Collins, either.

Collins was the kind of QB Moss likes, and he had Collins for most of that preseason since Campbell was out with a knee injury during it.

And if you're going to argue that Cooley and ARE had "lower production" with Collins because Collins spread the ball around more

Actually: if more receivers are doing better under one QB, then he's spreading the ball around. If one WR is doing better under Quarterback B than QB A at the expense of the receivers' production who were doing better with QB A, then Qb B isn't spreading the ball around more.

and specifically got it to Moss a lot more - who, again, inexplicably had no "mental issues" as long as Collins was under center

Yes, thats the point. Thanks for helping us make it.

- then I suppose you think that Matt Cassell is better than Tom Brady because Kevin Faulk gets a lot more receptions now that Randy Moss isn't getting the ball so much.

This is absurd and you know it.

If Santana gets more receptions, they have to come from somewhere.

Akh also mentioned Santana's fumbles - all nine of them. Using that kind of sample size, we can also come to the conclusion that Raymond James Stadium has some sort of Mysterious Fumbling Power over Clinton Portis, since he lost the ball three times there in something like a quarter and a half last year. Pointing to three out of nine fumbles is like me isolating Kyle Orton's game on Sunday and claiming he's better than Peyton Manning.

No, its not and you know it. I'm pointing out that out of his few fumbles in the NFL, Moss has a disproportionate number of them with Campbell. Which feeds into the theory that Moss doesn't try hard mentally when Campbell was the QB(before this year).

[shally]

Collins was the kind of QB Moss likes, and he had Collins for most of that preseason since Campbell was out with a knee injury during it.



Actually: if more receivers are doing better under one QB, then he's spreading the ball around. If one WR is doing better under Quarterback B than QB A at the expense of the receivers' production who were doing better with QB A, then Qb B isn't spreading the ball around more.



Yes, thats the point. Thanks for helping us make it.



This is absurd and you know it.



No, its not and you know it. I'm pointing out that out of his few fumbles in the NFL, Moss has a disproportionate number of them with Campbell. Which feeds into the theory that Moss doesn't try hard mentally when Campbell was the QB(before this year).

we were very lucky that the tip off of moss's hands didnt result in an int this past week. it stayed in the air a very long time

[Keino]

Which theory is more factually grounded than the theory that says poor QB play is at fault for Moss' lack of production with Campbell.......

You can continue to talk mystery if you want Joe, I will choose to use facts and observation to come up with my theories..Thanks.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Collins was the kind of QB Moss likes, and he had Collins for most of that preseason since Campbell was out with a knee injury during it.

Ah. So, now we not only have "factual" information about Santana's mental state, we also know how he feels about certain quarterbacks. The "Santana likes weak-armed quarterbacks" argument seems to run in almost the same exact circles as the "Santana thought balls thrown by Jason Campbell had cooties last year" argument does. And since when does playing a few quarters against vanilla defenses in preseason give a receiver more of a rapport with a quarterback than a real game or two? If that's all it took, Santana should have been having 100-yard games with Jason by Week 3.

Actually: if more receivers are doing better under one QB, then he's spreading the ball around. If one WR is doing better under Quarterback B than QB A at the expense of the receivers' production who were doing better with QB A, then Qb B isn't spreading the ball around more.

So, just to be clear - a quarterback who leads the NFL in a bevy of statistical categories during his starting time, who takes an offense that had been ranked 15th in scoring under the previous quarterback and makes it rank first during his starting time, who's the guy our "mastermind" offensive coordinator wanted to start all along... he wasn't running the offense the way it was supposed to be run. He actually was running it incorrectly, and the guy who put up all those middle-of-the-pack numbers before, who had a penchant for staring down certain receivers before this year, he was actually running it correctly, and it was just that damn slacker Santana who was holding it all back.

This is your argument?

This is absurd and you know it.

No, it's not. That's exactly what you're saying. You're isolating two players and claiming that because their numbers went down slightly, even as the numbers for the offense as a whole vastly improved, Jason must have been doing everything right. You can find the same statistical anomaly in virtually any offense that is run by a sub-par quarterback and a very good quarterback in the same season.

No, its not and you know it. I'm pointing out that out of his few fumbles in the NFL, Moss has a disproportionate number of them with Campbell. Which feeds into the theory that Moss doesn't try hard mentally when Campbell was the QB(before this year).

Really? Three out of nine? For comparison, let's dial up a few other quirky fumble stats:

Since joining the Redskins, four out of Antwaan Randle El's six fumbles have come in the first quarter of the season. Using this tunnel-vision logic, we can therefore come to the conclusion that Antwaan Randle El does not properly focus in the first quarter of the season.

Last year, six out of Jason Campbell's twelve fumbles happened against teams from areas whose names begin with "New." Using this tunnel-vision logic, we can therefore come to the conclusion that teams from areas which begin with "New" frighten Jason, and cause him to lose focus.

Since 2005, three of Clinton Portis' nine fumbles have come against teams whose names end in "Bay." Much like the previous example, we can again, using this tunnel-vision logic, safely assume that Clinton Portis' mental state is somehow hampered by Bay-based teams.

You can literally do this all day with fumble statistics. Fumbles are simply far too random to draw any conclusions about mental states from, especially when the sample size is so small.

[Keino]

The obvious conclusion Joe, has nothing to do with Raymond James Stadium and everything to do with the Tampa Defense. If you concluded that Portis is more fumble prone against the Hard Hitting Bucs Defense, that theory is supported by the facts.

If you conclude that it is the stadium, that theory is nothing but fantasy......

[JoeDaSchmoe]

The obvious conclusion Joe, has nothing to do with Raymond James Stadium and everything to do with the Tampa Defense. If you concluded that Portis is more fumble prone against the Hard Hitting Bucs Defense, that theory is supported by the facts.

If you conclude that it is the stadium, that theory is nothing but fantasy......

Wait, it's the hits that cause fumbles? Not Clinton's level of concentration?

[Keino]

Wait, it's the hits that cause fumbles? Not Clinton's level of concentration?

What position does Clinton Portis play, Joe?

Do yourself a favor and go watch the Packers game last year. The watch the Bucs game. If you cannot see the difference in the fumbles and come away with a Concentration conclusion then I can't help you.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

What position does Clinton Portis play, Joe?

Do yourself a favor and go watch the Packers game last year. The watch the Bucs game. If you cannot see the difference in the fumbles and come away with a Concentration conclusion then I can't help you.

I've repeatedly said that Santana was clearly not right in the head for the Green Bay game. I happen to think that it was more a confidence issue than lack of concentration, but it doesn't really matter either way. But I consider that an isolated incident, much like Clinton's game against Tampa. Clinton has taken great care of the ball in his time here. The Bucs game was an isolated incident, too.

[akhhorus]

Ah. So, now we not only have "factual" information about Santana's mental state, we also know how he feels about certain quarterbacks. The "Santana likes weak-armed quarterbacks" argument seems to run in almost the same exact circles as the "Santana thought balls thrown by Jason Campbell had cooties last year" argument does.

I only have his performance as evidence. Moss, before this year, thrives with Brunell and Collins. Both weak armed Qbs. You can argue the semantics until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the facts of my point.

And since when does playing a few quarters against vanilla defenses in preseason give a receiver more of a rapport with a quarterback than a real game or two? If that's all it took, Santana should have been having 100-yard games with Jason by Week 3.

You said:
"Santana didn't spend any time with Collins, either."

My response was pointing out the factual error with your statement. Again: You can argue the semantics until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the facts of my point.

So, just to be clear - a quarterback who leads the NFL in a bevy of statistical categories during his starting time, who takes an offense that had been ranked 15th in scoring under the previous quarterback and makes it rank first during his starting time, who's the guy our "mastermind" offensive coordinator wanted to start all along... he wasn't running the offense the way it was supposed to be run. He actually was running it incorrectly, and the guy who put up all those middle-of-the-pack numbers before, who had a penchant for staring down certain receivers before this year, he was actually running it correctly, and it was just that damn slacker Santana who was holding it all back.

This is your argument?

You're totally misstating my argument. And your argument is now: "Jason Campbell is an idiot, and nothing is ever Moss' fault?" I don't think you even watched any of last season, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous this sounds. Did Campbell have issues? Absolutely, but Moss' mysterious problem with drops(he was the league leader in drops last year, but thats someone else's fault in your tunnel vision, I guess) disappeared when Campbell got hurt. That alone undermines your pathetic attempts at defending Moss.

No, it's not. That's exactly what you're saying. You're isolating two players and claiming that because their numbers went down slightly, even as the numbers for the offense as a whole vastly improved, Jason must have been doing everything right.

They're numbers didn't go down slightly. I'm pointing out all evidence: fumbles, drops, production..that show that Santana Moss clearly was mentally out to lunch. Your response is try and make the indictment of Campbell bigger since he didn't understand the offense. Nevermind the facts of the situation.

You can find the same statistical anomaly in virtually any offense that is run by a sub-par quarterback and a very good quarterback in the same season.

Then go ahead and show it.

Really? Three out of nine? For comparison, let's dial up a few other quirky fumble stats:

Since joining the Redskins, four out of Antwaan Randle El's six fumbles have come in the first quarter of the season. Using this tunnel-vision logic, we can therefore come to the conclusion that Antwaan Randle El does not properly focus in the first quarter of the season.

That actually might be a valid point.

Last year, six out of Jason Campbell's twelve fumbles happened against teams from areas whose names begin with "New." Using this tunnel-vision logic, we can therefore come to the conclusion that teams from areas which begin with "New" frighten Jason, and cause him to lose focus.

Unrelated to my point about Moss. There's no correlation between teams' names and fumbles: there could be one between who's in the game with you-especially when you're a WR.

Since 2005, three of Clinton Portis' nine fumbles have come against teams whose names end in "Bay." Much like the previous example, we can again, using this tunnel-vision logic, safely assume that Clinton Portis' mental state is somehow hampered by Bay-based teams.

Considering that both Green Bay and Tampa Bay have been among the best teams at creating fumbles in the last 3 years, it might be the defenses:
2007: Tampa #2 in creating fumbles, Green Bay #11
2006: Green Bay 12th, Tampa 17th
2005: Tampa #1, Green Bay 7th.

You can literally do this all day with fumble statistics. Fumbles are simply far too random to draw any conclusions about mental states from, especially when the sample size is so small.

When added into his drops problems and production with Campbell, a pattern emerges whether you like it or not.

[Keino]

I've repeatedly said that Santana was clearly not right in the head for the Green Bay game. I happen to think that it was more a confidence issue than lack of concentration, but it doesn't really matter either way. But I consider that an isolated incident, much like Clinton's game against Tampa. Clinton has taken great care of the ball in his time here. The Bucs game was an isolated incident, too.

2 years of poor production after a record season and a huge raise are not Isolated incidents.

I am happy Moss has stepped it up. But I won't apologize for the justified criticism I have pointed in his direction over the last 2 seasons......

[Shrympscampi]

You can only catch the number of balls thrown to you.

So lets take a peek at Moss's looks at week 6 and week 14 for years 2005, 2006, and 2007:

Year week6 week14
2005 61 124
2006 43 76
2007 31 89

Year week3
2008 29


Is the reduce in looks the fault of Moss's alone? Or could other factors come to play such as injuries, QB, defenses, coaching and etc? I dont believe the fault rides with Moss alone.

I believe in one of my rare posts, I matched Moss stats next to Steve Smiths and that they were similar. I also believe I stated 1200+ yds and 8+tds this year (Or maybe I just said he would match Bobby Engrams numbers from last year) prior to the season. And I believe I was ridiculed for my beliefs. I will let this years stats speak for themselves.

[akhhorus]

You can only catch the number of balls thrown to you.

Ironically, this means that his number of drops is more important than ever lol.


So lets take a peek at Moss's looks at week 6 and week 14 for years 2005, 2006, and 2007:

Year week6 week14
2005 61 124
2006 43 76
2007 31 89

Is the reduce in looks the fault of Moss's alone? Or could other factors come to play such as injuries, QB, defenses, coaching and etc? I dont believe the fault rides with Moss alone.

Please source these numbers. The problem is that every potential reason has Moss as a valid center of the problems except the theory that Jason Campbell just sucks(which we know isn't true).

I believe in one of my rare posts, I matched Moss stats next to Steve Smiths and that they were similar. I also believe I stated 1200+ yds and 8+tds this year (Or maybe I just said he would match Bobby Engrams numbers from last year) prior to the season. And I believe I was ridiculed for my beliefs. I will let this years stats speak for themselves.

We'll see at the end of the year.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

I only have his performance as evidence. Moss, before this year, thrives with Brunell and Collins. Both weak armed Qbs. You can argue the semantics until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the facts of my point.

The "facts" of your point? The "facts" are that Santana has played with exclusively weak-armed quarterbacks, other than Jason Campbell and some of the scrubs that came in when Pennington went down. Claiming that that somehow "proves" that Santana's "type" of quarterback is weak-armed (which would probably make him the first deep threat in NFL history who would do better with a weak-armed quarterback if everything else were equal) is like me claiming that Emmitt Smith's career with the Cowboys versus his one year with the Cardinals "proves" that Emmitt Smith could have only performed well as a member of the Cowboys franchise.

You said:
"Santana didn't spend any time with Collins, either."

My response was pointing out the factual error with your statement. Again: You can argue the semantics until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the facts of my point.

Again, facts? You said that Santana hadn't spent any extra time with Campbell. I pointed out that he didn't with Collins, either. You then said, "Ah, but he played more in the preseason with Collins." I was refuting the notion that said preseason time was the difference-maker. If it was, then Santana would have had the same amount of time with Campbell by midway through Week 2. Since Santana didn't explode with Jason after that point, we can safely assume that his small amount of time with Collins was not, in fact, the difference-maker. That doesn't change my original point - that Santana didn't spend one more second of "extra" time with Todd Collins than he did with Jason Campbell. And that, as you must know, is a fact.

You're totally misstating my argument. And your argument is now: "Jason Campbell is an idiot, and nothing is ever Moss' fault?" I don't think you even watched any of last season, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous this sounds. Did Campbell have issues? Absolutely, but Moss' mysterious problem with drops(he was the league leader in drops last year, but thats someone else's fault in your tunnel vision, I guess) disappeared when Campbell got hurt. That alone undermines your pathetic attempts at defending Moss.

There are a whole lot of semantics in there for someone who has such disdain for them. And I'm not quite sure how an incredibly isolated statistic like that undermines the entire argument that it was Jason Campbell's poor quarterback play that resulted in Santana's below-average stats while Jason was under center. T.O. led the league in drops the year before. He also led the league in touchdowns. You can put up big numbers despite a few drops.

They're numbers didn't go down slightly. I'm pointing out all evidence: fumbles, drops, production..that show that Santana Moss clearly was mentally out to lunch. Your response is try and make the indictment of Campbell bigger since he didn't understand the offense. Nevermind the facts of the situation.

Akh, honestly, most of what I've presented to you is statistical analysis. You pointed out a statistic that three of Moss' nine fumbles have come with Jason. I then brought in more statistics to show that you can't logically conclude what you wanted to conclude from those numbers. You can dig up other statistics to argue back, but simply sitting there and saying "You're ignoring facts" isn't going to achieve much.

Then go ahead and show it.

Last year, Bo Scaife averaged roughly 40 yards a game with Vince Young. In game one of this year, with Young at quarterback, Scaife had a 100-yard game. Since then, with Kerry Collins at quarterback, Scaife has had 6, 26, and 17 yards receiving in three games.

Last year, Earnest Graham had 37 and 45 yards receiving in the two games that Jeff Garcia missed. His only bigger receiving game the whole year was when he broke a screen from Garcia for a long touchdown. Only once out of thirteen other games (Garcia completely sat the last one, as did most of the Bucs starters).

Unrelated to my point about Moss. There's no correlation between teams' names and fumbles: there could be one between who's in the game with you-especially when you're a WR.

Akh, you're missing my point. I'm not saying that it's not possible that Campbell affected Moss. I'm saying that your numbers simply aren't enough to prove anything at all.



Considering that both Green Bay and Tampa Bay have been among the best teams at creating fumbles in the last 3 years, it might be the defenses:
2007: Tampa #2 in creating fumbles, Green Bay #11
2006: Green Bay 12th, Tampa 17th
2005: Tampa #1, Green Bay 7th.

Kind of like how Santana's two fumbles last year came against... wait for it...

Green Bay and Tampa Bay?

When added into his drops problems and production with Campbell, a pattern emerges whether you like it or not.

Again, drops do not correlate to a lack of production. And lack of production obviously cannot be a cause of, you know, lack of production.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

2 years of poor production after a record season and a huge raise are not Isolated incidents.

I am happy Moss has stepped it up. But I won't apologize for the justified criticism I have pointed in his direction over the last 2 seasons......

The fact that those two years coincided with bad quarterback play doesn't matter?

[Shrympscampi]

Source my numbers for looks.

Google.

Well here is where you can find week3 2008 numbers:

http://sports.yahoo.com/fantasy/nfl/news?slug=mb-lookstouches_week3_08

[Keino]

The fact that those two years coincided with bad quarterback play doesn't matter?

Sure it matters, just like the fact that in '07 other players saw improved production matters. I am not dismissing the point out of hand, but I am dismissing the notion that the onus of Moss' lack of production wasn't largely on Moss.

[Battle Cat]

I have had this chicken or the egg conversation several times. I will always beleive that good qb play dictates good wr play and not vice versa.

Steve Smith struggles when Delhomme struggles or the Panther's backup qb comes in. Randy Moss struggles when he is in Oakland and will struggle now with no qb in New England. David Patten catches 2 passes a year here and goes to NO with Brees and is a productive receiver. B. Lloyd leaves here and is a productive receiver. I am a J Campbell fan as well as J Gibbs and Al Saunders. But basicly I see now and have to admit it now their offense stunk and J. Campbell's qb play stunk as well. With an assist from a banged up offensive line. Now with a healthy o line and Campbell playing well S. Moss will be a top 5 wr in the NFL like he was in 2005 when we had decent qb play.

For example I saw Brad Johnson make M. Westbrook and Al Connel look like the greatest show on turf one year and then Brad Johnson left and I the last thing I remember hearing from Westbrook is that he got choked out in some bootleg MMA event. And I think Connel was in a locker room lifting some guys wallet or something. So yes good qb play comes first and then the wr's can show their talent.

[Shrympscampi]

Sure it matters, just like the fact that in '07 other players saw improved production matters. I am not dismissing the point out of hand, but I am dismissing the notion that the onus of Moss' lack of production wasn't largely on Moss.

Injuries, bad coaching, and bad Qbing played more of a factor than Moss's 'lack of focus'.

Improved production by whom? As everyone is always asked 'Facts please and please provide sources.'

Cooley? No. His stats stayed basically the same from 2005 - 2007. So because a TE stats stayed the same a WR should have also?

[JoeDaSchmoe]

By the way, Akh, after looking it up, I've found that Santana has had 15 fumbles in his career, not 9. And only three have been with Campbell.

Oh, and Keino, you mentioned Santana's payday - correct me if I'm wrong (I honestly don't know for sure), but didn't we give him his new contract before the 2005 season?

[Keino]

Injuries, bad coaching, and bad Qbing played more of a factor than Moss's 'lack of focus'.

Improved production by whom? As everyone is always asked 'Facts please and please provide sources.'

Cooley? No. His stats stayed basically the same from 2005 - 2007. So because a TE stats stayed the same a WR should have also?

Dude, try to follow the conversation. Akh posted the stats.....

[Keino]

By the way, Akh, after looking it up, I've found that Santana has had 15 fumbles in his career, not 9. And only three have been with Campbell.

Oh, and Keino, you mentioned Santana's payday - correct me if I'm wrong (I honestly don't know for sure), but didn't we give him his new contract before the 2005 season?

I believe you are correct.

[akhhorus]

The "facts" of your point? The "facts" are that Santana has played with exclusively weak-armed quarterbacks, other than Jason Campbell and some of the scrubs that came in when Pennington went down. Claiming that that somehow "proves" that Santana's "type" of quarterback is weak-armed (which would probably make him the first deep threat in NFL history who would do better with a weak-armed quarterback if everything else were equal) is like me claiming that Emmitt Smith's career with the Cowboys versus his one year with the Cardinals "proves" that Emmitt Smith could have only performed well as a member of the Cowboys franchise.

No, the fact that Santana Moss always produced better with weak armed Qbs. Once again: You can argue the semantics until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the facts of my point.

Again, facts? You said that Santana hadn't spent any extra time with Campbell. I pointed out that he didn't with Collins, either. You then said, "Ah, but he played more in the preseason with Collins." I was refuting the notion that said preseason time was the difference-maker. If it was, then Santana would have had the same amount of time with Campbell by midway through Week 2. Since Santana didn't explode with Jason after that point, we can safely assume that his small amount of time with Collins was not, in fact, the difference-maker. That doesn't change my original point - that Santana didn't spend one more second of "extra" time with Todd Collins than he did with Jason Campbell. And that, as you must know, is a fact.

No, he did spend extra time with Collins. Not making a massive assumption here, but I'm assuming that Collins and Campbell spent as much time with Moss during TC.

And you're still semantic dancing instead of addressing the points.

There are a whole lot of semantics in there for someone who has such disdain for them.

No, there's a whole lot of semantics in your "argument" because you can't address any points directly.

And I'm not quite sure how an incredibly isolated statistic like that undermines the entire argument that it was Jason Campbell's poor quarterback play that resulted in Santana's below-average stats while Jason was under center. T.O. led the league in drops the year before. He also led the league in touchdowns. You can put up big numbers despite a few drops.

And Moss didn't put up big numbers despite his drops. And Moss was the league leader in drops in 2007.

Akh, honestly, most of what I've presented to you is statistical analysis.

No, you haven't. You're trying to twist what Keino and I have been saying using hyperbole and semantic hair splitting.

You pointed out a statistic that three of Moss' nine fumbles have come with Jason. I then brought in more statistics to show that you can't logically conclude what you wanted to conclude from those numbers. You can dig up other statistics to argue back, but simply sitting there and saying "You're ignoring facts" isn't going to achieve much.

No you didn't. You brought up other situational stats to try and obscure the issue.

Last year, Bo Scaife averaged roughly 40 yards a game with Vince Young. In game one of this year, with Young at quarterback, Scaife had a 100-yard game. Since then, with Kerry Collins at quarterback, Scaife has had 6, 26, and 17 yards receiving in three games.

Last year, Earnest Graham had 37 and 45 yards receiving in the two games that Jeff Garcia missed. His only bigger receiving game the whole year was when he broke a screen from Garcia for a long touchdown. Only once out of thirteen other games (Garcia completely sat the last one, as did most of the Bucs starters).

Good thing I've been talking a bigger sample set than a few games over 1 season.

Akh, you're missing my point.

I honestly don't know what your point is besides to try and:
1-Do nothing but pat yourself on the back(because all you seem to post here now is you being self congratulatory)
2-defend Moss against any criticism

I'm not saying that it's not possible that Campbell affected Moss. I'm saying that your numbers simply aren't enough to prove anything at all.

More semantic gibberish from you. You want to blame anyone else but Moss when the facts/stats clearly say that Moss was doing something different when Campbell was his QB.

Kind of like how Santana's two fumbles last year came against... wait for it...

Green Bay and Tampa Bay?

And Carolina in 2006(one of the worst teams at creating fumbles that year).

Again, drops do not correlate to a lack of production. And lack of production obviously cannot be a cause of, you know, lack of production.

Drops show exactly what I'm talking about. Drops are mental mistakes(but I'm sure you'll try and blame it on Campbell, Saunders, Gibbs, or martians). I'm saying that Moss' lack of production is not related to his drops(I never said that). I'm saying that drops are an obvious symptom of his clear mental lapses in 2006 and 2007 with Campbell-which mysteriously disappeared when Collins entered for Campbell(again, I'm sure you'll try to blame that on everyone but Moss).

Why are you taking what we are saying and twisting it into questions we didn't say? Are you just incapable of answering our points and are creating straw men so you can at least try to make an argument?

[akhhorus]

Source my numbers for looks.

Google.

Well here is where you can find week3 2008 numbers:

http://sports.yahoo.com/fantasy/nfl/news?slug=mb-lookstouches_week3_08

You're going to need to provide more than that.

[akhhorus]

By the way, Akh, after looking it up, I've found that Santana has had 15 fumbles in his career, not 9. And only three have been with Campbell.

Oh, and Keino, you mentioned Santana's payday - correct me if I'm wrong (I honestly don't know for sure), but didn't we give him his new contract before the 2005 season?

Yahoo has 9, NFL has 15. They(the NFL) also say that Portis only had 3 in 2005, I know that's less than he actually had that year. Since we can't get a reliable number, I retract my part about fumbles, but that doesn't change my point or the facts.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

No, the fact that Santana Moss always produced better with weak armed Qbs. Once again: You can argue the semantics until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the facts of my point.

Do you actually know what the word "semantics" means? I'm not re-interpreting a word or anything nitpicky here. You say that Santana has an affinity for weak-armed quarterbacks. When I respond that Santana has played almost exclusively for weak-armed quarterbacks, that's not arguing semantics.

No, he did spend extra time with Collins. Not making a massive assumption here, but I'm assuming that Collins and Campbell spent as much time with Moss during TC.

And you're still semantic dancing instead of addressing the points.

What? No, he didn't spend extra time with Collins. I have no idea where you got that from. As for training camp, I was, you know, actually there. Campbell got most of the first-string reps. Moss played most of his reps with the first-string. If anything, Moss spent more time with Campbell last August, not Collins.

As for "semantics," you seem to label practically anything I say as such. I would love for you to point me in the direction of the specific things you would like me to address.

No, there's a whole lot of semantics in your "argument" because you can't address any points directly.

Which ones have I not addressed directly?

And Moss didn't put up big numbers despite his drops. And Moss was the league leader in drops in 2007.

Yes, but if I can point to other receivers who had a bunch of drops yet still put up great numbers, it would stand to reason that number of drops is not a clear indicator of how well a receiver will produce in any given year.

No, you haven't. You're trying to twist what Keino and I have been saying using hyperbole and semantic hair splitting.

Akh, I've tried to use as many statistics as I possibly can. Where am I haggling over words? Where am I twisting meaning?

No you didn't. You brought up other situational stats to try and obscure the issue.

Akh, your argument is the definition of a situational stat. Fumbles with Campbell as quarterback versus fumbles with other quarterbacks is a situational stat.

Good thing I've been talking a bigger sample set than a few games over 1 season.

Scaife's sample set is one game smaller than the sample set for Moss with Collins vs. Moss with Campbell. The Graham one is smaller, but the NFL, quite rudely, did not grace me with a bevy of similar quarterbacking situations last year. I could go back farther than one year, but that would involve looking up the number of starts for each quarterback in 2006 and then digging up receiving numbers, because I honestly don't remember who was replaced and for how long that year. And, as you might imagine, that's a pretty big pain in the tight end.

I honestly don't know what your point is besides to try and:
1-Do nothing but pat yourself on the back(because all you seem to post here now is you being self congratulatory)
2-defend Moss against any criticism

Well, now you're talking about the point of being here at all versus the point of a specific part of an argument. The point of that specific part of my argument was to demonstrate that your sample size was far too small to draw any conclusions from. The point of posting here is earning the money that Santana and Colt pay my to defend their honor, of course.

More semantic gibberish from you. You want to blame anyone else but Moss when the facts/stats clearly say that Moss was doing something different when Campbell was his QB.

Akh, explaining a statistical argument is just about as polar opposite from semantics as you can get.

And Carolina in 2006(one of the worst teams at creating fumbles that year).

So... one fumble. That's what you're pointing to?

Drops show exactly what I'm talking about. Drops are mental mistakes(but I'm sure you'll try and blame it on Campbell, Saunders, Gibbs, or martians). I'm saying that Moss' lack of production is not related to his drops(I never said that). I'm saying that drops are an obvious symptom of his clear mental lapses in 2006 and 2007 with Campbell-which mysteriously disappeared when Collins entered for Campbell(again, I'm sure you'll try to blame that on everyone but Moss).

Look, if you don't know that Martians cause 90% of drops in the NFL, I don't know what to tell you.

Drops are drops. They're bad plays. However, my overall point is that Santana's overall statistic production was brought down mostly by Campbell's play. Your point about drops would have merit if there were some sort of correlation between number of drops and overall production in the NFL. There isn't. Therefore, the drops aren't enough. You need more than that. And that's not semantics. That's the essence of an "if, then" argument.

Why are you taking what we are saying and twisting it into questions we didn't say? Are you just incapable of answering our points and are creating straw men so you can at least try to make an argument?

Akh, honestly, I don't even know how I could answer anything you say in a way you would approve of. I've dug up statistic after statistic, and you claim over and over again that I'm arguing semantics. I'm not. Every time I try to counter one of your claims, you brush it off as semantics. Let's take the fumble example. Your claim is that one of the ways by which is possible to conclude that Moss was not concentrating as much with Campbell as he was with other quarterbacks is the "fact" that three of his nine career fumbles have happened with Campbell. First of all, it's fifteen, which significantly dilutes your argument. But more importantly, I produced several other fumble statistics and used your logic to come to conclusions that you and I both know aren't true. The point of such an exercise is to demonstrate that you can't draw the conclusions that you're arguing for from your numbers. Either your logic works, or it doesn't. It can't be both. That's not an argument about semantics. That's an argument about whether or not your statistics prove anything. If you want to brush that off, then you pretty much brush off every statistical argument ever made about anything.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Yahoo has 9, NFL has 15. They(the NFL) also say that Portis only had 3 in 2005, I know that's less than he actually had that year. Since we can't get a reliable number, I retract my part about fumbles, but that doesn't change my point or the facts.

Hmmm. You're right. Very strange. I can't figure out why there's such a difference.

[akhhorus]

Do you actually know what the word "semantics" means? I'm not re-interpreting a word or anything nitpicky here. You say that Santana has an affinity for weak-armed quarterbacks. When I respond that Santana has played almost exclusively for weak-armed quarterbacks, that's not arguing semantics.

I'm not saying that Santana hasn't played for a lot of noodle arms, but Campbell has a cannon of an arm, yet his stats(before this year) declined while ARE, Cooley and the rest of the receivers' stats increased. I know you want to defend Moss, but the evidence indicates that the problem was Moss-especially since his play stepped up(with a decline from Cooley/ARE/etc) when Collins came in. This has been our argument and what you're trying to bury in a pile of semantics(like bringing up that Moss has played with a lot of weak armed Qbs).

What? No, he didn't spend extra time with Collins. I have no idea where you got that from. As for training camp, I was, you know, actually there. Campbell got most of the first-string reps. Moss played most of his reps with the first-string. If anything, Moss spent more time with Campbell last August, not Collins.

Unless you work for the skins coaching staff, you're not in a position to offer an informed opinion about how many reps Collins got with Moss during TC .

As for "semantics," you seem to label practically anything I say as such. I would love for you to point me in the direction of the specific things you would like me to address.

How about what I'm actually writing, and not what you want to answer.

Which ones have I not addressed directly?

I've lost count.

Yes, but if I can point to other receivers who had a bunch of drops yet still put up great numbers, it would stand to reason that number of drops is not a clear indicator of how well a receiver will produce in any given year.

Except I'm not using his drops as cause for his decline in production. I'm using it as an example of how much he's mentally in a game.

Akh, I've tried to use as many statistics as I possibly can. Where am I haggling over words? Where am I twisting meaning?

Just about all of your responses.

Akh, your argument is the definition of a situational stat. Fumbles with Campbell as quarterback versus fumbles with other quarterbacks is a situational stat.

Except your stats have nothing to do with the stat I brought up.

Scaife's sample set is one game smaller than the sample set for Moss with Collins vs. Moss with Campbell. The Graham one is smaller, but the NFL, quite rudely, did not grace me with a bevy of similar quarterbacking situations last year. I could go back farther than one year, but that would involve looking up the number of starts for each quarterback in 2006 and then digging up receiving numbers, because I honestly don't remember who was replaced and for how long that year. And, as you might imagine, that's a pretty big pain in the tight end.

Well, tough. You can't hold up contextually small examples of players unrelated in system, scheme and players to try bust my point about Moss' production.

Well, now you're talking about the point of being here at all versus the point of a specific part of an argument. The point of that specific part of my argument was to demonstrate that your sample size was far too small to draw any conclusions from. The point of posting here is earning the money that Santana and Colt pay my to defend their honor, of course.

:rolleyes: anyways...

If collins had played 1 game last year and Moss racked up some massive game, I wouldn't think that there wasn't enough evidence in the set to draw any conclusions. They had 4-5.5 games together I believe last year. Thats more than enough to draw conclusions-especially when Moss' performance both statistically and in attitude was so dramatically different.

Akh, explaining a statistical argument is just about as polar opposite from semantics as you can get.

Except that you're not using exclusively statistical arguments. In fact: you're not arguing any of my stats, except to bring up other stats to try and obscure the issue.

So... one fumble. That's what you're pointing to?

No. And since we can't get accurate fumble stats from anyone, I'm not pursuing this issue any further.

Look, if you don't know that Martians cause 90% of drops in the NFL, I don't know what to tell you.

Click on the final link in my sig please.

Drops are drops. They're bad plays. However, my overall point is that Santana's overall statistic production was brought down mostly by Campbell's play. Your point about drops would have merit if there were some sort of correlation between number of drops and overall production in the NFL. There isn't. Therefore, the drops aren't enough. You need more than that. And that's not semantics. That's the essence of an "if, then" argument.

For about the tenth time: I'm not trying to draw any correlation between drops and production. I've NEVER said that. Its a major example of Moss' mental issues last year. You bringing it up when no one else has brought it up is semantics bull.

As for your theory that it was Campbell's fault: the undisputed fact is that both Cooley and ARE's stats went up with Campbell, so they clearly didn't have a problem with him.

Akh, honestly, I don't even know how I could answer anything you say in a way you would approve of. I've dug up statistic after statistic, and you claim over and over again that I'm arguing semantics. I'm not. Every time I try to counter one of your claims, you brush it off as semantics. Let's take the fumble example. Your claim is that one of the ways by which is possible to conclude that Moss was not concentrating as much with Campbell as he was with other quarterbacks is the "fact" that three of his nine career fumbles have happened with Campbell. First of all, it's fifteen, which significantly dilutes your argument. But more importantly, I produced several other fumble statistics and used your logic to come to conclusions that you and I both know aren't true. The point of such an exercise is to demonstrate that you can't draw the conclusions that you're arguing for from your numbers. Either your logic works, or it doesn't. It can't be both. That's not an argument about semantics. That's an argument about whether or not your statistics prove anything. If you want to brush that off, then you pretty much brush off every statistical argument ever made about anything.

I repeat my comments from this post about how you're not discussing what we are discussing in terms of drops, stats, etc. You have yet to actually argue any of my points and bring up unrelated issues for some unknown reason. When you want to actually debate the points I'm bringing up, shoot me a pm. Until then, you can spin yourself into this circle all you want.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Okay, since you don't believe I'm addressing any of your points, I'm gonna try something a little different and re-arrange how I'm saying things. Maybe his will help clear things up.

Akh's Claim: Santana's increased numbers can be partially explained by his pattern of putting up good numbers with weak-armed quarterbacks.

Joe's Response: Santana had never played with a decent strong-armed quarterback before this season. My point here is not that Moss hadn't put up good numbers with weak-armed quarterbacks. My point is that you can't come to the conclusion that Moss is better with weak-armed quarterbacks unless there is something to compare his production to. There isn't. You mentioned Campbell's strong arm, but there were many differences between Campbell and Collins last year, not just arm strength. I'm addressing your point about weak-armed quarterbacks by saying that there doesn't appear to be anything to indicate that the arm strength of Pennington/Brunell/Collins were the reason for their success with Moss. I'm not trying to argue the meaning of anything you say, I'm trying to argue your ability to draw a certain conclusion from it. Would you agree that that's not semantics? (Not a sarcastic question, I'd honestly like to know if you still think I'm dodging your point.)

Akh's Claim: Santana's drops show a lack of concentration last year.

Joe's Response: The drops are troubling, but my argument this whole time has been about the cause of Santana's sub-par production. Were the drops bad? Yes. Were they Santana's fault? Of course. But if drops are an accurate measurement of a receiver's level of concentration, then they don't show that Santana's concentration was low enough to cause his lack of production with Campbell. In other words, if there are a significant number of other receivers whose concentration levels are "low enough" to drop a lot of balls in one year, and those same receivers still manage to put up very good numbers, then the number of drops Santana had can't possibly identify the main cause[b] of his lack of production. I'm not trying to say that drops don't matter at all. I'm addressing your point by acknowledging that drops are indicative of [b]some loss of concentration, but not nearly enough to explain Santana's lack of production. Does that address it well enough?

Akh's Claim: Chris Cooley and Antwaan Randle El had better production under Campbell than Collins, so Campbell was actually playing at least as well as Collins the whole time, and Santana only turned it on once Collins took over.

Joe's Response: Rather than going back to my more complicated argument before, I decided to whip out the calculator on my phone and crunch some numbers real quick. It turns out that ARE and Cooley actually weren't more productive with Campbell. Antwaan averaged 52 yards per game with Campbell, and 49 yards per game with Collins. Cooley averaged 48 yards per game with Campbell, and 49 yards per game with Collins. Meanwhile, the offense as a whole jumped from 15th in the NFL to 1st for the stretch that Collins was under center. To me, that indicates that Collins was running the offense better than Campbell ran it, and our primary receiver benefited as a result. Do you feel as if I'm dodging something here?

Akh's Claim: Moss spent "extra time" with Collins.

Joe's Response: Not really sure where this came from. Moss didn't spend extra time with Collins during the offseason. Everything I've said about training camp/preseason was simply an attempt to refute the notion that Santana spent more time with Collins last August. Since you've said that I can't possibly know how much time Moss spent with anyone, I would assume that you would admit that you can't, either. I'm not saying that Moss spent more time with Campbell - I'm simply saying that there's no evidence to suggest that he spent more time with Collins, either. You seem to be implying the same. Does that address your point?

Since we dropped the fumble issue, did I miss anything else?

[Shrympscampi]

Dude, try to follow the conversation. Akh posted the stats.....

and where is the link to his stats, because I dont see them in this thread, and what are his sources?

[Shrympscampi]

You're going to need to provide more than that.

What you dont have the capability to look them up yourself? I gave you the link to week 3 2008. Doesnt take much more to find the previous weeks/years.

[Shrympscampi]

No, he did spend extra time with Collins. Not making a massive assumption here, but I'm assuming that Collins and Campbell spent as much time with Moss during TC. [/QUOTE]

Sources please.


And Moss didn't put up big numbers despite his drops. And Moss was the league leader in drops in 2007.
Sources please.


More semantic gibberish from you. You want to blame anyone else but Moss when the facts/stats clearly say that Moss was doing something different when Campbell was his QB.

And his WR role changing in 2006 has nothing to do with it. Al Saunders system has nothing to do with it. JC learning a new system had nothing to do with it. Injuries had nothing to do with it? Him being looked at about 33% less in 2006 and 2007 vs 2005 has nothign to do with it. It was just a lack of focus on Moss' part.


Drops show exactly what I'm talking about. Drops are mental mistakes(but I'm sure you'll try and blame it on Campbell, Saunders, Gibbs, or martians). I'm saying that Moss' lack of production is not related to his drops(I never said that). I'm saying that drops are an obvious symptom of his clear mental lapses in 2006 and 2007 with Campbell-which mysteriously disappeared when Collins entered for Campbell(again, I'm sure you'll try to blame that on everyone but Moss).

Again where are you stats/sources for the drops. And all you want to do is throw the blame on Moss.

[akhhorus]

Sources please.

Why are you asking for a source for something that I say is an assumption, unless you're being childish and demanding sources because I asked for yours?


Sources please.

The WaPo through Stats inc had it, but now they have 2008 stats only.


And his WR role changing in 2006 has nothing to do with it.

His WR role didn't change much.


Al Saunders system has nothing to do with it.

So, he's productive in some games with Saunders, but thats to blame also?


JC learning a new system had nothing to do with it.

That was his 2nd year in the system


Injuries had nothing to do with it?

He didn't have any hand injuries last time I checked.


Him being looked at about 33% less in 2006 and 2007 vs 2005 has nothign to do with it. It was just a lack of focus on Moss' part.

And his overall stats stayed about the same and his drops went up.


Again where are you stats/sources for the drops. And all you want to do is throw the blame on Moss.

See above.

What you dont have the capability to look them up yourself? I gave you the link to week 3 2008. Doesnt take much more to find the previous weeks/years.

When someone asks you for a source, provide the source, don't just post a link and say "do you own work."

As for your link: Moss got 89 looks from Campbell in 13.5 games, they don't have the stats from weeks 15, 16 and 17, so we can't see what he got from Collins and compare.

[akhhorus]

Okay, since you don't believe I'm addressing any of your points, I'm gonna try something a little different and re-arrange how I'm saying things. Maybe his will help clear things up.

Akh's Claim: Santana's increased numbers can be partially explained by his pattern of putting up good numbers with weak-armed quarterbacks.

Not what I'm saying. Your first point already shows that you're not addressing my point. Keino and I's point is that Moss lollygagged last year(and previous) with Campbell(or didn't put in the work and didn't bother working at it, take your pick).

Joe's Response: Santana had never played with a decent strong-armed quarterback before this season. My point here is not that Moss hadn't put up good numbers with weak-armed quarterbacks. My point is that you can't come to the conclusion that Moss is better with weak-armed quarterbacks unless there is something to compare his production to. There isn't. You mentioned Campbell's strong arm, but there were many differences between Campbell and Collins last year, not just arm strength. I'm addressing your point about weak-armed quarterbacks by saying that there doesn't appear to be anything to indicate that the arm strength of Pennington/Brunell/Collins were the reason for their success with Moss. I'm not trying to argue the meaning of anything you say, I'm trying to argue your ability to draw a certain conclusion from it. Would you agree that that's not semantics? (Not a sarcastic question, I'd honestly like to know if you still think I'm dodging your point.)

See above.

Akh's Claim: Santana's drops show a lack of concentration last year.

Joe's Response: The drops are troubling, but my argument this whole time has been about the cause of Santana's sub-par production.

Which is odd, because thats totally irrelevant to my point.

Were the drops bad? Yes. Were they Santana's fault? Of course. But if drops are an accurate measurement of a receiver's level of concentration, then they don't show that Santana's concentration was low enough to cause his lack of production with Campbell. In other words, if there are a significant number of other receivers whose concentration levels are "low enough" to drop a lot of balls in one year, and those same receivers still manage to put up very good numbers, then the number of drops Santana had can't possibly identify the main cause[b] of his lack of production. I'm not trying to say that drops don't matter at all. I'm addressing your point by acknowledging that drops are indicative of [b]some loss of concentration, but not nearly enough to explain Santana's lack of production. Does that address it well enough?

Nope, considering you keep insisting that we're discussing it in relation to his production. We're not, we're discussing his concentration levels. Your argument is this apparently now:
-Moss does has a lot of drops.
-Other WRs have drops and put up good numbers
-QED Moss drops don't explain his lack of production.

None of this is even remotely relevant to the point I'm trying to make. Moss was the league leader in drops in 2007, but yet, his problems mostly disappeared after Collins came in. Other WRs' drop totals are irrelevant.

Akh's Claim: Chris Cooley and Antwaan Randle El had better production under Campbell than Collins, so Campbell was actually playing at least as well as Collins the whole time, and Santana only turned it on once Collins took over.

OMG, you actually read something I wrote!

Joe's Response: Rather than going back to my more complicated argument before, I decided to whip out the calculator on my phone and crunch some numbers real quick. It turns out that ARE and Cooley actually weren't more productive with Campbell. Antwaan averaged 52 yards per game with Campbell, and 49 yards per game with Collins. Cooley averaged 48 yards per game with Campbell, and 49 yards per game with Collins. Meanwhile, the offense as a whole jumped from 15th in the NFL to 1st for the stretch that Collins was under center. To me, that indicates that Collins was running the offense better than Campbell ran it, and our primary receiver benefited as a result. Do you feel as if I'm dodging something here?

I throw out the chicago game in 2007 because I don't feel like untangling who got what with whom, but with the rest of the games:
With Campbell:
ARE(11 games): 43 catches, 636 yards(3.91 catches, 57.82 yards per games)
Cooley(12 games): 58 catches, 677 yards 7 TDs(4.83 catches, 56.41 yards, .58 TDs per game)

With Collins:
ARE(3 games): 8 catches, 92 yards 1 TD(2.67 catches, 30.67 yards .3 TDs per game)
Cooley: 8 catches, 109 yards 1 TD(2.67 catches, 36.33 yards, .3 TDs)

If you want to untangle the chicago game stats, I'll recompute. Otherwise, the stats speak for themselves.

Akh's Claim: Moss spent "extra time" with Collins.

You're misquoting me, what I said:
"Collins was the kind of QB Moss likes, and he had Collins for most of that preseason since Campbell was out with a knee injury during it."

Joe's Response: Not really sure where this came from. Moss didn't spend extra time with Collins during the offseason.

Good thing I didn't say offseason.

Everything I've said about training camp/preseason was simply an attempt to refute the notion that Santana spent more time with Collins last August.

And unless you saw every practice, you about as clueless of the number of reps between them as I am.

Since you've said that I can't possibly know how much time Moss spent with anyone, I would assume that you would admit that you can't, either.

I did say I was making an assumption.

I'm not saying that Moss spent more time with Campbell - I'm simply saying that there's no evidence to suggest that he spent more time with Collins, either. You seem to be implying the same. Does that address your point?

Again, what I said:
"Collins was the kind of QB Moss likes, and he had Collins for most of that preseason since Campbell was out with a knee injury during it."

If you can't understand the difference between what I said and what you're saying, then I give up.

Since we dropped the fumble issue, did I miss anything else?

Just everything you misquoted, misunderstood, made up and ignored.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Not what I'm saying. Your first point already shows that you're not addressing my point. Keino and I's point is that Moss lollygagged last year(and previous) with Campbell(or didn't put in the work and didn't bother working at it, take your pick).

Akh, I understand that completely. What I listed was the evidence you had supplied to back up that argument. Otherwise, it's just you making a claim, me making a claim, and no attempt to figure out which it more likely.

Nope, considering you keep insisting that we're discussing it in relation to his production. We're not, we're discussing his concentration levels. Your argument is this apparently now:
-Moss does has a lot of drops.
-Other WRs have drops and put up good numbers
-QED Moss drops don't explain his lack of production.

None of this is even remotely relevant to the point I'm trying to make. Moss was the league leader in drops in 2007, but yet, his problems mostly disappeared after Collins came in. Other WRs' drop totals are irrelevant.

Yes, and your argument seems to be:
- Moss had a lot of drops.
- This large number of drops is indicative of a low level of concentration.
- Moss' numbers, therefore, can be explained by his low level of concentration.

Yet if I can find other receivers who had just as many drops yet still produced, it would indicate that while a high level of drops suggests a certain lack of concentration, it's not enough to explain Santana's lack of production. I agree that the drops were a problem. I'm just saying that they're not enough to explain the heart of our argument - the reason that Santana wasn't productive with JC as quarterback. Do you disagree with anything there?

I throw out the chicago game in 2007 because I don't feel like untangling who got what with whom, but with the rest of the game:
With Campbell:
ARE(11 games): 43 catches, 636 yards(3.91 catches, 57.82 yards per games)
Cooley(12 games): 58 catches, 677 yards 7 TDs(4.83 catches, 56.41 yards, .58 TDs per game)

With Collins:
ARE(3 games): 8 catches, 92 yards 1 TD(2.67 catches, 30.67 yards .3 TDs per game)
Cooley: 8 catches, 109 yards 1 TD(2.67 catches, 36.33 yards, .3 TDs)

If you want to untangle the chicago game stats, I'll recompute. Otherwise, the stats speak for themselves.

What source are you using for your numbers? That's a lot different than what I found.

You're misquoting me, what I said:
"Collins was the kind of QB Moss likes, and he had Collins for most of that preseason since Campbell was out with a knee injury during it."

Right, and I pointed out that the amount of time Moss spent playing with Collins in preseason would total something like a game and a half. Therefore, if Santana's time with Collins in the preseason were a big part of the change in his production, he should have been very productive with Jason after Week 2. Do you disagree with anything there?

Just everything you misquoted, misunderstood, made up and ignored.

Akh, I'm making an honest attempt to make my case on your terms. Don't mistake confusion with malice.

[csquared]

This makes for good reading lol!. You have like 2 Rottweilers going at each other here. Than you have Shrympscampi as the little wiener dog trying to jump in the fight but keeps getting pushed out.

[akhhorus]

Akh, I understand that completely. What I listed was the evidence you had supplied to back up that argument. Otherwise, it's just you making a claim, me making a claim, and no attempt to figure out which it more likely.

Ok, but I'm not saying that Moss' lack of production with Campbell is because XYZ. What we're saying is that Moss' propensity of mental errors(drops, giving up on plays-which to be fair, he did with Collins-inconsistent production) is because of Moss' attitude(or whatever).

Yes, and your argument seems to be:
- Moss had a lot of drops.
- This large number of drops is indicative of a low level of concentration.
- Moss' numbers, therefore, can be explained by his low level of concentration.

Yes.
Very possibly
I didn't bring up his production as part of this.

Yet if I can find other receivers who had just as many drops yet still produced, it would indicate that while a high level of drops suggests a certain lack of concentration, it's not enough to explain Santana's lack of production.

Other WRs are irrelevant to this discussion, except for other WRs on the Skins.

I agree that the drops were a problem. I'm just saying that they're not enough to explain the heart of our argument - the reason that Santana wasn't productive with JC as quarterback. Do you disagree with anything there?

We're looking at two sides of an elephant and arguing over what we're looking at. I'm not trying to draw conclusions on Moss' production, but on the quality of his play not related to production.

What source are you using for your numbers? That's a lot different than what I found.

Yahoo. The stats are the same on NFL's site. ARe didn't play in the Buffalo game at all, so I didn't count him for having 12 games with Campbell.

Right, and I pointed out that the amount of time Moss spent playing with Collins in preseason would total something like a game and a half.

Plus all the practice time during the time he was out.

Therefore, if Santana's time with Collins in the preseason were a big part of the change in his production, he should have been very productive with Jason after Week 2. Do you disagree with anything there?

I would retort that practice time is different from game time. You practice together(and mysteriously enough, Moss didn't practice in Florida this year and practiced with Campbell) so that you don't have to try to get on the same page during game situs. Moss did have productive games with Campbell in 2007, but he also had some really bad games where he looked like he was somewhere else.

Akh, I'm making an honest attempt to make my case on your terms. Don't mistake confusion with malice.

I apologize, I don't think you're being malicious at all.

[Keino]

Akh and Joe - I think what has muddied your argument is the fact that I did tie Moss' production in to his lack of concentration with Campbell. More specifically, I gave Moss the Lion's share of the blame for why those 2 could not get on the same page last year.......

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Ok, but I'm not saying that Moss' lack of production with Campbell is because XYZ. What we're saying is that Moss' propensity of mental errors(drops, giving up on plays-which to be fair, he did with Collins-inconsistent production) is because of Moss' attitude(or whatever).

Right. And as far as I've understood your position, you blame Santana's lack of production mostly on him, and mostly because of your perceptions about his attitude. In other words, you think that Moss would have been just as productive (or at least nearly as productive) last year as he is this year if he had been more focused. Correct?

Yes.
Very possibly
I didn't bring up his production as part of this.

Hey, if you're not arguing for a correlation, then I'm not arguing against it.

Other WRs are irrelevant to this discussion, except for other WRs on the Skins.

I'm bringing up other receivers for comparative purposes when it comes to the production aspect. There's really no other way to figure certain things out.

We're looking at two sides of an elephant and arguing over what we're looking at. I'm not trying to draw conclusions on Moss' production, but on the quality of his play not related to production.

Not related to his production? You didn't seem to think that Moss could produce at this level again.

Yahoo. The stats are the same on NFL's site. ARe didn't play in the Buffalo game at all, so I didn't count him for having 12 games with Campbell.

Are you sure you didn't accidentally add the Chicago game or something? I got lower yardage totals than you did.

Plus all the practice time during the time he was out.

Again, would have been made up for within a couple of weeks.

I would retort that practice time is different from game time. You practice together(and mysteriously enough, Moss didn't practice in Florida this year and practiced with Campbell) so that you don't have to try to get on the same page during game situs. Moss did have productive games with Campbell in 2007, but he also had some really bad games where he looked like he was somewhere else.

Same as above. If that was the difference-maker, he would have been good with Campbell by a couple of weeks into the season.

I apologize, I don't think you're being malicious at all.

Good. I'm not at all trying to insult you; only get you to see the light. ;)

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Akh and Joe - I think what has muddied your argument is the fact that I did tie Moss' production in to his lack of concentration with Campbell. More specifically, I gave Moss the Lion's share of the blame for why those 2 could not get on the same page last year.......

Has the difference in Campbell this year, and Moss' simultaneous leap in production, done anything to change that?

[Keino]

Has the difference in Campbell this year, and Moss' simultaneous leap in production, done anything to change that?

I think it is both. Campbell is improving on a weekly basis, but as I said initially, Tanaman has removed his head from his rear end. I haven't noticed him quitting on a route since week 1 and while publicly Zorn defended him on that play, I believe without being able to substantiate it, that Zorn ripped him a new one, based on a similar situation coming up the very next week against the Saints with the desired results. His drops, while still too frequent for my taste, have come way down and he {gasp} worked on timing with his QB this off-season. And I think the coaching regime change has a ton to do with this as well......Zorn came in beholden to nobody. 2005 didn't mean anything to him, so I think a certain fire was lit underneath Santana and we are reaping the benefits.

I think moving Santana to the X spot has helped this tremendously as well. I think there are a bunch of factors, but if I had to rank them, I'd likely put Moss' re-dedication the game as reason #1 for his production thus far.

Campbell's development is certainly high on the list as well.....

[shally]

Akh and Joe - I think what has muddied your argument is the fact that I did tie Moss' production in to his lack of concentration with Campbell. More specifically, I gave Moss the Lion's share of the blame for why those 2 could not get on the same page last year.......

for true.. but i also think that JC has gotten more accurate this season

[guess88]

for true.. but i also think that JC has gotten more accurate this season

YES he has. Last year he rarely caught receivers in stride, and many times they'd have to adjust backwards, or lean too far forward to make the catch, killing any kind of YAC attempt. He still has a bit to work on, but he's progressing so fast, I can't believe the help Zorn has been for him. He's finally looking like the QB we hoped for when we drafted him.

[akhhorus]

Right. And as far as I've understood your position, you blame Santana's lack of production mostly on him, and mostly because of your perceptions about his attitude. In other words, you think that Moss would have been just as productive (or at least nearly as productive) last year as he is this year if he had been more focused. Correct?

Hey, if you're not arguing for a correlation, then I'm not arguing against it.


I blame Santana's inconsistent production, but mainly the overall failures of the passing game last year on his mental lapses. I have explaineda this more times than I can count and you should know it chapter and verse by now.

I'm bringing up other receivers for comparative purposes when it comes to the production aspect. There's really no other way to figure certain things out.

Thats crap. What does TO's production have to do with Moss'? Zero. There's no correlation unless you can show similar causality.

Not related to his production? You didn't seem to think that Moss could produce at this level again.

To be honest: he hasn't produced back at his 2005 level quite yet, so bringing this up is premature.

Are you sure you didn't accidentally add the Chicago game or something? I got lower yardage totals than you did.

I might have. Recomputing:
With Campbell:
ARE(11 games): 39 catches, 576 yards(3.54 catches, 52.36 yards per games)
Cooley(12 games): 55 catches, 584 yards 7 TDs(4.58 catches, 48.67 yards, .58 TDs per game)

With Collins:
ARE(3 games): 8 catches, 92 yards 1 TD(2.67 catches, 30.67 yards .3 TDs per game)
Cooley: 8 catches, 109 yards 1 TD(2.67 catches, 36.33 yards, .3 TDs)

They're still more productive with Campbell. Significantly so.

Again, would have been made up for within a couple of weeks.

I totally disagree. Moss did have better production in weeks 2 and 3 in 2007, but then it dramatically died in the next 4 games he played.

Same as above. If that was the difference-maker, he would have been good with Campbell by a couple of weeks into the season.

See above.

Good. I'm not at all trying to insult you; only get you to see the light. ;)

You're not on the side of angels Jds. Moss, even with his 2005 and his first month this season, still is what he is: a player with inconsistent motivation. And no matter what, he'll always be like that. And because of that, I(and no one) don't trust him to show up week to week.

[Shrympscampi]

Why are you asking for a source for something that I say is an assumption, unless you're being childish and demanding sources because I asked for yours?.

No, I just mis-read and thought you had a source. I appoligize.


The WaPo through Stats inc had it, but now they have 2008 stats only.
Stats should still be out there. I will try to find them.


His WR role didn't change much.
But it did change.


When someone asks you for a source, provide the source, don't just post a link and say "do you own work.".

I provided a source and from the quote below you were able to get the 'look' stats.


As for your link: Moss got 89 looks from Campbell in 13.5 games, they don't have the stats from weeks 15, 16 and 17, so we can't see what he got from Collins and compare

I might be able to find the stats.

I believe Moss' production went down due to alot of factors. It appears you believe Moss' production went down mainly on his loss of concentration. I don't think either one of us is going to change the other persons mind.

[HanburgerBum]

I agree 110% here.... Philly's blitze packages are something to watch and I for one am just as nervous going into this next game as I was this week. I agree with AKH here if we win next week then I am convinced all the way that we are to be reckoned with as a major player!

I think our secondary deserves as much credit as anyone on this team... Springs played just an incredible incredible game as did Rodgers.

Horton ...what can you say... I think we made a hell of a steal in the draft and I am glad that finally we get one of those "diamonds in the ruff" kinda of players for a change eh.

I disagree that Samuals had some "bone headed" plays. Ware had only 1 sack I think... that 1 sack came when his help from Kendall left and there was an obvious breakdown there. I feel Samuals felt there was help to the right and wasn't. Tis why his hands went up in disgust. Blocking Ware (the obvious best player on their line) all day with just that to say is fantastic.
Other then that I felt you hit everything on the head!!

Moss and Cambell.... jesus! Just wow.

Zorn's playcalling and obvious coaching abilities is remarkable. Blache's playcalling and game prep. was and are equally remarkable.


Anyone here have that feeling that if we had played the Giants the way we have played the last 3 weeks we would have won big? I should not jinx it should I.


Philly will be an extremely tough out, especially after it lost to Chicago on Sunday night and really needs the game to stay competitive in the very tough NFC East. Also, Westbrook is apparently healthy again and will play against us.

[akhhorus]

The Horton play is correct. The angle they showed on TV wasn't the best for determining the coverage scheme but I would say 99% that Horton blew deep coverage on that play. Regardless, MW was pwned on that play by Witten. He would have looked smoother had he just sat down

I'm not singling out Ali, but just quoting him to restart this side discussion:

If you watch this video, about 2 minutes in:
http://www.nfl.com/partner?season=2008&seasonType=REG&campaign=ec0005&partnerType=game-of-the-week&week=4

You'll see the TD in question. Washington was on Witten the entire time, Horton was helping on the WR to the outside.