Elite? I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

So, Mary Kay Cabot is among the Cleveland.com / Plain Dealer writers who spent the last few weeks blatantly building up Jason Campbell. She called him “Elite” ( link ) and offered a glowing review of Campbell’s early career with nothing in the way of critical thought applied ( link ).
                So, having now watched Campbell implode on the big stage of “The Battle of Ohio”. I want to take a minute to introduce Jason Campbell through his actual play:

·         He has never lead a team to the play-offs

o   The Redskins did make the play-offs in 2007, but that was achieved by ending the season on a four game winning streak after an injured Campbell was replaced by Todd Collins

·         On 10/17/2010 with Oakland: he posted a QB Rating of 10.7 ( recap )

·         Lead the Raiders to a 4-2 start in 2011 before losing his job to injury. He threw for more than 200 yds twice in that stretch – the two losses.

·         Played 16 games in two seasons: 2008 and 2009, going 12-24 in his last 2 years with the Redskins

·         Is a career 32-42 starter

·         Has been paired with a premium running back during his periods of success: Clinton Portis and Darren McFadden principally.

I don’t get too worried when I see fans excited about a new quarterback. Though, I still don’t see anything in Campbell’s Kansas City start that should have earned praise beyond, “You sucked less in the second half”. When the media decides to go along for the ride, apparently because they feel the Browns’ fans deserve hope more than they deserve legitimate sports journalism I have an issue.

Jason Campbell is a known quantity. He is what he is. Cabot correctly points out that he has been in an Air Coryell offense before and that he should be familiar with its nuances. She writes, “Saunders knew Campbell would flourish in Turner's offense, because it's basically the same one he excelled in under Saunders in Washington and Oakland.” Remember, this is Cabot writing, this is not a direct quote. The problem is Campbell never excelled; he was serviceable, he managed games well at times when supported by an excellent running game. In fact, relying on Campbell’s arm was a recipe for a loss in his final year in Oakland. (0-2 when he threw for 200+,  4-0 when he didn’t)

But this is not analysis the Cleveland media is willing to perform. They refuse to look at this situation and wonder how a quarterback who has always needed a strong running game to succeed will do in a team that has no great back, maybe not even an average back. The Browns are a team who has declared itself a pass first team over and over.

Do you go back to Weeden at this point? The short answer is “yes”. Not because he will necessarily do better, but because there continues to be the chance that he will get better, Jason Campbell is a known quantity, he is not the key to the Browns getting to the play-offs no matter how many good Browns fans clap their hands and no matter how tightly they close their eyes and chant “I do believe in journeymen quarterbacks with a penchant for coming up short over the course of a season” Jason Campbell cannot direct them to the post-season. Weeden could become a stop-gap / third qb for next year if he is given some experience. 

Maybe you keep the Campbell experiment going one more week, if you think the Browns team that played this week against Cincinnati will be the key to beating a Pittsburgh team that has gone 4-2 in the last six weeks. Campbell had 2 weeks to prepare for the Bengals, and he looked a lot like Jason Campbell.

Either way, I will be watching and I will root on the team and I will believe that that QB will lead the Browns to a win and the play-offs. I just take the time to know what it is I saw.

Tom Reed Is Insane

          Just to be clear, I did not feel Brandon Weeden should have been benched in favor of Jason Campbell. I thought benching a quarterback in response to two defensive collapses against two undeniably good teams was stupid, and I think that Weeden deserved the chance to play against the talent offered by KC and Baltimore. But I don’t feel that Campbell should be benched for Weeden. Though it is not (yet?) translating into more points or wins, Campbell is playing better than Weeden was. Weeden struggles with interceptions and often makes slow decisions and the Browns have a chance to win the division this year, so going through Weeden’s growing pains when Campbell is playing so well would be foolish. However, it is also foolish to inflate Campbell’s success and it is simply ridiculous to suggest that Campbell is the cause of defensive improvement, and Tom Reed uses a combination of un-researched statements, specious logic, and out-of-context quotes to argue his point. (Cleveland.com: Why Jason Campbell's impact is felt by the entire Cleveland Browns lineup: Tom Reed analysis)
          First off, while Quarterback may be the most important position in team sports, this is not true to the extent that Reed attempts to prove. Ask Andrew Luck if he is missing Reggie Wayne after the Colts' 38-8 loss to the Rams and the remarkably slow start their comeback against Houston? Ask Matt Ryan, Tom Brady, Colin Kaepernick, Joe Flacco, and Matthew Stafford how much fun it is to play without their top wide receivers from last year. And I will take every one of their replacement Wide Receivers to Travis Benjamin (as a receiver). Josh Gordon spent the first two games suspended and then let rumors of a possible trade affect his play (at least according to his OC: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/10/24/5026192/josh-gordon-trade-rumors-browns).

          Reed’s analysis:

Brandon Weeden’s poor outings did not just hinder the offense. He was a human restrictor plate for the entire team. The constant three-and-outs were a drag on the defense. They increased the need for big returns. They also changed the way coaches schemed. 

Before I attack the insanity of the second part, let’s look at the string of constant three-and-outs Weeden delivered compared with the work of the other two QBs (per NFL.com):

Browns’ non-scoring drives without a first down by game (no end-of-half or missed FG included):

          So, the Brown’s best QB performance of the season (Hoyer in Week 4) had the second-worst total of 3-and-outs, and Weeden hadn’t put together a string of 3-and-outs since Week 2. Perhaps the defense struggled against Detroit and Green Bay, because they were in the top 3 NFL offenses when the Browns faced them?

          As evidence that the Browns changed defensive schemes to accommodate Weeden, Reed offers this analysis:

After losses to Detroit and Green Bay, Horton acknowledged he called a different game because “the biggest responsibility of a defense is to keep the game close.” The Browns couldn't take many risks for fear of falling too far behind. In an age of offense, linebacker D'Qwell Jackson said the Browns weren't built to rally from 14-point deficits. 

          Interesting, but Horton was not actually suggesting that the Browns adjusted because Brandon Weeden scored so poorly, but because he was trying to slow down the Lions and Packers ( Ohio.com: Ray Horton Predicts Turnaround) He was not happy with the offensive production, but that may not have changed since the offensive production hasn't changed: The Browns scored 17 against the Chiefs, exactly as they did against the Lions (though Weeden did stake the Browns to a lead against Detroit while Campbell never lead against KC). In fact, Campbell failed to get within field goal range when a field goal would have tied it. Weeden, on the other hand, lead a game-winning drive for a field goal in the Buffalo game. In the Week 9 Baltimore game, the Browns generated 24 points of offense, but 7 of that came after a muffed punt recovery placed them at the Baltimore 11.
          Of course, Reed’s suggests that Horton is admitting to trying to keep the game close against two premier quarterbacks because Weeden can't score, but now with Campbell, they know they can score many more points. Campbell started the Chiefs game with three straight three-and-outs. A morale killer, according to Reed, except that the Browns rallied to an excellent defensive second half, though Campbell never put them in position to even tie the game and his offensive output was very similar to Weeden's over the team's previous two games
         Of course, the truth is that Reed seems to be suggesting that the schemes themselves changed. That faced with a struggling offense, Horton schemed to give up more points. What, in fact, happened is the Browns gave up points to 2 excellent offenses, teams who are, in fact, better than they are.

Reed then offers up this gem:

The defense’s best three games -- Minnesota, Cincinnati and Baltimore -- have come with either Brian Hoyer or Campbell at quarterback. It’s not a conscious thing, but defenses are more aggressive when they know their offense can score points or at least extend drives. It’s a synergy that was lacking with Weeden. 

          Interesting thought, but once again, false, and not researched. It is so far from reality as to appear biased. Reed doesn’t offer a criteria for the “defense’s best three games”, but the Minnesota game shouldn’t be on that list. The NFL normally uses yardage to rate defenses, so let’s use that, I will throw in some other stats as well:  


          So, what does this tell us? It tells us that the Browns’ Defense has played well, and poorly, with each of its quarterbacks this year and that 30 yards separates the best performance from the 4th best. It also tells us that Weeden saw terrible defensive support against the Bills and still found a way to win the game. Campbell saw slightly better defensive support against Kansas City and lost.
          It also tells us that, with the glowing exception of the Bengals win, the opponent’s offense has a lot to do with the how well the Browns’ defense performs, Green Bay and Detroit, both excellent offenses torched the Browns. The Bills game featured a couple truly awful plays by Barkevious Mingo, and stands as an aberration, but that game featured excellent QB play, nearly all by Weeden, so, that stands contrary to Reed’s analysis.
          I also see that Weeden lost the two games he saw his best defensive support. Of course those were the first two games of the year: without game-changing wideout Josh Gordon, with Trent Richardson, who played himself off the team in those two weeks, and with a patchwork offensive line. Could Campbell or Hoyer have done better? I wish I knew. Hoyer, in particular, proved an excellent decision maker on the field and I wish we had gotten to see more of him. Weeden, I have often felt needed someone to give him a clipboard and make him learn the game before being asked to lead it. Chudzinski has, I feel done an excellent job this year is nearly everything, but deciding to start Weeden at the beginning of the year, and then benching him after games the Browns' 2 worst defensive performances of the season made little sense to me.  

          I am excited about the Browns’ season. I am thrilled that we have coaches who have found a way to win with three different QBs. I hope Jason Campbell keeps his exciting play going, but I can also look at the production honestly and equate quarterback numbers to the Offense and Defensive numbers to the defense. Quarterbacks are important, but there is a team playing for Cleveland, and that team is playing well, or poorly, regardless of who is at quarterback. And Tom Reed is insane.