Well, it’s been two weeks since Peter King ranked the Redskins 23rd in the league, and King’s site — SI.com — is at it again. This time they’re specifically ranking backfields — QB and RB — but, given that King claimed he based his results largely on QB play, you’d expect a similar list.
Here, for the record, is a comprehensive bullet-pointed list of significant Redskins personnel moves that have taken place since King’s piece was written:
As a result of those moves, the Redskins backfield is now considered 26th best in the league, three places worse than it was back on May 11 according to Peter King.Here are their criteria for this set of rankings:
If a team’s backup is an active ingredient in the mix or is arguably good enough to start for a number of other teams, that backup factored into the rating. This was not the case for every team.
Since few teams use a true fullback in their schemes, we didn’t fold that position into the backfield lineups.
Rookies are difficult to rank, for obvious reasons, and quarterbacks particularly so. But we viewed some (Matt Stafford in Detroit, Mark Sanchez in New York) as positives because they likely can’t be worse than what they’re replacing.
Additions and subtractions via free agency and the draft affected some backfields more than others, even if those additions or subtractions weren’t quarterbacks or running backs. Changes at various positions, even on defense, have clear trickle-down potential for quarterbacks and running backs.
Rankings are based on more than skills and numbers alone. Joe Montana, for example, may not have been the NFL’s top passer in his prime, but he was arguably its best quarterback.
So if a team’s backup is active or we think he’s good, that counts. Otherwise, it doesn’t. But the fullback doesn’t count no matter what, even if he was, oh, say, a Pro Bowler last season. And rookies are difficult to rank, unless we like them, or think they’re going to be good. Yeah, this is a well-thought out rating system.
Anyhow, when you consider the Redskins backfield — sans Pro Bowler Mike Sellers, of course, because he doesn’t count — you’re left with Pro Bowler Clinton Portis and the apparently-still-beleaguered Jason Campbell.
You might ask: what reasoning are they using to declare that Campbell is SO horrific that he actually detracts from Portis’s Pro Bowl stature? Is there a hidden statistic that reveals the true awfulness of Jason Campbell?
Of course not. It’s the famous rhetorical strategy known as “we’ve arbitrarily decided that Jason Campbell is not as good as Kyle Orton, all statistics to the contrary.” Or, in their words:
The Thought: Campbell isn’t as good as either of those two. And Portis is going into his eighth season. That’s too much heavy lifting for high-volume legs.
As with all of these articles, nothing will be proven — right or wrong — until the season starts. But if Jason Campbell is making lists of people who have slighted him as a motivational tool, it’s starting to look like he can just put “The Entire Staff Of Sports Illustrated” right up at the top.
He can always look at the bright side, though: he’s not poor David Garrard, languishing down in last place despite sharing a backfield with the talented Maurice Jones-Drew. I’ll let the Jacksonville bloggers handle that one.
Tags: Clinton Portis, ClintonPortis, Jason Campbell, JasonCampbell, Media
Posted in General | No Comments »