SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Saints 24-36-321 1-0
Cards 22-30-193 2-0
Cowgirls 20-31-231 2-1
Eagles 16-29-176 0-0
Rams 18-26-208 0-0 (3 Skins fumbles in Rams territory)
Browns 14-23-164 1-0
Lions 23-28-328 1-0

Out of the first 8 games I'd say he lit it up in 4 and played well in the rest, except for the Giants game.

He played well in the Eagles, Rams, and Browns games? Id say he played average at best and thats being nice. If you throw in the Saints game ill agree he lit it up in 4 games and not 3.

The injuries and poor play were most likely due to the age of the OL.

Maybe the injuries were but the poor play was mainly dude to the fact the teams we played were better than us.

Ever try to call plays with an inneffective OL? Not sure what you wanted Zorn to do.

The OL did struggle at times but Zorn should of changed his playcalling after he realized teams knew what he was doing. After the first Eagles game the offense slumped (except for one game in Detroit). Teams locked onto what Zorn was doing and he didnt adjust. The OL wasnt bad enough where Zorn couldnt mix some things up to get some pressure off of the OL.

Im banking on Zorn with a year under his belt calling plays to be more effective. If hes not he wont have a job in Washington after this season.

Chad Pennington, Ronnie Brown -- Absolutely a better combo.
Flacco, McClain/McGahee -- In my opinion, about equal.
Schaub, Slaton -- We have the slight edge on them.
Rosenfels, Peterson -- Rosenfels isn't good, but AP is the best in the league, so I can see why he's ahead of them.
K. Collins, Chris Johnson -- I'd rank them ahead of our guys.
S. Hill, Gore - We're better than Hill and Gore.
Tampa's mess - We're better than Tampa.
Orton, Moreno - Orton is probably better than JC, but MOreno is a total question mark, Id have to put us as better.
Sanchez/Clemens, Jones/Washington - We're about even here, having us slightly ahead. Jones led the AFC in rushing last year, but Sanchez/Clemens are too wild cardish.

Like Orakpo I don't agree with all the rankings, and could see the skins move up a few spots. But I can't argue with a lot of the rankings. That said, a lot of mention of offensive lines in the article. If we're factoring in O-lines, I feel like the list makes more sense.I don't think ANYONE would argue that the difference between Campbell and Rosenfels is not greater than the difference between Peterson and Portis, though. Maybe someone who thinks Peterson is already better than Barry Sanders, but it'd be hard to take their opinion seriously anyway.

I'd like you to come to Chicago and try to tell someone that Kyle Orton is better than Jason Campbell. You'd get a mixed response of disbelieving laughter, and people wondering who the hell Jason Campbell is. Perhaps both from some people. It's weird how actually being forced to root for certain guys would warp your opinion of them. Oh, and it's really not even close on paper.

I was looking over the rankings, and I wouldn't put Jason and Clinton much higher. Look at all the QB's that are higher, then the RB's. break them down seperately. Most of the QB's are better, and the teams with so-so QB's or not so good QB's have legit RB's. (vikings)

Hey, you have to have a few good seasons to have any respect. Jason has yet to do anything remarkable, and CP, although a work horse, didn't have a great year last year. His YPC is way down, actually below league minimum I believe.

Again, For the first 8 games he was probowl bound. I think he ranked higher then all of them. I guess if people are looking at the whole season (which I guess ya have to) then statistically he's were he should be.

Also here's the statistics:
QB's;
9th-Cutler: threw for 4,526 yrds, 25td's, and 18inter. Rating 86.0
24th-Orton: threw for 2,972 yrds, 18td's, and 12inter. Rating 79.6
26th-Campbell: threw for 3,245 yrds, 18td's, and 6int. Rating 84.3

RB's;
Forte(Bears)-rushed for 1,238, avg-3.9yrds, 8tds.
Portis(Skins)-rushed for 1,487, avg-4.3yrds, 9tds.

then you have Denver who seemed to have RB by commitee;
Selvin Young-303yrds, 1td
Michael Pittman-320yrds, 4tds
Peyton Hillis-343yrds, 5tds
LaMont Jordan-363yrds, 4tds

One could say none of Denvers RB's got over 1,000yds like the other teams or you could say they are better back field wise simply cause they have 4 good RBs plus a plethora of others that had less then 100 yrds.

Speaking of backfield alone as I thought this thread was I would rank the Skins higher. If you are talking about the offense in general then we are probably ranked close but would move us above some of the teams ahead of us.

Gtripp, what's Orton's win percentage? Answer: Far higher than Campbells.

Josh McDaniels seems to think Orton is better than Campbell too. Neither Orton nor Campbell can hold a candle to Cutler though.

Gtripp, what's Orton's win percentage? Answer: Far higher than Campbells.

Josh McDaniels seems to think Orton is better than Campbell too. Neither Orton nor Campbell can hold a candle to Cutler though.In college, Campbell's win percentage was way higher than Orton's. What's your point? There are clearly other factors at play here, because Campbell, historically, is' the "winner" of the two.

Cutler and Campbell are pretty comparable back here in reality. Orton and Campbell are not. If you actually value win percentage, you should be arguing that Orton is way better than Cutler. I know that's not what your eyes tell you, but dude, he wins.

Also, McDaniels has more to prove than Campbell does, so I'm not sure I'd cite his opinion here yet before he has a chance to prove that he's not crazy.

None of this changes the fact that if you said what you just said to a fanbase that is hard wired into all Kyle Orton dealings, you'd be laughed out of the room as unknowledable. Not unlike McDaniels, who thinks he can win with Orton, AND no defense.

Again, For the first 8 games he was probowl bound. I think he ranked higher then all of them. I guess if people are looking at the whole season (which I guess ya have to) then statistically he's were he should be.

Also here's the statistics:
QB's;
9th-Cutler: threw for 4,526 yrds, 25td's, and 18inter. Rating 86.0
24th-Orton: threw for 2,972 yrds, 18td's, and 12inter. Rating 79.6
26th-Campbell: threw for 3,245 yrds, 18td's, and 6int. Rating 84.3

RB's;
Forte(Bears)-rushed for 1,238, avg-3.9yrds, 8tds.
Portis(Skins)-rushed for 1,487, avg-4.3yrds, 9tds.

then you have Denver who seemed to have RB by commitee;
Selvin Young-303yrds, 1td
Michael Pittman-320yrds, 4tds
Peyton Hillis-343yrds, 5tds
LaMont Jordan-363yrds, 4tds

One could say none of Denvers RB's got over 1,000yds like the other teams or you could say they are better back field wise simply cause they have 4 good RBs plus a plethora of others that had less then 100 yrds.

Speaking of backfield alone as I thought this thread was I would rank the Skins higher. If you are talking about the offense in general then we are probably ranked close but would move us above some of the teams ahead of us.I come from a place where 84 is a higher number than 79, so you should probably help me figure out what stat you are using in your rankings.

I'm aware you aren't out to just disprove the notion that Campbell can ever have success here, but I'm just confused by the fact that you are citing "statistics" without actually telling us what statistic you are using to come up with the rankings.

RB's;
Forte(Bears)-rushed for 1,238, avg-3.9yrds, 8tds.
Portis(Skins)-rushed for 1,487, avg-4.3yrds, 9tds.


I like Portis but man id love to have Forte. He ran great at Tulane and was a beast at the Senior Bowl. When he was drafted by the Bears in the 2nd round last year I thought they got the steal of the draft. He looked really good as a rookie for Chicago. He can knock people over and still has the speed to make long runs. He also caught 63 passes last year. With a year under his belt and Jay Cutler in Chicago hes going to be that much better in 2009.

I come from a place where 84 is a higher number than 79, so you should probably help me figure out what stat you are using in your rankings.

I'm aware you aren't out to just disprove the notion that Campbell can ever have success here, but I'm just confused by the fact that you are citing "statistics" without actually telling us what statistic you are using to come up with the rankings.

Simply pointing out that Campbell is no better nor no worse then the other two. The team tried for Cutler because of why? his interception ratio? LOL. just kidding. Yes he had more td's but he also had or interceptions and a few more yrds. but as an over all QB I'd rather have JC simply cause of his interception ratio. His rating was a nice 84.3, Cutler was only 2 percent more....right? so my point is for those who think Cutler is a lights out QB are only fooling themselves when you look at the fact JC had similar stats. All the Skins were doing by trying to pick up Cutler was make a lateral move. I mean it's not like we were trying for Bradey.

and I think 24 and 26 represent the respective position on SI's strange list, not SBXVII's ranking of the QBs

I like Portis but man id love to have Forte. He ran great at Tulane and was a beast at the Senior Bowl. When he was drafted by the Bears in the 2nd round last year I thought they got the steal of the draft. He looked really good as a rookie for Chicago. He can knock people over and still has the speed to make long runs. He also caught 63 passes last year. With a year under his belt and Jay Cutler in Chicago hes going to be that much better in 2009.

Statistically, and wisdom alone I would have to go with Portis. If you are talking about age, future of the team, and being on the rise then yes I would take Forte.

Again all I was trying to point out was that I thought we were ranked rather low in regards to some teams who sit above us. I would definitly put us ahead of Chicago, perhaps Dallas cause I think they are going to have trouble this yr, the Eagles cause they still have not proved anything other then Westbrook who is usually injured half a season.