What do we do about our starting QB???

[Fios]

Brady, Manning, Romo, Favre actually played great right from the start.

Um, no they didn't.

Um, yes they did.

Brady 2001 13 games, 2,843 yards 18 TD's

Manning 1998 16 games 3,739 yards 26 TD's

Favre 1992 13 games 3,227 yards 18 TD's

Romo 2006 10 games 2,903 yards 19 TD's

Brady is the exception in that list, but what was each of the other team's records in those QB starts for their first season?

Campbell, 2007: 13 games 2700 yards 12 TDs ... he ain't that far off, it's reasonable to assume he'd finish with around 3,300 yards and 16 TDs. Farve had 13 INTs and 12 fumbles his first year and both of those numbers went UP the next season, INTs went way up to 24. Brady had 12 picks and 12 fumbles, Peyton threw 28 picks his first year. So if those are "good" numbers, so are Jason's thus far.

[CanesSkins26]

Um, yes they did.

Brady 2001 13 games, 2,843 yards 18 TD's

Manning 1998 16 games 3,739 yards 26 TD's

Favre 1992 13 games 3,227 yards 18 TD's

Romo 2006 10 games 2,903 yards 19 TD's

Haha, probably the most deceptive and incomplete use of statistics I have ever seen.

Do Peyton Manning's 28 int's not matter? He threw 26 picks in 16 games. In 20 games Campbell has only thrown 17 int's. Through his first 16 games, Campbell also had a higher qb rating and a higher completion percentage than Manning.

Favre....yes he had slightly better numbers than JC through their first 16 games. The td's and int's were almost identical but Favre had a higher completion percentage. However, once you complete ignore important numbers. In Favre's second season he threw up an "impressive" 19 td's and 24 int's and his completion percentage dropped to around 60%, right were JC's was this season. Neither this season or last season did JC throw more picks than td's. So JC was actually having a better second starting NFL season than Favre did and if he hadn't gotten hurt would've finished with better numbers.

Tom Brady....Brady in first 16 games had 18 td's and 12 int's. In JC's first 16 games he had 19 td's and 13 int's. So where is this great discrepancy that you mentioned? In his first 16 games JC also had 3,032 yards passing. Brady had 2,849 yards. Brady had a higher completion percentage, but JC had improved his accuracy from season 1 to season 2.

Romo....no doubt Romo has played better than JC at this point. However, Romo is in his 5th NFL and JC is only in his 3rd. Romo has also had the continuity of being in the same offense for most of his career, while JC hasn't. Also what Romo is doing is very rare. Very rarely do qb's come in and play the way that he has. Having his offensive weapons doesn't hurt either.

You also mentioned Ben Rothlesberger in an earlier post, and that is perhaps the most pointless comparison of all. Big Ben and JC were asked to do two totally different things when they first started playing. Big Ben in his first season was not asked to carry his team, he was asked to simply manage the game. JC, on the other hand, has been asked to carry this offense. In Roethlisberger's first 20 games he attempted over 25 passes in a game only 3 times. The most that he threw in any game was 28 times. JC, on the other hand, has thrown over 25 passes in 15 of his 20 NFL starts, including games when he attempted 49 and 54 passes. It wasn't until Big Ben's 35th start that he attempted over 50 passes.

So I would say that JC has done well compared to the qb's that you mentioned.

[Deadskins]

Brady, Manning, Romo, Favre actually played great right from the start.

Um, no they didn't.

Um, yes they did.

Brady 2001 13 games, 2,843 yards 18 TD's

Manning 1998 16 games 3,739 yards 26 TD's

Favre 1992 13 games 3,227 yards 18 TD's

Romo 2006 10 games 2,903 yards 19 TD's

Brady is the exception in that list, but what was each of the other team's records in those QB starts for their first season?

Campbell, 2007: 13 games 2700 yards 12 TDs ... he ain't that far off, it's reasonable to assume he'd finish with around 3,300 yards and 16 TDs. Farve had 13 INTs and 12 fumbles his first year and both of those numbers went UP the next season, INTs went way up to 24. Brady had 12 picks and 12 fumbles, Peyton threw 28 picks his first year. So if those are "good" numbers, so are Jason's thus far.

Exactly! This was Irn-Bru's point a couple of posts back. You can use stats to "prove" almost any supposition you are trying to make. The Colts finished 3-13 in Manning's first season. I think JC is doing better than that, so does that make him the next great QB in the league?

[BnGhog]

Oh, let's add campbell's numbers this year....his second starting and third overall

Campbell 2007 13 games 2700 yards 12 TD's

Ohhh Lets add some stats you left off, just to prove your point.

Like Mannings 26 TDs didn't come without the 28 INTs and a rating of 71.2

And lets not forget in his first two years with the Colts, They went 3-13, both years.

Thats why his Attempts was high, BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS WERE PLAYING FROM BEHIND. Which made his yards also increase.

And Favre. He wasn't so bad coming in with something to prove. He had the 18 TDs with only 13 Ints and rating of 85. But his team still went 4-12. They too were playing from behind all the time, and throwing much more than JC. Then after being named the "starter of the future" in his second year, he threw 19 TDs to 24 INTs. Talk about a regressing.



Thats all the time I had to look up stats, I have to get back to work.
But that still shows how you are leaving out stats just make the stats prove your point.


But imagin it they had your thinking and one of them got hurt, and a backup out played them for three games.? Then they lost their starting job. That would have been such a loss.

[BnGhog]

Dang! It took me so long to look up those stats you guys beat me to it.

My computer is so slow. NFL.com takes forever to load.

[RayNAustin]

You need to do your own research. And I don't agree that Brady is the exception here. If anyone is the exception it would be Romo, who averaged almost 2 TD's per game in his first 10 starts....the best statistically of the bunch.

But the respective records of the teams are really irrelevant to the issue of QB performance. Afterall, Sonny Jurgensen HOF, arguably one of the best passers in the history of the NFL rarely won more than 3 games a year until 1972 and George Allen.

Now if you want to analyze the players around the QB (as in receivers) that could be relevant, but difficult to do, and in reality, good QB's do more to make receivers look good, than the other way around. You think Jerry Rice would have posted the numbers he did had it been Heath Shuler throwing to him for 7 years instead of Joe Montana and Steve Young?

In reality, you could argue the finer points until blue in the face such as quality of opponents defenses all the way to what the winter weather was like that particular year....but I'm not going to bite on such ploys.

Their raw records for doing what QB's are supposed to do (score points) is the most fundamental stat....who got more help doing it is too subjective. I mean who is a better receiver...Marvin Harrison or Jerry Rice? And can we say one way or the other if it would be better to have Manning or Brady. Would NE be just as good with Manning? Or Better? Never will know the answer to questions like that.

[RayNAustin]

Brady, Manning, Romo, Favre actually played great right from the start.

Um, no they didn't.

Um, yes they did.

Brady 2001 13 games, 2,843 yards 18 TD's

Manning 1998 16 games 3,739 yards 26 TD's

Favre 1992 13 games 3,227 yards 18 TD's

Romo 2006 10 games 2,903 yards 19 TD's

Brady is the exception in that list, but what was each of the other team's records in those QB starts for their first season?

Campbell, 2007: 13 games 2700 yards 12 TDs ... he ain't that far off, it's reasonable to assume he'd finish with around 3,300 yards and 16 TDs. Farve had 13 INTs and 12 fumbles his first year and both of those numbers went UP the next season, INTs went way up to 24. Brady had 12 picks and 12 fumbles, Peyton threw 28 picks his first year. So if those are "good" numbers, so are Jason's thus far.

Exactly! This was Irn-Bru's point a couple of posts back. You can use stats to "prove" almost any supposition you are trying to make. The Colts finished 3-13 in Manning's first season. I think JC is doing better than that, so does that make him the next great QB in the league?

Bull, are you for real? Favres numbers were for EXACTLY 13 GAMES. EXACTLY THE SAME AS CAMPBELLS 13 GAMES this year. Why are you adding 3 more games?

By your calculations Favre would have 22 TD's and 4000 yards if you add 3 more games.

Add three more games to Romo's 10, and you get what? 25 TD's and 3773 yards OR 13 more TD's and 1000 more yards than Campbell over a 13 game stretch. I'd say that was a HUGE difference.

Wanna talk about how much the other QB's throw compared to Campbell? Favre 31 passes/g Brady 27.5/g Romo 21.8/g Manning 34.9/g CAMPBELL 32/g

So all the other QB's throw soooo much more than Jason, and that's why their numbers are higher huh? Only Manning throws more per game than Jason, all the rest were LESS.

You see, this is why I hate debating with some people because there is always this circular logic ploy that is nothing more than a smoke screen for some who can't admit when they are dead wrong. "Ah Ha! The Colts were 3-13 that year.....great QB huh?"

Jurgensen spent his whole career with a lousy record. I guess we should petition Canton to remove his bust from their HOF. Apparently they didn't check with some of you first and find out what a looser he was.

[RayNAustin]

Yea, go scour the record books and find SOMETHING....ANYTHING to prove how Jason Campbell's current stats are right in line with dozens of hall of famers throughout history. I'm sure you'll find something.

Just ask the experts on TV....yada yada. While you're at it, ask them about how much better Eli Manning is this year...they all seem to agree on that too.

Eli is as close to a flop as you can get considering the number of children the NYG had to sacrifice to secure his rights. He is at best, a serviceable QB, and after his second season in 2005 (which were better numbers than Campbell) he has not improved, but digressed in production.

Otherwise good teams, live and die with the play of their QB's. Look at Philly when Mcnabb is hot, and look at them when he's not. Look what has happened to the Redskins when they score 20 points or more this year? We are 7-2. 1-5 when we score less than 20.

With Collins, the average is 31 points per game calculated by dividing 78 points over 2 1/2 games. That point average would have the Redskins sitting at 13-2 instead of 8-7

Campbell's average by comparison is less than 19 per game, ensuring a losing record as is his career below 500 winning percentage. Way below 500.

[Irn-Bru]

Yea, go scour the record books and find SOMETHING....ANYTHING to prove how Jason Campbell's current stats are right in line with dozens of hall of famers throughout history. I'm sure you'll find something.

Their point is that you're kind of doing this yourself. That's why it's useless to keep throwing out spin after spin on the stats.

But maybe you're right. We're all staring reality in the face and just denying it. . .

[redskinsrock]

Collins is the man...Three straight wins, pin point passing, and no misstakes. JC is the future, lets him rest, don't risk further problems with that knee.

R I P #21

[Assasin atm]

Collins is the man...Three straight wins, pin point passing, and no misstakes. JC is the future, lets him rest, don't risk further problems with that knee.

R I P #21

Couldnt agree more. Not at all does this mean theres a quarterback controversy. Jason is the starter next year. In the mean time even if jason is healthy i wanna ride this Collins train out.

[RayNAustin]

Yea, go scour the record books and find SOMETHING....ANYTHING to prove how Jason Campbell's current stats are right in line with dozens of hall of famers throughout history. I'm sure you'll find something.

Their point is that you're kind of doing this yourself. That's why it's useless to keep throwing out spin after spin on the stats.

But maybe you're right. We're all staring reality in the face and just denying it. . .

I'm not spinning anything. Just pointing out facts that some people find inconvenient.

And I can't dissect every counter point being thrown out. Many of which are factually incorrect, or twisted or spun.

The bottom line....all bull stuffing aside, ya got a career backup QB who hadn't started a game in 10 years playing circles around the great Jason Campbell, and all of my previous claims this year regarding the lack of production of the offense being QB related is coming true, and CanesSkins26, among others, CAN"T STAND IT.

Collins 31 points per game Campbell 19/g That Stat is the bottom line and it has nothing to do with Peyton Manning, or anybody's grandma.

[John Manfreda]

George Allen said it best. The future is NOW.

And please explain where that attitude has gotten this franchise in the last 15 years? It is that type of short sighted approach that has led to many of the problems that this franchise has had, especially under Snyder. It is the quick fix approach and a total unwillingness to go through an actual building process that has led to many losing seasons. The goal is to have a team that can compete year in and year out (see New England, Indy, Pittsburgh) and not just make the playoffs once and then suck for 3-4 seasons.

I don't think you read between the lines very well so I'll be more specific.

You have it all wrong. Wanting to win, and doing everything you can to do it is not a fault, and it is not what's wrong here. The problem the Redskins have been suffering from is poor judgement in talent evaluation, and paying too much for players who produce too little, and sticking with them for too long. And right now, Jason fits that description perfectly, just as Carlos Rodgers does. We picked both of these guys in the first round 3 years ago. Three years later, their performance has not been anywhere near 1st round quality. So if our 1st round picks play this way, what should we expect from the 4th, 5th, and 6th rounders?

Successful teams find usable, serviceable talent in the late rounds to complement their STAR performers that were picked early. The Patriots have Brady who was a 6th round pick. Rothlisberger who WON 13 games in his ROOKIE year, and went to the Super Bowl. Romo was an UNDRAFTED free agent signed by the Cowboys. By contrast, Campbell is in his 3rd year and still struggling to read defenses and find open receivers.

We've got the car, we've got the horsepower, now we just need somebody to DRIVE IT. It might not be the shiniest or fastest car, but with the RIGHT driver, the car can win. Campbell hasn't gotten the car out of second gear, and by waiting for him to find third gear, the engine is getting older and other parts will be wearing out.

No one expects to have a Rothlisberger who comes out and wins in his rookie year, but it does happen. However, Campbell has had a year and a half of coaching and learning, and another year and a half of playing full time, and you should expect more from him. What you should not expect is for your 36 year old career back up QB to come out and play circles around your FRANCHISE QB after not starting a game in 10 years.

That should tell you something about the talent evaluation process right there.

And your solution to the Redskins problems is to continue playing Campbell and losing, rather than play Collins because we have so much already invested in Campbell? THAT sounds like what the Redskins have been doing for the past 15 years.

Collins has been in the al saunders scheme for what for a good number of years. Teammates have said it themselves that he prepares every week like he is gona start and in that process has picked up skills that jason campbell will learn as he matures as an NFL quarterback- Campbell has had only a few years learning the system along with learning the normal qb things that you need to have in the NFL. Give Jason time. Ok he's not Ben Rothlisburger but who's to say that he wont be one day. He has all the intangables- just give him time. Seeing Collins do so well will light a fire under Jason this off-season and i would be surprised if we didnt see a much improved qb next year.

He will never be BIG BEN EVER, the same mistakes Ramsey made CAmpell does. Campell makes horrible decisions, he isn't quick mentally, he frames his passes (I can tell by just looking at his helmet who he is throwing the ball too). THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN THE FREE SAFETY WILL READ YOU. His release is the slowest I have ever seen. Campell does not have it. Qb's are born not made (someone on thehogs.net said that).

[John Manfreda]

George Allen said it best. The future is NOW.

And please explain where that attitude has gotten this franchise in the last 15 years? It is that type of short sighted approach that has led to many of the problems that this franchise has had, especially under Snyder. It is the quick fix approach and a total unwillingness to go through an actual building process that has led to many losing seasons. The goal is to have a team that can compete year in and year out (see New England, Indy, Pittsburgh) and not just make the playoffs once and then suck for 3-4 seasons.

I don't think you read between the lines very well so I'll be more specific.

You have it all wrong. Wanting to win, and doing everything you can to do it is not a fault, and it is not what's wrong here. The problem the Redskins have been suffering from is poor judgement in talent evaluation, and paying too much for players who produce too little, and sticking with them for too long. And right now, Jason fits that description perfectly, just as Carlos Rodgers does. We picked both of these guys in the first round 3 years ago. Three years later, their performance has not been anywhere near 1st round quality. So if our 1st round picks play this way, what should we expect from the 4th, 5th, and 6th rounders?

Successful teams find usable, serviceable talent in the late rounds to complement their STAR performers that were picked early. The Patriots have Brady who was a 6th round pick. Rothlisberger who WON 13 games in his ROOKIE year, and went to the Super Bowl. Romo was an UNDRAFTED free agent signed by the Cowboys. By contrast, Campbell is in his 3rd year and still struggling to read defenses and find open receivers.

We've got the car, we've got the horsepower, now we just need somebody to DRIVE IT. It might not be the shiniest or fastest car, but with the RIGHT driver, the car can win. Campbell hasn't gotten the car out of second gear, and by waiting for him to find third gear, the engine is getting older and other parts will be wearing out.

No one expects to have a Rothlisberger who comes out and wins in his rookie year, but it does happen. However, Campbell has had a year and a half of coaching and learning, and another year and a half of playing full time, and you should expect more from him. What you should not expect is for your 36 year old career back up QB to come out and play circles around your FRANCHISE QB after not starting a game in 10 years.

That should tell you something about the talent evaluation process right there.

And your solution to the Redskins problems is to continue playing Campbell and losing, rather than play Collins because we have so much already invested in Campbell? THAT sounds like what the Redskins have been doing for the past 15 years.

Collins has been in the al saunders scheme for what for a good number of years. Teammates have said it themselves that he prepares every week like he is gona start and in that process has picked up skills that jason campbell will learn as he matures as an NFL quarterback- Campbell has had only a few years learning the system along with learning the normal qb things that you need to have in the NFL. Give Jason time. Ok he's not Ben Rothlisburger but who's to say that he wont be one day. He has all the intangables- just give him time. Seeing Collins do so well will light a fire under Jason this off-season and i would be surprised if we didnt see a much improved qb next year.

He will never be BIG BEN EVER, the same mistakes Ramsey made CAmpell does. Campell makes horrible decisions, he isn't quick mentally, he frames his passes (I can tell by just looking at his helmet who he is throwing the ball too). THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN THE FREE SAFETY WILL READ YOU. His release is the slowest I have ever seen. Campell does not have it. Qb's are born not made (someone on thehogs.net said that).

[welch]

So...what was Jurgensen like when he played behind Norm Van Brocklin?

Was Charlie Connerly an obvious all-star as a rookie? If so, then why did the Redskins sell him to the Giants?

[crazyhorse1]

So...what was Jurgensen like when he played behind Norm Van Brocklin?

Was Charlie Connerly an obvious all-star as a rookie? If so, then why did the Redskins sell him to the Giants?

Actually Ramsey had better stats than Campbell and performed comparably to Elway if you count the quarters played for both, rather than games (Ramsey's per game stats were hurt by spot duty.)

[Snout]

It is absolutely mind boggling that anyone would try to use statistics to try to compare Campbell to Favre, Manning, Brady, or any other quarterback that has gone deep into the playoffs and accomplished something in this league. In real life winning, confidence, momentum, swagger, and making the offense "click" are a hell of a lot more important than any statistics.

Jason's statistics have been respectable, but you have to be stubborn and blind to deny that the offensive unit just wasn't getting it done while he was in there. Todd came in and now we are on a roll. That matters a whole lot more than any statistics.

Campbell will get better by having a chance to watch a quarterback execute the Al Saunders offense the way it is supposed to be executed. His time will come . . . when he gets healthy. That means next year. Meanwhile, let's see how far this team can go now that it is showing a bit more confidence on offense.

[RayNAustin]

I think some of the things that have made campbell look good to so many this season is the no huddle offense that he runs pretty well at times. And he seems to be able to move the ball very well between the 20's. However, inside the opponents 40 he begins to struggle, which is why we have had to settle for so many FG's instead of TD's.

There is a reason for all of this, and I think John Manfreda points out those reasons very well.

Campbell though somewhat improved in this area, still tends to stare down his intended target which helps clue defenses.....and he doesn't go through his progressions quickly enough (holding the ball too long, allowing pressure to reach him). Combine that with a naturally slower release, and it becomes pretty clear why he struggles in the redzone.

Between the 20's, he can get away with this because defenses seem to play him a little soft, respecting his strong arm, which opens up those short and intermediate routs a bit. But when the field gets shorter (inside the 40, and especially inside the 20) this slowness catches up with him.

So this isn't really a matter of not knowing the offense well enough, or an experience issue IMO, but more about his mental quickness along with physical mechanics. More experience may help mask those things a bit, but will not eliminate these natural tendencies.

This shows up in his personal nature.....very calm, serious, slow, deliberate type personality that may be an asset insofar as responding to pressure situations (everyone talks about how cool he is in the heat of battle) but is a double edged sword in that slow and deliberate execution of plays is NOT what you really want in your QB. You want smart, quick reads and reactions, and the ability to quickly identify coverages and get the ball out of your hands.

The trouble is, as people, we are who we are. If you're a type A personality, that is what you are. If you're a type B, you'll always be a "B", and no amount of coaching and training will change that aspect of your nature.

Watch Campbell closely. He is so calm, he exudes a lethargic appearance. Never get's too excited..or angry... Then take a close look at someone like Favre or Manning. After a gazillion TD passes in his career, Favre still races down the field jumping up and down and pumping his fists like a rookie who just threw his very first TD pass. Manning, probably the most active and animated QB's before the snap is constantly checking and making adjustments in response to the defensive alignments at the line of scrimmage. He has that southern draw in his voice, but he is no "B". He's an "A" all the way.

Brady is the same. Watch him head butt a lineman on the sideline sometime. He appears very deliberate and calm, but the guy has a fire burning, and he attacks defenses which is why he's been so incredibly successful.

I don't see this in Jason Campbell. It's just not his nature. I see the same type thing going on with Eli Manning. Manning, in his 4th full season now has not changed much at all, statistically as a QB. What Eli is now is what you're going to get, and what you will continue to get.

[SkinsJock]

Campbell will be fine - he might not have as much of a future in the NFL if he were on another team, but he will be a really good QB because he has Joe Gibbs as his coach.

Gibbs "finds" people and then gets more out of them than any other coach in the NFL.

Can you imagine if Joe Gibbs were coaching the NE Patriots, they would be a lot better team under Gibbs than BB, that is for sure and they would never have to resort to cheating either

[Irn-Bru]

I'm not spinning anything. Just pointing out facts that some people find inconvenient.

And I can't dissect every counter point being thrown out. Many of which are factually incorrect, or twisted or spun.

This is just he said / she said at this point.

"No, I'm not spinning anything. I'm just putting hard, cold facts out there. What--oh, you mean the stats that they use? They do nothing but twist and spin those so-called 'stats'. . .they can't tell objective numbers from their own biases."

In my opinion, CanesSkins and the rest did a more than adequate job of showing just how selective your statistics were, tailored to build your case specifically. When a little context is added your argument really seems deflated.

Now, you can show me the error of this critique by citing at least one or two authorities who say that "points scored on offense" is in any way the litmus test of a quarterback's play. I have honestly never heard anyone use that as a the benchmark until this thread—you don't find it curious that you use that stat only and call every other statistic twisted or spun?

Until you admit your own assumptions the conversation won't go any further, which is why I haven't tried to talk actual numbers with you yet in this thread. I don't like the presuppositions that you bring to the table.

[RayNAustin]

I'm not spinning anything. Just pointing out facts that some people find inconvenient.

And I can't dissect every counter point being thrown out. Many of which are factually incorrect, or twisted or spun.

This is just he said / she said at this point.

"No, I'm not spinning anything. I'm just putting hard, cold facts out there. What--oh, you mean the stats that they use? They do nothing but twist and spin those so-called 'stats'. . .they can't tell objective numbers from their own biases."

In my opinion, CanesSkins and the rest did a more than adequate job of showing just how selective your statistics were, tailored to build your case specifically. When a little context is added your argument really seems deflated.

Now, you can show me the error of this critique by citing at least one or two authorities who say that "points scored on offense" is in any way the litmus test of a quarterback's play. I have honestly never heard anyone use that as a the benchmark until this thread—you don't find it curious that you use that stat only and call every other statistic twisted or spun?

Until you admit your own assumptions the conversation won't go any further, which is why I haven't tried to talk actual numbers with you yet in this thread. I don't like the presuppositions that you bring to the table.

To suggest that points scored is not a relevant or reasonable way of grading a QB's play is just mind numbing, and preposterous. It is the single greatest measure. Yards throwing is not in any way shape or form as accurate a measure for several reasons.....1) you can throw a 3 yard pass to a RB and he can, through his own skill, take it 30 or 40 yards. Completion percentage again can be extremely high with short easy passes (Think Brunell's record breaking 23 in a row when most of them were less than 7 yards). Many other individual QB stats can be greatly effected by the play of the other 10 men on the field. Fumbles for example can be a QB's fault, or it could be a lousy O-line. Same for incomplete passes...can be a lousy throw or a dropped pass. There are tons of statistics gathered on virtually every conceivable category, and you can debate every one of them. But at the end of the day, points scored is the best measure, and within the context of this thread, the QB IS THE ONLY VARIABLE between 19 points per game and 31. To deny the significance of that is to attempt to spin a tale using statistics. I didn't bring up statistics....I was responding to the claims that Jason Campbell's stats are in line with other great QB's in their early beginnings, for which I only pointed out the inaccuracies of that claim.

The efficiency of an offense and it's ability to put points on the board require the participation of all 11, true enough. The better that 11, the more likely it is to function at a high level. Of that 11 however, the QB is clearly the most important element, and the other 10 will live or die based on his performance. When that offense runs well and scores lots of points, you can bet they don't have a lousy QB.

How many examples do you need? When McNabb is hot, the Eagles usually win. They lose when is isn't. Look at the difference in the 9-7 Cowboys under Bledsoe, and the 13-2 Cowboys under Romo. Look at TO and his production with Romo vs Bledsoe. Look at Randy Moss and his resurgence under Brady when the year before he couldn't catch a cold with the Raiders. The list of examples is endless. And I'm surprised I have to even point this out to you or anyone else. I'm even more surprised to find you arguing the point.

Collins is not a Brett Favre or a Tom Brady. But he is efficient, and accurate, and makes good decisions, and in the past three games the results have been dramatically better. We are 3-0 with Collins versus 0-4 with Campbell over the most recent 7 games. That cannot be denied. It's there, right in front of your face. Does that mean Collins is the answer long term? No. But it does identify the root cause of many of the problems this team has had scoring points, and the need to improve the skills at that position one way or another.

All year, there have been a laundry list of excuses for why the Redskins had difficulty scoring. From receivers too short or injured, to a banged up O-line that couldn't pass protect or run block, to conservative play calling, to dropped passes, and stupid penalties. And during that time, all of it was subjective opinion, as there was no frame of reference to confirm or refute these claims. But all of a sudden, one element is changed (the QB) and boom...the receivers got taller and their hands got better, and the O-line remembered how to block. Unbelievable. And I do mean UNBELIEVABLE.

So you don't need to like the "presuppositions I bring to the table". They're mine, and I stand by them. You are free to believe what you will, because as I see it, the Jason Campbell fan club is very stubborn, and the denial too strong to debate with facts however basic and obvious those facts are.

And I'm sure that if we lose to the Cowboys Sunday, that will be all the proof the JC fan club needs. And if we win, it will be because of home field advantage, or because the Cowboys laid down, or because the defense played better or TO was not in the game. And all of those points could be argued, and probably will be.

[Irn-Bru]

First you sneak in rash assumptions, and now you're using dirty rhetorical tricks.


Like here:

To suggest that points scored is not a relevant or reasonable way of grading a QB's play is just mind numbing, and preposterous.

Nice spin. Who said anything about points scored not being relevant? You are not representing anything I said accurately.

It is the single greatest measure.

That, my friend, is what I was disputing.

There are tons of statistics gathered on virtually every conceivable category, and you can debate every one of them. But at the end of the day, points scored is the best measure,

So points scored is one of the "ton of statistics gathered on virtually every conceivable category", that we can "debate". . .but at the end of the day it's the best measure. Says who? I can think of a half-dozen reasons why points scored is as problematic a measure as the other statistics that you dispute.

You are begging the question.

and within the context of this thread, the QB IS THE ONLY VARIABLE between 19 points per game and 31.

First of all, no, it isn't the only variable. We played different teams (or, in the case of the Giants, a different kind of ball game) with different defenses. The offensive line has played far better in the second half of the season—even while Campbell was in there—than they had in the first half of the season. Our receivers have been healthier. Our defense has played better, holding their own for more than one half. Further, look at every Joe Gibbs team that has ever played, and compare the Sept. through Oct. record to the Nov. and December record. The Redskins play better late in the season, period.

The quarterback is the only variable?

It's pretty clear to me that there is a rash assumption here. (Post hoc ergo propter hoc.)

In fact, much of the success by the Redskins appears to be the result of some adjustments in play-calling, the running game (remember when Portis was averaging 2 yards per carry?), health (we have 2 players listed on this week's injury report), and the improved offensive line.

And, here is where I don't disagree with you: Collins has been a part of that, too. He has played very well, and he manages the game better than Campbell currently does. (But how can I say that and be a member of the "JC fan club"??!)

So you don't need to like the "presuppositions I bring to the table". They're mine, and I stand by them.

OK, that's fine. But the ones I am disputing are fallacious. You might like them or think that they are good assumptions, but it is clear that you are oversimplifying things to your own advantage. And that's all I wanted to point out.

[UK Skins Fan]

To answer the original question: Todd Collins is currently the starting quarterback for the Washington Redskins, and I really don't see any way that Joe Gibbs will put Campbell back in this season - however long the season lasts. The entire team has just looked more comfortable with Collins in there, but that might just be a side effect of the possibility that Al Saunders is more comfortable with him in there.

Campbell needs to be watching these games very closely, and work out for himself why it is that a team can look more poised with Collins in there, given the considerable disparity between the athletic abilities of the respective players. Campbell has what it takes physically to be a far better QB than Collins could ever be, and from everything I've read about him, he's got the right attitude as well. The remaining questions about him can only be answered by letting him play a lot more. But that playing time shouldn't be this season. Collins has earned the right to lead the team for now.

But Campbell has to be allowed to get back on the horse from day one next year.

[crazyhorse1]

Um I start Jason. Todd has been efficient and is doing what a real quality backup QB should; problem is he is a backup and eventually will show his colors; lets hope its not next week but as soon as JC can play we have to start him because he is better than Collins.

He may be showing his true colors now. He may be demonstrating that a quarterback who has a weak but accurate arm and has worked hard on both timing patters and finding the open man, can work within an excellent system and find success in the NFL.

In short, it might be that he is a system quarterback. It doesn't appear to me that he is a guy with a "hot hand, " but rather an unspectacular and well-fitted cog. The only thing that has given him trouble so far is the wind.

Curiously, with Collins at the helm, we don't seen to need special heroics from our receivers either. Our two extreme veterans are having great success just by running good routes and being where they're supposed to be when they're supposed to be there.

It's a pleasure to watch. As long as it works, we'd be nuts not to use it. What's to think about?

Pray for days with little wind.

[SkinsJock]

I agree Trevor - BUT - Campbell might have had a little more time to develop and improve before Collins demonstrated what was possible by his play recently.

Collins did look comfortable with the team, earlier this year as well but it was felt (I think) that Campbell with all the attributes you mention, would be the better QB in time - now that time frame just got shortened because of what Collins is doing.

I am a little concerned about whether Campbell can speed up his reads of what the defenses are doing and getting the ball to the right spot quicker. To me Campbell offers us a much better QB than Collins BUT he needs to get a lot better and sooner now because if he cannot do that, we need to get a QB that can - in the long run, that QB is not Collins.

we need a big time QB and Campbell can be that - I think Collins is good but ......


Collins is playing very well and may be getting himself an opportunity to make a lot of money next year - be interesting to see if that is as a Redskin or not.