JSPB22 wrote:Rodgers is a rookie? Starting for the first time in your career doesn't make you a rookie, Ray. This is, in fact, Rodgers 4th season in the NFL.
In lieu of responding to all of the pointless counterpoints, let's just highlight this most obvious contradiction.
Since the Jason Campbell great debate began in 2007, you and many others described Jason as a virtual rookie, discounting his presence as a Redskin in 2005 as meaningless because he was a rookie and never played. Campbell remained a rookie IN YOUR EYES during his first 7 games in the second half of 2006, and no rational discussion could convince you to admit that Campbell was a second year player. Then, in 2007, once again, Campbell was still a rookie because as you and others described it...he hadn't actually completed a full 16 games starting, in effect, maintaining his 1st year status, so the idea that he was a 3rd year player to you was unfathomable. Now, in his 4th year, (3rd year as a starter) we should give him 2 more years before evaluating him critically. That has been the story all along, and of course, you don't recognize your own double standard here, now do you?
Should we even mention the nonsense you and others constantly claimed that you can't expect rookie QB's to perform well....that it takes 3 years before a rookie is capable of being a starter?
Tell that to Matt Ryan (a real 1st year rookie) who is 12th on your cited list who has more TD's, more 20+ yard and double the 40+ yard completions of Jason Campbell, while playing on a team that in the midst of a "wholesale rebuilding process".
On that same list, we have Peyton Manning who comes in 19th on your list. Are you suggesting that Jason Campbell is head and shoulders superior to Peyton Manning? That is what you seem to be implying here.
Now, by week 5 this year, I was giving credit where credit was due regarding Campbell, and I didn't jump on him after the Rams debacle. I've watched the past 4 games without criticizing. But the fact is, he has been digressing. To ignore that fact or to argue it is clearly disingenuous, and that one factor alone is as responsible for the Redskins less than impressive results on offense as any other you might wish to assign responsibility. The defense is still performing at a high level, and no one can legitimately claim that the Redskin offense hasn't fallen behind along with Campbell's digressing performance.
No honest debate can exist about football with someone who would minimize the importance of the QB position in an efficient, well performing offense, or look critically at that player when the offense is performing poorly.
No better example exists than the one I cited (that you conveniently overlooked) relative to the Cowboys with Romo at QB and the Cowboys without him. Without him they are scoring less than half of the points; the running game has suffered, and their offensive line "appears" to be worse. In the span of three games they went from Super Bowl front runners to in danger of being eliminated from the playoff picture at the mid-season mark, all because of poor QB play from Brad Johnson.
And just as it is with the Cowboys, so too is it with the Redskins. When Jason Campbell makes the plays, the Redskin offense has looked good. When he doesn't the offense looks bad. The bottom line is the lack of consistency in Jason Cambell's performance......not hyperbole.....just a plain simple fact.
Of course you and many others are determined to be "Right" instead of being honest.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
