Portis On Campbell

[roybus14]

I'm still SMH on all of the hate for JC. I am a fan and a critic of JC and personally thinks that he needs to be more demonstrative in the huddle and on the sideline.

But other than Aaron Rodgers, what other QB out there is successful without protection? We saw what happened to "Capt. America", as Freddy Coleman calls him, yesterday when the Ravens were blitzing him and knocking him around.

If Jason had the time to throw like some of these other guys get and he was not making his throws and throwing picks when he had time to throw, then I'd say he's gotta go or he's not the future. But he hasn't had that luxury here. Also, look at the N.O. game. He wasn't sacked once and got ample time to throw. Went toe-to-toe with Brees. Yes he had the one dumb pick but in a 16 game season, you give him what he got as far as protection against NO in half those games, I think you see a pretty good QB or a guy who just can't cut it. But the point is, him getting that protection on a regular to really see if he is a quality QB.

[RayNAustin]

You're right dude. There's a lot of sloppy thinking on this board wrt Campbell, I really don't get this ridiculous commitment to him when he has, quite simply, NOT PERFORMED.

What "ridiculous commitment"? I can only think of a handful of people that are pushing for Campbell to stay with the team as the starter for the long term. Most on THN think that he's not the solution, but that we do have worse problems right now (which is far from "ridiculous commitment"). Then there are the outliers at the other end, who think Campbell is THE problem with the team . . .

Instead of worrying about "sloppy thinking" on the board, why not be on guard against sloppy mischaracterizations?

That's easy for you to say now, now that many of the die-hard Campbell supporters have softened their tone in response to the extended 3 year drought on offense.

But I've been here, and going all the way back to 2007 the MAJORITY have bent over backwards to explain all of the reasons for Jason's lack of productivity ... too many systems ... bad receivers ... too conservative play calling ... bad pass protection ... on and on .. each year there has been what isn't unfairly characterized as a "ridiculous commitment" to an individual player, though I would personally characterize it as plain old fashioned excuse making. And it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Even now, the popular opinion has shifted focus entirely to an injury decimated o-line and how no QB could be expected to produce behind that line. And though this could be a reasonable and fair assessment, one would have to disregard dozens of games over the past three years where adequate o-line play did not translate to acceptable production on offense. That fact calls into question the premise of pass protection being the main culprit in this case.

And even this year, there were games where poor pass protection wasn't the issue ... with the most recent loss to San Diego's second stringers a prime example. In that game, Campbell had plenty of time to throw during the course of the game, yet failed to produce a TD in the second half which could have sealed a victory. Furthermore, throughout the game we watched the majority of his throws grossly off target, sailing high and behind his receivers ... even short throws ... and without pressure.

Statistically, in the end, Campbell's game looked good on paper... 66%, 281 yards, 2 TDs. The real story is that the majority of the passes were within 5 yards of the line, and the 2 TDs were a 2 yard pass to Yoder and a 3 yard pass to Sellers. What is not mentioned are the two stalled drives that resulted in 2 chip shot FGs from inside the red zone in the second half against San Diego's reserves, when a TD on either drive could have sealed a victory.

All excuses aside ... there is a pattern. 6 times this year the Redskin offense has failed to score more than 14 points. Last year, they failed to score more than 14 points 8 times. That's 14 games of 14 or fewer points over the past 2 seasons, with several of these games being against weak defenses.

Yesterday, Rogers threw a TD against Arizona. I timed it ... he had two blitzing defenders in his face inside 2 seconds ...yet he dodged them, rolled right and fired a TD pass. Campbell would have been crushed, and the board would have been singing that same sad, familiar tune about how lousy the pass pro was and how NOBODY would be able to make a play with two defenders on top of him in 2 seconds. Clearly, QBs across the league have to deal with pressure on a regular basis, and it is not just Jason Campbell that faces such things.

I find it extremely telling when some here want to blame the defense, and claim that even with Haynesworth, we just don't get enough sacks (40), yet if we give up 43 sacks, it's the worst o-line in history.

There has been, and continues to be a double standard applied on the board ... if you make excuses for Campbell, however much of a stretch ... including such things as PTSD ... it's OK to go on ad-nauseam. But to point out the fallacy of these excuses is viewed as tired rhetoric that nobody wants to hear.

There seems to be no such thing as a Campbell apologist, but anyone not supporting the excuses are considered haters. Whatever.

Good QBs make plays and bad QBs make excuses. Even with the other issues on the team, better offensive leadership from the QB would have produced more wins. Certainly no Super Bowl, but likely something more than a team who was viewed this year as a laughing stock, offensively.

[CanesSkins26]

I'm still SMH on all of the hate for JC. I am a fan and a critic of JC and personally thinks that he needs to be more demonstrative in the huddle and on the sideline.

But other than Aaron Rodgers, what other QB out there is successful without protection? We saw what happened to "Capt. America", as Freddy Coleman calls him, yesterday when the Ravens were blitzing him and knocking him around.

If Jason had the time to throw like some of these other guys get and he was not making his throws and throwing picks when he had time to throw, then I'd say he's gotta go or he's not the future. But he hasn't had that luxury here. Also, look at the N.O. game. He wasn't sacked once and got ample time to throw. Went toe-to-toe with Brees. Yes he had the one dumb pick but in a 16 game season, you give him what he got as far as protection against NO in half those games, I think you see a pretty good QB or a guy who just can't cut it. But the point is, him getting that protection on a regular to really see if he is a quality QB.

It's because he has flaws that cannot be overcome by more protection. The main one being his ability to read defenses and find open receivers. He simply takes too long to that. Unless he has all day to sit in the pocket that is going to continue to be a problem. This is something that Sonny continually pointed our during radio broadcasts this year.

His accuracy is another problem. Just look at the San Diego game and how many times Moss had to go high just to catch 6 or 7 yard passes. Our receivers are always having to adjust to the ball because JC doesn't consistently put in where it needs to be.

I'm not even going to get into his leadership (or lack thereof).

[RayNAustin]

I'm still SMH on all of the hate for JC. I am a fan and a critic of JC and personally thinks that he needs to be more demonstrative in the huddle and on the sideline.

But other than Aaron Rodgers, what other QB out there is successful without protection? We saw what happened to "Capt. America", as Freddy Coleman calls him, yesterday when the Ravens were blitzing him and knocking him around.

If Jason had the time to throw like some of these other guys get and he was not making his throws and throwing picks when he had time to throw, then I'd say he's gotta go or he's not the future. But he hasn't had that luxury here. Also, look at the N.O. game. He wasn't sacked once and got ample time to throw. Went toe-to-toe with Brees. Yes he had the one dumb pick but in a 16 game season, you give him what he got as far as protection against NO in half those games, I think you see a pretty good QB or a guy who just can't cut it. But the point is, him getting that protection on a regular to really see if he is a quality QB.

Roy, Aaron Rogers is a second year starter, drafted one spot ahead of Jason Campbell in the 2005 draft. He's just a glaring example of why the statement "nobody could perform behind this line" is not true.

When you watch Rogers play, he makes so many plays under pressure you'd have to wonder what it would actually be like if he didn't? Given he was the most sacked QB this year, one would have to conclude that those numbers would only be that much worse.

But he's not the only one. Roethlisberger was sacked just as many times (50).

What you have to realize is that the top 10 teams for sacks average about the same number of sacks per game as Jason Campbell suffered this year ... meaning that this is not the grossly unusual number it's being made out to be.

How can we produce 40 sacks and that isn't viewed as spectacular, while considering 43 sacks given up as being the worst performance in history? Especially considering that we have a QB who is KNOWN to hold the ball too long ... is KNOWN to forget to step up into the pocket occasionally .. who is KNOWN to be slow making decisions ... and who we've seen roll right into the arms of pass rushers rather than escaping?

Analysts tend to analyze results ... when a QB makes 2 guys miss, escapes and throws a completion, it's a great play. Do that often enough and all you hear is how well the QB played. But ... if he doesn't make those guys miss, it's a sack or a fumble or whatever, and all you hear is that the QB didn't have a chance.

43 sacks isn't a good number ... and I'm not trying to marginalize the impact of that. But I tell you this ... Jason Campbell's inability to make plays under pressure results in at least 15-20% of that sack total. If you take that away ... those sack numbers would be right in the middle of the league average, whereas Rogers ability to make plays under pressure would suggest that his sack totals would be even higher than they are. This is the major difference.

Look at Warner's performance yesterday ... while Boldin was out, and against the league's #5 pass defense. He killed them, breaking passing records. So is it Boldin and Fitzgerald that make Warner so great, or is it Warner that makes them look so good.

I'll answer that for you ... in 2004 Fitzgerald was 28th in the league in receiving without Warner ... in 2005 with Warner he was 1st. In 2006, with Warner injured and only playing 6 games, he dropped back down to 21st. In 2007 with Warner playing 14 games, he jumped back up to 6th. In 2008, he climbed to 4th. This year he was 6th again.

Go take a look at Randy Moss with and without Brady.

I've heard this "If Jason Campbell had so and so's o-line .. or so and so's receivers ...." It's a fairytale. With Jason Campbell, the Arizona Cardinals would be watching the playoffs on TV, and Fitzgerald and Boldin would be way down on the list of leading receivers.

It's as simple as that.

[RayNAustin]

Anyone who doesn't recognize the huge difference a QB makes ... look at the teams playing next week ... the only relatively new faces are Flacco and Sanchez, both highly regarded young players. Then you have Manning, Rivers, Favre, Warner, Brees, Romo.

And look at what those teams did when they rested their star QBs at the end of the regular season ...Buffalo crushed Indy, Carolina beat NO, and Green Bay crushed Arizona ... Matt leinart threw for 13 completions and 96 yards, 0 TD, while Warner threw for 379 and 5 TDs against the same team.

Put Campbell with Indy, NO, Arizona, GB, and NONE of them would make the playoffs.

[BossHog]

Guys, I appreciate the Jason Campbell is still the subject of much of this discussion - but some of you turn EVERY thread into the same old drivel - JC this, JC that...we have dozens of them.

This thread was supposed to be about Clinton Portis' comments on JC and has now gone so far past it that I don't think we've seen CP mentioned for pages.

Please keep threads on topic - or start a new thread if you can't find one - but we aren't going to stand by idly while EVERY thread that has JC mentioned in it turns into a pissing contest between the detractors and the supporters. It's getting ridiculous.

If you have something to say about what CP said about JC, then post it here. If that isn't what the source of your post is, then find a better thread to post it to, or start another one. If I have to start suspending accounts because you refuse to use simple common sense, then that's what I'll do - but it isn't fair to the community when EVERY thread gets railroaded... and the level of abuse is going to force our hands.

I'm asking nicely... and with no blame attached... so please comply.

Thanks.

[langleyparkjoe]

Guys, I appreciate the Jason Campbell is still the subject of much of this discussion - but some of you turn EVERY thread into the same old drivel - JC this, JC that...we have dozens of them.

This thread was supposed to be about Clinton Portis' comments on JC and has now gone so far past it that I don't think we've seen CP mentioned for pages.

Please keep threads on topic - or start a new thread if you can't find one - but we aren't going to stand by idly while EVERY thread that has JC mentioned in it turns into a pissing contest between the detractors and the supporters. It's getting ridiculous.

If you have something to say about what CP said about JC, then post it here. If that isn't what the source of your post is, then find a better thread to post it to, or start another one. If I have to start suspending accounts because you refuse to use simple common sense, then that's what I'll do - but it isn't fair to the community when EVERY thread gets railroaded... and the level of abuse is going to force our hands.

I'm asking nicely... and with no blame attached... so please comply.

Thanks.

My bad, I'm guilty.. I think we said enough about JC/CP so maybe if we lock dis blicky up no one comment here right?

[BeeGee]

What's funny about this is I could see another teammate implying the same negative feelings about Portis, with emphasis on his decrease in production and durability. I'm sure CP would just love it if B. Mitchell aired him out again, right? Bottom line is you don't sneeze on your teammate like that. Especially a guy who has toughed it out as much as Campbell has, whether he ultimately has what it takes to be thee guy in D.C. or not.

And you definitely don't open your mouth like this when you've been on the injury slab for a half season in two of the last four seasons.

[Countertrey]

What's funny about this is I could see another teammate implying the same negative feelings about Portis, with emphasis on his decrease in production and durability. I'm sure CP would just love it if B. Mitchell aired him out again, right? Bottom line is you don't sneeze on your teammate like that. Especially a guy who has toughed it out as much as Campbell has, whether he ultimately has what it takes to be thee guy in D.C. or not.

And you definitely don't open your mouth like this when you've been on the injury slab for a half season in two of the last four seasons.

Maybe his concussion affected the "KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT" center of his brain.

[old-timer]

You're right dude. There's a lot of sloppy thinking on this board wrt Campbell, I really don't get this ridiculous commitment to him when he has, quite simply, NOT PERFORMED.

What "ridiculous commitment"? I can only think of a handful of people that are pushing for Campbell to stay with the team as the starter for the long term. Most on THN think that he's not the solution, but that we do have worse problems right now (which is far from "ridiculous commitment"). Then there are the outliers at the other end, who think Campbell is THE problem with the team . . .

Instead of worrying about "sloppy thinking" on the board, why not be on guard against sloppy mischaracterizations?

The ridiculous commitment I'm referring to consists of not only that of some posters on this board, but more particularly, that of the team to Campbell for the last 5 years. It seems incredible to me that someone who has peformed with such mediocrity has not only been allowed to start automatically for these last 5 years, but that fans of the team have not been clamoring for his replacement.

I grew up watching the Skins and I have never seen a QB get such as pass as Campbell. The only one who came close, in my recollection, was Kilmer, and IMHO Allen's ridiculous commitment to Kilmer cost us dearly in our first Super Bowl, which I think was quite winnable if Jurgenson had been used instead. Some people on this board say he was injured but that's not my recollection - Allen actually put him in the game, but way too late.

Anyone familiar with the 80's under Gibbs can remember that no QB's job was EVER safe when the team was losing. Yes, those were different times - we actually had a competent front office, for one thing - but this only emphasizes the point to me that the fact that Campbell continued to start despite his mediocre performance is emblematic of the whole failure of the Redskins organization for the last two decades.

Yes, Campbell was dealt a bad hand here - there's no excuse for the failure of Cerrato and Snyder to provide him with good receivers and good blocking. Nevertheless, despite these factors, if Campbell was any more than a below-average QB we would have all known it long ago. He has many mechanical flaws - slow delivery and inaccurate deep ball. But perhaps the biggest thing has been lack of the fire, killer instinct, or just plain meanness - whatever top QB's have - the ability to pull games out based on his own talent and guts. I can't remember a single game that Campbell pulled out based on his own sheer leadership and will-power - and I can remember many times when he made a mistake at the end of a game and very winnable games slipped away. If the 80's Gibbs had been coaching this team, Campbell would have been benched or traded long ago, like Schroeder. Some of our best QB's - Theismann, Rypien, Williams, for example - had to fight like hell to prove they deserved the starting job. The competition actually brought the best out in them. In my opinion, the fact that Campbell was essentially handed the job without him having to fight for it was a major disservice to both him and the team.