The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

MakeRomoCry wrote:

MakeRomoCry wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:Their respective records have nothing to do with anything

So now wins mean nothing? You're a walking contradiction.

Just so everyone knows, this is what you wrote only 3 days ago.

I care about leadership, wins, and points.

Wow.

Don't be ridiculous. Their "RESPECTIVE" records don't mean anything. The Broncos had no defense. If the Redskins had the Broncos defense last year (average 28 points allowed per game) the Skins would have been 0-16 since we only averaged scoring 16. So if you want to attempt to draw any meaningful comparison of their wins, I'd say Cutler is 8 games a season better.

Oh yes ... I'm flattered that you hang on my every word, and can recall what I said three days ago

CanesSkins26 wrote:During his last 36 games Drew Brees is 17-19 as a starter, so are you saying that because his record is almost the same as JC's that he is not significantly better?? You can't just look at wins/losses blindly and compare qb's based on that. Last year the Broncos had the same record as the Skins, however, their problem was defense not offense. For the Redskins the opposite was true, our offense stunk. In 2008 the Broncos had the number 2 offense in the NFL and the number 3 passing attack. The Skins, by comparison, had the 19th overall offense and the 23rd ranked passing attack. Conversely, the Redskins had the 4th best defense and Broncos had the 29th ranked D. So it's hard to blame Cutler and the offense for the Broncos' poor record last year. With the Skins, however, JC and the offense are the most to blame for our 8-8 record.

I agree you cannot look at that stat alone blindly, but ultimately that's all we as fans care about at the end of the day. I could care less if a QB throws for over 400 yards and 4 touchdowns in a loss. I also threw some other stats in my opinion. I also firmly believe that win/loss is a team effort, but we would be kidding ourselves if we thought that the QB wasn't a major contributor to that category, that's why they get the big bucks...

...as for the comparison with Cutler; if you look at their stats side by side Cutler's are better in some categories, but he doesn't blow Campbell out of the water. For anyone to suggest trading Campbell and a 1st rounder for Cutler is just crazy in my opinion. They both possess great talent that may or may not be tapped/realized, but at this juncture neither has proven anything in my mind. I will certainly agree Cutler appears to have more of a hunger than Campbell, but then again appearances aren't anything.

Cooter wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:During his last 36 games Drew Brees is 17-19 as a starter, so are you saying that because his record is almost the same as JC's that he is not significantly better?? You can't just look at wins/losses blindly and compare qb's based on that. Last year the Broncos had the same record as the Skins, however, their problem was defense not offense. For the Redskins the opposite was true, our offense stunk. In 2008 the Broncos had the number 2 offense in the NFL and the number 3 passing attack. The Skins, by comparison, had the 19th overall offense and the 23rd ranked passing attack. Conversely, the Redskins had the 4th best defense and Broncos had the 29th ranked D. So it's hard to blame Cutler and the offense for the Broncos' poor record last year. With the Skins, however, JC and the offense are the most to blame for our 8-8 record.

I agree you cannot look at that stat alone blindly, but ultimately that's all we as fans care about at the end of the day. I could care less if a QB throws for over 400 yards and 4 touchdowns in a loss. I also threw some other stats in my opinion. I also firmly believe that win/loss is a team effort, but we would be kidding ourselves if we thought that the QB wasn't a major contributor to that category, that's why they get the big bucks...

...as for the comparison with Cutler; if you look at their stats side by side Cutler's are better in some categories, but he doesn't blow Campbell out of the water. For anyone to suggest trading Campbell and a 1st rounder for Cutler is just crazy in my opinion. They both possess great talent that may or may not be tapped/realized, but at this juncture neither has proven anything in my mind. I will certainly agree Cutler appears to have more of a hunger than Campbell, but then again appearances aren't anything.

Come on here!! Let's keep it real OK. Cutler threw for 4500 yards and 25 TD's last year (that matches Campbell's total TD's for the past 2 seasons). He went to the Pro Bowl. Campbell had to buy a ticket to watch him play.

There is no comparison, and Campbell and a 1st for Cutler would be a steal, because at the end of this year ... if the Redskins stick with Campbell, he'll be worthless, and will probably sign elsewhere. We'll get nothing out of this 5 year mis-calculation of talent.

RayNAustin wrote:Come on here!! Let's keep it real OK. Cutler threw for 4500 yards and 25 TD's last year (that matches Campbell's total TD's for the past 2 seasons). He went to the Pro Bowl. Campbell had to buy a ticket to watch him play.

There is no comparison, and Campbell and a 1st for Cutler would be a steal, because at the end of this year ... if the Redskins stick with Campbell, he'll be worthless, and will probably sign elsewhere. We'll get nothing out of this 5 year mis-calculation of talent.

Our opinions on this subject are firm and bound by our own beliefs; rather than going back and forth let's just agree to disagree.

Cooter wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:Come on here!! Let's keep it real OK. Cutler threw for 4500 yards and 25 TD's last year (that matches Campbell's total TD's for the past 2 seasons). He went to the Pro Bowl. Campbell had to buy a ticket to watch him play.

There is no comparison, and Campbell and a 1st for Cutler would be a steal, because at the end of this year ... if the Redskins stick with Campbell, he'll be worthless, and will probably sign elsewhere. We'll get nothing out of this 5 year mis-calculation of talent.

Our opinions on this subject are firm and bound by our own beliefs; rather than going back and forth let's just agree to disagree.

Fair enough. I believe that a 62.3 PCT; 4526 yards; 25 TD's; 7.3 ave. is way better than 62.3; 3245 yards; 13 TD; 6.4 ave.

You disagree. It's America, and you have your rights.

RayNAustin wrote:Fair enough. I believe that a 62.3 PCT; 4526 yards; 25 TD's; 7.3 ave. is way better than 62.3; 3245 yards; 13 TD; 6.4 ave.

You disagree. It's America, and you have your rights.

RayNAustin wrote:

Cooter wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:Come on here!! Let's keep it real OK. Cutler threw for 4500 yards and 25 TD's last year (that matches Campbell's total TD's for the past 2 seasons). He went to the Pro Bowl. Campbell had to buy a ticket to watch him play.

There is no comparison, and Campbell and a 1st for Cutler would be a steal, because at the end of this year ... if the Redskins stick with Campbell, he'll be worthless, and will probably sign elsewhere. We'll get nothing out of this 5 year mis-calculation of talent.

Our opinions on this subject are firm and bound by our own beliefs; rather than going back and forth let's just agree to disagree.

Fair enough. I believe that a 62.3 PCT; 4526 yards; 25 TD's; 7.3 ave. is way better than 62.3; 3245 yards; 13 TD; 6.4 ave.

You disagree. It's America, and you have your rights.

Again..rambling on about stats.

Never mind that Denver lost ALL of their running backs last year and could do nothing but throw the ball.

Never mind that Cutler had 2 guys named Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal to throw to.

Let's just look at numbers and consider NOTHING else. Genius.

This thread is over with.

Cooter wrote:I don't drink .

Perhaps it's time to start You seem a little tense.

MakeRomoCry wrote:Again..rambling on about stats.

Never mind that Denver lost ALL of their running backs last year and could do nothing but throw the ball.

Well now, considering that a good running attack that facilitates play action tends to help out a passing attack .. and that single dimensional offenses are usually easier to defend, I'd say that makes Cutler's performance that much more impressive.

MakeRomoCry wrote:Never mind that Cutler had 2 guys named Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal to throw to.

Well that just takes us right back to the question, what came first, the chicken or the egg, doesn't it?

I tend to believe that a play maker at the QB position will have a dramatic effect with regard to the success of WR. Do you think that moving Marshall and Royal to the lions would catapult them into the top 3 offenses in the league, or did Cutler have something to do with their success as receivers?

MakeRomoCry wrote:Genius.

Extremely intelligent maybe. Genius would be a stretch.

RayNAustin wrote:

MakeRomoCry wrote:Again..rambling on about stats.Never mind that Denver lost ALL of their running backs last year and could do nothing but throw the ball.

Well now, considering that a good running attack that facilitates play action tends to help out a passing attack .. and that single dimensional offenses are usually easier to defend, I'd say that makes Cutler's performance that much more impressive.

Not really- The Eagles are a good example of this.  But since you don't want to hear about systems and how the all vary from each other, I wouldn't expect you to understand this. Cutlers career touchdown to interception ratio is about the same as Campbells, but I noticed when you were listing stats, you conveniently left out interceptions when referring to Cutler.  He has more yards, but Imagine that.  More Passes = more yards.  If you're only going to stick to one stat, touchdowns- it's very important to mention turnovers too, whereas this has a direct effect on the outcome of games, hence Cutlers less than average record.  

MakeRomoCry wrote:Never mind that Cutler had 2 guys named Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal to throw to.

Well that just takes us right back to the question, what came first, the chicken or the egg, doesn't it?I tend to believe that a play maker at the QB position will have a dramatic effect with regard to the success of WR.   Do you think that moving Marshall and Royal to the lions would catapult them into the top 3 offenses in the league, or did Cutler have something to do with their success as receivers?

Once again you refuse to look at talent around a quarterback.  Apparently a receivers speed, hands and route running and the ability to get open have nothing to do with a QB's success.  In your mind, it's only a one way street.  You say that Randy Moss was washed up until he came to N.E. How about the fact that Tom Brady had his career year when the finally got him some receiver help. (Moss, Welker, Stallworth). I guess you missed the game where Eddie Royal made Champ Bailey look like Fred Smoot.  It's also no coincidence that when I turned on NFL network this morning, they were showing clips of Brandon Marshall and some of the ridiculous, outstanding circus catches that he was making, despite some POORLY thrown balls.  But for your sake, let's ignore all that.

MakeRomoCry wrote:Genius.

Extremely intelligent maybe.  Genius would be a stretch.

I don't know what you do for a living. Hell, it's very possible that your just a kid.  But you should seriously look into being a comedian.  It's that kind of pretentious attitude that give Redskins fans a bad rap.

I'm flattered that you hang on my every word, and can recall what I said three days ago

I don't hang on your every word, I just wanted to point out how easy it was to show that you contradict yourself.  It must be hard to be a human conundrum.

I know that my less than impressed opinion of Jason Campbell has had a lot of people hating on me since 2007. Though since then, there has been some crossovers ... not because of my skillful persuasion mind you ... but because of Jason Campbell's continued lack of progress, just as I predicted.

I don't base my opinions on feelings, just observations and facts. One may disagree with my observations, but facts are facts.

Contrary to popular opinion that suggests that Campbell's forced changes in systems has been the primary roadblock to his progress, what I've observed is that Campbell has performed better early .. while digressing later in each of his years as a starter. That completely contradicts the "familiarity" with the system theory.

What it does suggest is that he lacks the ability to adjust, while the opposing defenses are making better adjustments to him. They identify his strengths and weaknesses, and compensate. On the other hand, he is unable to do the same.

His inability to consistently hit down field throws (thereby penalizing a defense that chooses to blitz the daylights out of him), and his well recognized propensity to recognize coverages too slowly spells disaster.

The bottom line, in my opinion is that the NFL game has not slowed down for him. He is a method player .. mechanical ... and can execute well-rehearsed scripts due to his physical talents. But as soon as he is presented with a new look .. a disguised coverage scheme he hasn't seen before, he's lost. He lacks he mental agility to recognize, react, improvise and beat the scheme used to disrupt his progressions on the fly, and consequently will never be "THE GUY" that can consistently make plays against quality opponents.

Sure, he shows some flashes. But they're short lived, and he ultimately fails in the face of well prepared defenses.

RayNAustin wrote:I know that my less than impressed opinion of Jason Campbell has had a lot of people hating on me since 2007.  Though since then, there has been some crossovers ... not because of my skillful persuasion mind you ... but because of Jason Campbell's continued lack of progress, just as I predicted.I don't base my opinions on feelings, just observations and facts.  One may disagree with my observations, but facts are facts.Contrary to popular opinion that suggests that Campbell's forced changes in systems has been the primary roadblock to his progress, what I've observed is that Campbell has performed better early .. while digressing later in each of his years as a starter.  That completely contradicts the "familiarity" with the system theory.What it does suggest is that he lacks the ability to adjust, while the opposing defenses are making better adjustments to him.  They identify his strengths and weaknesses, and compensate.  On the other hand, he is unable to do the same.His inability to consistently hit down field throws (thereby penalizing a defense that chooses to blitz the daylights out of him), and his well recognized propensity to recognize coverages too slowly spells disaster.The bottom line, in my opinion is that the NFL game has not slowed down for him.  He is a method player .. mechanical ... and can execute well-rehearsed scripts due to his physical talents.  But as soon as he is presented with a new look .. a disguised coverage scheme he hasn't seen before, he's lost.  He lacks he mental agility to recognize, react, improvise and beat the scheme used to disrupt his progressions on the fly, and consequently will never be "THE GUY" that can consistently make plays against quality opponents.  Sure, he shows some flashes.  But they're short lived, and he ultimately fails in the face of well prepared defenses.

Well said.  My only point was that the game did slow down for him until we were banged up and played a stretch of games that included some of the best defenses in history.  Pittsburgh made just about every team look bad.  Baltimore?  Well see what they did to Chad Pennington in the playoffs.  Thats all I'm saying- is take all variables into account and not just point to the numbers.  Everyone will have their opinions, and I'm sorry if I offended you.  Ultimately, If you're cheering on the Redskins, your a friend of mine.

Not really- The Eagles are a good example of this. But since you don't want to hear about systems and how the all vary from each other, I wouldn't expect you to understand this. Cutlers career touchdown to interception ratio is about the same as Campbells, but I noticed when you were listing stats, you conveniently left out interceptions when referring to Cutler. He has more yards, but Imagine that. More Passes = more yards. If you're only going to stick to one stat, touchdowns- it's very important to mention turnovers too, whereas this has a direct effect on the outcome of games, hence Cutlers less than average record.

Cutler, in 2008, threw one int for every 34 pass attempts. That's comparable to Drew Brees (one per 37 attempts) and better than Romo (one per 32).

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Not really- The Eagles are a good example of this. But since you don't want to hear about systems and how the all vary from each other, I wouldn't expect you to understand this. Cutlers career touchdown to interception ratio is about the same as Campbells, but I noticed when you were listing stats, you conveniently left out interceptions when referring to Cutler. He has more yards, but Imagine that. More Passes = more yards. If you're only going to stick to one stat, touchdowns- it's very important to mention turnovers too, whereas this has a direct effect on the outcome of games, hence Cutlers less than average record.

Cutler, in 2008, threw one int for every 34 pass attempts. That's comparable to Drew Brees (one per 37 attempts) and better than Romo (one per 32).

Let it go, man. I think we've gone on enough about statistics in this thread.

MakeRomoCry wrote:Not really- The Eagles are a good example of this. 

A good example of what? The Eagles have arguably one of the best backfield threats in the NFL with Westbrook. In 2007 he had over 2000 yards combined rushing and receiving. Last year he was banged up and that number dropped to 1300-1400.

Furthermore, the Eagles are actually the perfect example that directly contradicts your position. Who was Philly's leading receiver? Jackson the rookie? The SHORT 5' 10" rookie? Do you think Jackson is better than Moss? I don't think so. Do you think LJ Smith is better than CC? Not a chance. Who else? Jason Avant, Kevin Curtis, Hank Basket ??? All of them are just average receivers, and none of them came close to (statistically) Randle El's 53 catches. Westbrook was the second leading receiver for Philly with 54 catches.

No sirree, the difference was McNabb and his ability to make plays WITHOUT the big #1 receiver that so many claim would cure Campbell's ills.

McNabb spreads the ball around to a gaggle of average receivers and compiled almost 4000 yards and 23 TD's.

Man....arguing with you is like arguing with myself.

MakeRomoCry wrote: But since you don't want to hear about systems and how the all vary from each other, I wouldn't expect you to understand this. Cutlers career touchdown to interception ratio is about the same as Campbells, but I noticed when you were listing stats, you conveniently left out interceptions when referring to Cutler.  He has more yards, but Imagine that.  More Passes = more yards.  If you're only going to stick to one stat, touchdowns- it's very important to mention turnovers too, whereas this has a direct effect on the outcome of games, hence Cutlers less than average record.

Bologna. Campbell had 7 more TD's than ints. Cutler had 7 more TDs than int's. It's expected that a QB who throws more will be intercepted more. I never said Cutler was perfect ... just a lot better than Campbell.

But back to Philly, McNabb had 23 TD's and 11 ints. Better statistically than Cutler.... and low and behold, he did it without these killer wide outs that you say is needed to be successful.

No sir, it's more weighted to the QB that makes the receivers successful than the other way around as is proven beyond a reasonable doubt with McNabb.

The Cardinals had Bouldin and Fitzgerald when Lienart was the QB. But it wasn't until Warner that the Cardinals excelled offensively.

How many bloody examples must I list? Hmmmm?

MakeRomoCry wrote: Once again you refuse to look at talent around a quarterback.  Apparently a receivers speed, hands and route running and the ability to get open have nothing to do with a QB's success. In your mind, it's only a one way street. You say that Randy Moss was washed up until he came to N.E. How about the fact that Tom Brady had his career year when the finally got him some receiver help.

Oh my. You really didn't say that did you? Gosh, I feel like I'm tripping a blind man with this argument, but you asked for it.

Although statistically, New England destroyed the record book in 2007, Tom Brady has THREE Super Bowl Rings WITHOUT those receivers, and NONE with them.

Randy Moss went from 42 catches and 553 yards and 3 TDs in 2006 with the Raiders to 98 catches, 1493 yards and 23 TDs in 2007 with Tom Brady. I'd say Tom Brady made Moss successful and not the other way around.

Want some more? Wes Welker had 67 catches, 687 yards, 1 TD with Miami in 2006. He then had 112 catches, 1175 yards, and 8 TDs with Tom Brady. Again, Tom Brady made Welker successful.

MakeRomoCry wrote: I guess you missed the game where Eddie Royal made Champ Bailey look like Fred Smoot.  It's also no coincidence that when I turned on NFL network this morning, they were showing clips of Brandon Marshall and some of the ridiculous, outstanding circus catches that he was making, despite some POORLY thrown balls. But for your sake, let's ignore all that.

I don't know what you do for a living. Hell, it's very possible that your just a kid.  But you should seriously look into being a comedian. It's that kind of pretentious attitude that give Redskins fans a bad rap.

I'm probably old enough to be your father. And I'd like to offer some fatherly advice. STOP before you hurt yourself. I'm finding no pleasure in this massacre.

RayNAustin wrote:

MakeRomoCry wrote:Not really- The Eagles are a good example of this. 

A good example of what?  The Eagles have arguably one of the best backfield threats in the NFL with Westbrook.  In 2007 he had over 2000 yards combined rushing and receiving.  Last year he was banged up and that number dropped to 1300-1400.

Yes, they have a backfield threat because Westbrook CATCHING the ball out of the backfield.  Their rushing attack has been a joke for years. Just more evidence that your confined to looking at numbers only.

Furthermore, the Eagles are actually the perfect example that directly contradicts your position.  Who was Philly's leading receiver?  Jackson the rookie?  The SHORT 5' 10" rookie?  Do you think Jackson is better than Moss?  I don't think so.  Do you think LJ Smith is better than CC?  Not a chance.  Who else?  Jason Avant, Kevin Curtis, Hank Basket ???  All of them are just average receivers, and none of them came close to (statistically) Randle El's 53 catches.  Westbrook was the second leading receiver for Philly with 54 catches.

Just becuase the Eagles receivers arent household names, you automatically think they suck.  I happen to think they have a very good, young receiving core.  Jackson is good.  Reggie Brown is good.  Jason Avant is good.  Philly spreads the ball around a lot and therefor the WR's stats are not padded, STAT BOY.

Man....arguing with you is like arguing with myself.

You are arguing with yourself by making false accusations and jumping to conclusoins.

MakeRomoCry wrote: But since you don't want to hear about systems and how the all vary from each other, I wouldn't expect you to understand this. Cutlers career touchdown to interception ratio is about the same as Campbells, but I noticed when you were listing stats, you conveniently left out interceptions when referring to Cutler.  He has more yards, but Imagine that.  More Passes = more yards.  If you're only going to stick to one stat, touchdowns- it's very important to mention turnovers too, whereas this has a direct effect on the outcome of games, hence Cutlers less than average record.

Bologna.  Campbell had 7 more TD be intercepted more.  I never said Cutler was perfect ... just a lot better than Campbell.'s than ints.  Cutler had 7 more TDs than int's.[/quote]Obviously, you don't know what a touchdown to interceptions ratio is. 

MakeRomoCry wrote: Once again you refuse to look at talent around a quarterback.  Apparently a receivers speed, hands and route running and the ability to get open have nothing to do with a QB's success.  In your mind, it's only a one way street.  You say that Randy Moss was washed up until he came to N.E. How about the fact that Tom Brady had his career year when the finally got him some receiver help.

[/quote]Oh my.  You really didn't say that did you?   Gosh, I feel like I'm tripping a blind man with this argument, but you asked for it.Although statistically, New England destroyed the record book in 2007, Tom Brady has THREE Super Bowl Rings WITHOUT those receivers, and NONE with them.Randy Moss went from 42 catches and 553 yards and 3 TDs in 2006 with the Raiders to 98 catches, 1493 yards and 23 TDs in 2007 with Tom Brady.  I'd say Tom Brady made Moss successful and not the other way around.Want some more?  Wes Welker had 67 catches, 687 yards, 1 TD with Miami in 2006.  He then had 112 catches, 1175 yards, and 8 TDs with Tom Brady.  Again, Tom Brady made Welker successful.[/quote]  Wow.  More stats. Congratulations on going to NFL.com and pulling up stat sheets.  that's insanely difficult.  New England won three super bowls due to their defense, an outstanding clutch kicker, and an amazing front office who finds talent.  NOT Soley because of Tom Brady.  Think for yourself.

MakeRomoCry wrote: I guess you missed the game where Eddie Royal made Champ Bailey look like Fred Smoot.  It's also no coincidence that when I turned on NFL network this morning, they were showing clips of Brandon Marshall and some of the ridiculous, outstanding circus catches that he was making, despite some POORLY thrown balls.  But for your sake, let's ignore all that. I don't know what you do for a living. Hell, it's very possible that your just a kid.  But you should seriously look into being a comedian.  It's that kind of pretentious attitude that give Redskins fans a bad rap.

I'm probably old enough to be your father.  And I'd like to offer some fatherly advice.  STOP before you hurt yourself.  I'm finding no pleasure in this massacre.[/quote]Your smug and presumptuous.  Dangerous combination.  I was willing to let this die, but you keep coming back for more.

Let's recap RayNAustins points throughout this thread.

1.  Talent is not necessary on a team.  All that is needed is an elite quarterback.  Sure.

2.  Stats are the ONLY true gauge for a player, nothing else is relevant.

3.  Todd Collins is a great quarterback, despite being a career back up.  His evidence?  Stats.  Collins had 7 TD's 2 INT's and 4 fumbles in 4 1/2 games.  Not so great.

4. Quarterbacks should only be given a year or two to accurately assess their talent and abilities.

5.  He assumes that everyone here hates him because of his stance on Campbell.  It has nothing to do with the fact that he feels like he is extremely intelligent, can predict the future or ridiculous assumptions like "I'm probably old enough to be your father". Funny stuff.

Perhaps this needs to calm down a tad.

I'm not attacking you personally, because it's against the rules, and I'm trying my best to observe them. I'm challenging your posts. You are clearly making this personal, and that is against the rules, friend.

Want to go at it full bore, we can take it to smack and you can insult me to your heart's content.

MakeRomoCry wrote:Yes, they have a backfield threat because Westbrook CATCHING the ball out of the backfield.  Their rushing attack has been a joke for years. Just more evidence that your confined to looking at numbers only.

A joke for years? What years? 2007, Westbrook was 3rd in rushing in the NFL behind Tomlinson and Peterson. In 2006, he was top 10 with over 1200 yards rushing. 2008 he was banged up but still just shy of 1000 yards. Maybe you should look at some numbers before making baseless comments that hold not a shred of truth?

MakeRomoCry wrote: Just becuase the Eagles receivers arent household names, you automatically think they suck.  I happen to think they have a very good, young receiving core.  Jackson is good.  Reggie Brown is good.  Jason Avant is good.  Philly spreads the ball around a lot and therefor the WR's stats are not padded, STAT BOY.

I never said they sucked. I said they were average. And that's exactly what they are. My point that you can't grasp is that McNabb was extremely successful WITHOUT the big time 100 plus catch receivers. None of McNabbs receivers are superior to the Redskin receivers. Not a single position .. the Skins have a better TE, Better #1, Better #2, and that is the bottom line facts of the matter. And that is also with an inferior QB throwing to them.

MakeRomoCry wrote:More stats. Congratulations on going to NFL.com and pulling up stat sheets.  that's insanely difficult. 

Again, you should try checking your opinions against the facts sometimes. Then I wouldn't have to point out how terribly out of touch with reality they are.

MakeRomoCry wrote:Your smug and presumptuous.  Dangerous combination.  I was willing to let this die, but you keep coming back for more.

Like I said, stop before you hurt yourself or break your keyboard.

But we can take this to smack and then you'll receive a better definition of smug and presumptuos.

MakeRomoCry wrote: My only point was that the game did slow down for him until we were banged up and played a stretch of games that included some of the best defenses in history.  Pittsburgh made just about every team look bad.  Baltimore?  Well see what they did to Chad Pennington in the playoffs.  Thats all I'm saying- is take all variables into account and not just point to the numbers.  Everyone will have their opinions, and I'm sorry if I offended you.  Ultimately, If you're cheering on the Redskins, your a friend of mine.

If you check back closely, you'll see that the difficulties began long before that stretch. It started in week 5 with the Eagles as Campbell was only 16-29 for 176 yards and 0 TDs. Portis and Betts combined for 200+ yards and that with the defense won the game. Then off to the lowly Rams .. not exactly a powerhouse defense. 8 of 11 possessions for the Redskins were held to 6 plays or less, and we lost in the closing seconds. The very next week was a lackluster performance against another dominating Cleveland defense. We won, but just barely, and managed to score only 14 points while Portis offered up a 175 yard rushing day. We were held scoreless for the first half for the first time in 27 years. Then, we moved on to the Lions, where Jason Campbell finally had one of his better outings. And even though he threw for over 300 yards, he had only 1 TD, and the offense refused to put the Lions away having to kick 5 FGs, missing one. Although Campbell's stats looked great, you can't help but being concerned with such trouble scoring TDs against a poor defense, and a team that was consistently being blown out all year long (except against the Redskins).

So, no, this wasn't a second half collapse due to injurries and premium opponents. Campbell struggled most of the year, and it was only when Portis' body could no longer carry the offense did the big losing streak kill the season.

It's easy to overlook some of this when you still get the wins, but this offense struggled most of the year, mainly due to an absent passing attack.

This is not just an opinion ... these are the facts.

Please be careful, gentlemen. There is a forum for turning up the wick... and it's not this one.

Same to you. We're all fans ... and I love a good debate. All in fun, and I'm not offended.

I think it's important to realize where the real difficulties exist with this team. And I'm convinced that we have all of the elements to be strong contenders, save for an effective field general behind center.

Countertrey wrote:Please be careful, gentlemen. There is a forum for turning up the wick... and it's not this one.

10/4 boss. I'm really trying to be observant

RayNAustin wrote:

MakeRomoCry wrote:Yes, they have a backfield threat because Westbrook CATCHING the ball out of the backfield.  Their rushing attack has been a joke for years. Just more evidence that your confined to looking at numbers only.

A joke for years? What years? 2007, Westbrook was 3rd in rushing in the NFL behind Tomlinson and Peterson. In 2006, he was top 10 with over 1200 yards rushing. 2008 he was banged up but still just shy of 1000 yards. Maybe you should look at some numbers before making baseless comments that hold not a shred of truth?

To support my evidence, you have to look at team stats. Philly was 22nd in the league in rushing LAST season. In the modern day NFL era, a back reaching 1,000 or even 1,200 yards just isn't that impressive. How about just a few years ago in '05 when Philly ended up 28th in the league in rushing.

MakeRomoCry wrote: Just because the Eagles receivers aren't household names, you automatically think they suck.  I happen to think they have a very good, young receiving core.  Jackson is good.  Reggie Brown is good.  Jason Avant is good.  Philly spreads the ball around a lot and therefor the WR's stats are not padded, STAT BOY.

I never said they sucked. I said they were average. And that's exactly what they are. My point that you can't grasp is that McNabb was extremely successful WITHOUT the big time 100 plus catch receivers. None of McNabbs receivers are superior to the Redskin receivers. Not a single position .. the Skins have a better TE, Better #1, Better #2, and that is the bottom line facts of the matter. And that is also with an inferior QB throwing to them.

Not facts, your opinion. DeShaun Jackson is just a kid, but he's a play maker. Despite a few crucial drops in the beginning of his rookie year, he was HUGE for Philly. I would take him over Randle El or James Thrash any day. Statistics are NOT a tell-all, complete measure for a player. When are you going to learn this? By your "facts and stats", Albert Haynesworth would have been out of the league after two years because he had so few sacks. He is the most dominant defensive lineman in the past decade. Need More examples? Since you love numbers so much, Drew Brees in his first year of playing threw for 3284 yds. 17 TD's and 16 INT's and this was in 526 attempts. His second year? Much worse. He didn't play a full season, but threw for 2108 yds. 11 TD's and 15 INT's. According to your myopic measurements, Brees who is now one of the best QB's in the game, would have been doomed to being a career backup. Oh, I'm not done. Don't even get me started on Kurt Warner who has been largely inconsistent for his career. The exceptions? Warner made a trip to the big show with a group of guys who were known as the greatest show on turf. Torry Holt, Issac Bruce, Ricky Prohel and Marshall Faulk, who they used as a wideout a lot of time. Mike Martz said that without these guys, they wouldnt have had an unfair mismatch on defenses. These guys were so good that they made the NFL networks top 5 receiving cores of all time. Think that's just coincidence? Warner had a monster season last year after having several bad seasons. He made it once again to the super bowl thanks in large part to Larry Fitzgerald (who is arguably the best WR in the game today), Anquan Boldin (who had 1377 yds. and 8 TD's as a rookie without Warner) and Steve Breaston (who Jim Zorn himself acknowledged as #1 caliber WR). Again, further proof that players around a QB can maximize their potential. Steve Smith, Carolina's standout WR, in your opinion would have been a bust in his first two years. Again, good thing your not a GM. His rookie year, he logged a whopping 10 catches for 154 yds. and 0 TD's. His second season had 872 yds. and only 3 TD's. To accurately assess a player takes film study. NFL scouts, coaches and GM's do WAY more than look at numbers for a reason. Also, McNabb is a very good QB and has done great things despite having average WR's in the past- I wouldnt debate that. The guys he has now are young and relatively inexperienced, but IMO are pretty good.

Again, you should try checking your opinions against the facts sometimes. Then I wouldn't have to point out how terribly out of touch with reality they are.

Funny you say that. I'm not the one who wants to give a guy a year or two to prove themselves and only judges them based on whats on paper.

At any rate, I'm not going to discuss quarterbacks here anymore. I just had to defend myself against your accusations that I was out of touch with reality and point out that stats are great, but in no way a one stop source for talent assessment and evaluation.

MakeRomoCry wrote:To support my evidence, you have to look at team stats. Philly was 22nd in the league in rushing LAST season. In the modern day NFL era, a back reaching 1,000 or even 1,200 yards just isn't that impressive. How about just a few years ago in '05 when Philly ended up 28th in the league in rushing.

We were not talking about 2005. Besides, I thought I was the "stat boy" ?

MakeRomoCry wrote: Not facts, your opinion. DeShaun Jackson is just a kid, but he's a play maker. Despite a few crucial drops in the beginning of his rookie year, he was HUGE for Philly.

Yes, both of his touchdowns were huge.

MakeRomoCry wrote:I would take him over Randle El or James Thrash any day.

Randle El had 9 less catches than Jackson, and twice as many TDs. And he's not the #1 receiver, as is Jackson.

MakeRomoCry wrote:Statistics are NOT a tell-all, complete measure for a player. When are you going to learn this?

Every other statement you say "you need to look at the stats" only to follow with "you can't just look at the stats". Make up your mind. Which is it? Oh, I know ... any stat that you think supports your opinion (none that I've seen so far) you say is important, but if it contradicts your opinion, THOSE stats aren't important.

MakeRomoCry wrote: By your "facts and stats", Albert Haynesworth would have been out of the league after two years because he had so few sacks. He is the most dominant defensive lineman in the past decade. Need More examples? Since you love numbers so much, Drew Brees in his first year of playing threw for 3284 yds. 17 TD's and 16 INT's and this was in 526 attempts. His second year? Much worse. He didn't play a full season, but threw for 2108 yds. 11 TD's and 15 INT's. According to your myopic measurements, Brees who is now one of the best QB's in the game, would have been doomed to being a career backup.

What this is an example of is metal mishmash and misdirection. Brees first year playing was better than ANYTHING Campbell has produced in his career. And Campbell's name shouldn't even be mentioned in the same paragraph with Brees or Warner. Warner's career averages are something Campbell will only read about. 65% completions, 185 TDs in 101 games. Campbell won;t see those kinds of numbers if he played till he was 65 years old (at his current pace).

MakeRomoCry wrote:Oh, I'm not done. Don't even get me started on Kurt Warner who has been largely inconsistent for his career.

Oh yes you are. Read the above. You're done, cooked, sliced, and served.

MakeRomoCry wrote:The exceptions? Warner made a trip to the big show with a group of guys who were known as the greatest show on turf. Torry Holt, Issac Bruce, Ricky Prohel and Marshall Faulk, who they used as a wideout a lot of time. Mike Martz said that without these guys, they wouldnt have had an unfair mismatch on defenses. These guys were so good that they made the NFL networks top 5 receiving cores of all time. Think that's just coincidence? Warner had a monster season last year after having several bad seasons.

No he had 4 seasons in which he only played in 20 games combined. Chances are your stats will suffer if you don't play.

MakeRomoCry wrote:He made it once again to the super bowl thanks in large part to Larry Fitzgerald (who is arguably the best WR in the game today), Anquan Boldin (who had 1377 yds. and 8 TD's as a rookie without Warner) and Steve Breaston (who Jim Zorn himself acknowledged as #1 caliber WR). Again, further proof that players around a QB can maximize their potential.

I never even suggested that the players around a QB didn't make a difference. I'm just saying that with a lousy QB, receivers won't get the same opportunities to excel and make plays, no matter how great their talent. A great QB can make an average receiver rack up big numbers far easier than the reverse. And great QB's will be successful with average receivers.

And, isn't Warner the only QB to take two different teams to a Super Bowl? Think that is a coincidence? Isn't this the FIRST Super Bowl in Cardinal franchise history? Another coincidence?

MakeRomoCry wrote:Also, McNabb is a very good QB and has done great things despite having average WR's in the past- I wouldnt debate that. The guys he has now are young and relatively inexperienced, but IMO are pretty good.

But ... but .... but ... that is exactly what you have been doing ... or was this whole diatribe of a debate a figment of my imagination?

My whole point ... my only point has been that you do not need a full complement of elite receivers to score more than 10 points a game. Having such a receiving corps would always be great .. I didn't think that obvious point needed to be stated ... but McNabb and others have proven that you can be successful with average, utility guys. My other point was that the Redskins receiving corps are far better than Philly's, yet McNabb is more successful. So my conclusion that McNabb does better with less is in complete agreement with the fact that Campbell does less with better.

And that IS THE POINT, THE WHOLE POINT AND NOTHING BUT THE POINT.

MakeRomoCry wrote:Funny you say that. I'm not the one who wants to give a guy a year or two to prove themselves and only judges them based on whats on paper.

Campbell has had plenty of time. Plenty of support. And enough good players around him to succeed. He sucks. He'll never be much more than what we've already seen, and he'll never be a top 10 NFL QB. So why treat him like he is the future of the franchise?

MakeRomoCry wrote: At any rate, I'm not going to discuss quarterbacks here anymore. I just had to defend myself against your accusations that I was out of touch with reality and point out that stats are great, but in no way a one stop source for talent assessment and evaluation.

Let me correct you right here and now. It is you Jason Campbell fans that are all wrapped up in statistics. Yards, Completion %, Int's. I'm not about "Stats" per se, I'm about results. I don't care about Jason's completion percentage when it's the result of throwing 20 3 yard passes per game, or a 100 junk yards in the 4th Q as we are losing. I don't care that he had low Int numbers when his TD numbers are pathetic.

I care about wins. And in that category, Jason Campbell is a loser.