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

KazooSkinsFan wrote:No he isn't. He is treated as the starter. If he were treated as the franchise QB we wouldn't have been inquiring about Cutler and Sanchez. If he were being treated as the franchise QB we'd at least be talking about re-signing him and there isn't a peep. It's obvious management doesn't have interest in signing him to a big contract (thank God) or belief he'd sign a small one at this point. So we are wait and see, obviously not remotely how you treat a "franchise QB." This sort of ridiculous exaggeration just weakens your argument.

Your inability to grasp the gist of the point doesn't make it a "ridiculous exaggeration" or weaken the argument. Campbell's automatic anointment as the starter in 2008 (after Collins clearly superior performance in 2007) was IN FACT because of Campbell's status as THE FRANCHISE QB. Campbell certainly didn't earn that by his play in 2007, nor did his play in 2008 earn such consideration for this year.

That the Redskins tried to replace him in the offseason certainly does indicate that the FO no longer holds Campbell in such high esteem, he nevertheless is being anointed the starting roll once again, without the need to compete or even show significant improvement.

Campbell has NEVER EARNED or COMPETED for the starting job through his actual play, nor has he ever had to fear being benched for inadequate play. Not then, and not now, because God forbid, we should challenge his status as the Redskin's starter.

So you may define that situation however you like, but the reality is he has been and continues to be the "anointed starter" because of the
franchise level "investment" the Redskins made in him, and certainly not because of his stellar performance.

You may, if you like, argue that the Redskins have no better option, but the only evidence that exists (Collin's performance in 2007) wouldn't support it.

KazooSkinsFan wrote: I'm a Michigan native and alum and obviously not anti-Collins. But TC has zero upside at this point, we just hope he doesn't show his age.

"Zero Upside"? How so? If he has zero upside, he should be released. No sense in keeping a player with zero upside and taking up a roster spot that could be used for someone useful, or consider releasing one of our young QB's (that apparently have some upside or they wouldn't have been drafted) to keep him on the roster.

KazooSkinsFan wrote: TC will be ready to go if JC stinks up the joint. So the answer to your question is even if skepticism is growing we should be giving JC the chance to show us he is getting it and if he isn't TC is ready and we lost nothing in the meantime.

Oh, he has a "little upside" to come in if Campbell stinks the joint up?

But seriously, I have no questions, so your answer is meaningless. My point that you can't get your head around is that it might be more "prudent" to consider a change at QB PRIOR to the moment at which time the ODOR of Jason Campbell's play is no longer tolerable. As I see it, that time came in the final 8 games last year, but should not be the criteria for a QB keeping his job or not. Better that we replace someone BEFORE they stink out the joint ... but that's just me.

And yes we do have something to lose in the meantime ... games and another season .. while trying to decide at what point the ODOR of Jason's play is noxious enough to consider a change.

KazooSkinsFan wrote: If TC is going to start, something he's done little of in his career, shortening the 16 game seasons probably prudent anyway. Remember when Brunnel had his one actual good year he was just spent when the playoffs came. Either way if we win it's going to be because of the D.

I can't go along with that logic. Let's give Campbell all the work. If he stinks the joint out, and puts us in a hole at 2-5, then let's bring in Collins, who has "zero upside" and expect him to dig us out of that hole because it's better that way .. he'll only have 9 games to play, and he'll need to win 8 of them to salvage the season. That's your idea of prudent?

I can see the careful thought that went into this philosophy. Vinny would be proud of you.

RayNAustin wrote:Campbell's automatic anointment as the starter in 2008 (after Collins clearly superior performance in 2007) was IN FACT because of Campbell's status as THE FRANCHISE QB

Let's see, my argument that Campbell is not the franchise QB. We at least inquired about two players to replace him in the off-season. Name one team with a "franchise QB" linked to Cutler, Favre, Sanchez or any other comparable QB signing... We haven't even hinted at discussing a contract extension for our "franchise QB."

Your argument he is the franchise QB. One year you don't feel he had to compete for the starting job over a career sub who played well a few games at the end of the prior season, then sucked his way out of the playoffs in the last one.

Well done Ray, intellectually dominating you are. Regarding "ridiculous exaggeration," you've got the originator of a thread saying that JC has had enough chances and I'm tired of him sucking and throwing uncatchable balls and I think this is his last year here arguing his case.

RayNAustin wrote:If he has zero upside, he should be released

Why? Do you make these up as you go? He's a mid thirties backup, why does he need an "upside?" We know what we're getting. Dude, that's WHY he's HERE as a BACKUP quarterback. Typical teams have a starter #1, a project #3, and a stable, unspectacular backup as #2 to come in and not screw up the game until hopefully the #1 shakes it off and comes back in. Unfortunately some arm chair GMs misinterpret if they do OK in that role that they know more then every coach in their entire NFL career and that they were in fact starter material all the time. Hint, ignore those people Ray, they don't know what they are talking about.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Let's see, my argument that Campbell is not the franchise QB. We at least inquired about two players to replace him in the off-season. Name one team with a "franchise QB" linked to Cutler, Favre, Sanchez or any other comparable QB signing... We haven't even hinted at discussing a contract extension for our "franchise QB."

Your argument he is the franchise QB. One year you don't feel he had to compete for the starting job over a career sub who played well a few games at the end of the prior season, then sucked his way out of the playoffs in the last one.

OK, you don't understand, so let me break this down into painful detail ... I never said Campbell was the franchise QB. In my opinion he isn't even a grade A backup, and I haven't been sitting on the fence about that for the past year (Like some here). And, given the pursuit of a replacement this past offseason, this pink elephant has finally been discovered (better late than never) by the FO. NEVERTHELESS, he is still being "TREATED LIKE" the franchise QB by continuing to run with him as the starter regardless of how poorly he plays, or how well anyone else might perform. The fact that they wouldn't even sit him for a single game, or even a single quarter last year in spite of the pathetic production on offense that was obviously the fault of everyone and everything EXCEPT the QB, game after game after game. They let the entire season implode after a promising 6-2 start, with not even an attempt at a switch.

This appears to be the course they're on this year too. At least that's what we see now ... maybe they'll change, and maybe they'll make a switch, but until they do, they're still treating him LIKE the franchise QB insofar as his status as the indisputable starter.

Furthermore, with regard to Collins play in the playoffs ... go check the stats for that game ... I think he threw for 260+ yards and 2 TD's that game in spite of the fact that he had 2 or 3 d-linemen hanging all over him like a cheap suit EVERY TIME he dropped back to pass. Had that been Campbell, we would have likely been shut out. Campbell has never experienced the kind of pass rush pressure that Collins was exposed to in that game ... NEVER .. in fact I don't think I've ever seen a playoff game that a QB was mauled like Collins was. Collins played EXCEPTIONALLY, given the circumstances, with his game stats equalling anything Campbell has been able to put up under ideal conditions. Remember, Campbell's CAREER stats show LESS than ONE TD per game!!

KazooSkinsFan wrote: Well done Ray, intellectually dominating you are. Regarding "ridiculous exaggeration," you've got the originator of a thread saying that JC has had enough chances and I'm tired of him sucking and throwing uncatchable balls and I think this is his last year here arguing his case.

No, nuthin fancy on my part .. you just make it easy.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Do you make these up as you go? He's a mid thirties backup, why does he need an "upside?" We know what we're getting. Dude, that's WHY he's HERE as a BACKUP quarterback. Typical teams have a starter #1, a project #3, and a stable, unspectacular backup as #2 to come in and not screw up the game until hopefully the #1 shakes it off and comes back in. Unfortunately some arm chair GMs misinterpret if they do OK in that role that they know more then every coach in their entire NFL career and that they were in fact starter material all the time. Hint, ignore those people Ray, they don't know what they are talking about.

I believe what I see, not what I hear. And regarding Collins, his play in 2007 wasn't just adequate, it was astounding given all of the OTHER alleged problems on offense that prevented poor Jason from being successful.

In any case, I'd definitely state that AT THIS POINT, Collins has much more upside than Campbell does. (In hindsight, he had more upside in 2008 too) And here is why:

1 - Campbell has proven that his difficulties are more fundamental than just simple "unfamiliarity" with any particular system, and he is at best, mediocre, and the offense is simply flat and lacks production under his leadership. And this has been the case with two different systems and two different staffs.

2 - Campbell is most likely on his way out at the end of the season, regardless of what transpires on the field in 2009. Only a miraculous scenario would have Campbell here next year, and I think most would agree with that assessment. So if "upside" is defined as present value and future potential, Campbell is the one that has Zero.

3 - Collins is the only QB on the roster that has a proven track record with a record of 4-1, averaging over 20 points per game when he plays. He is prepared to step in and start right now, and offers more immediate value on the field, IMHO.

4 - Collins could easily have at least one more year in the tank after this year, and possibly 2 more years. If he out performs Campbell (which wouldn't be hard to do at this point) he could be the short term starter and transition guy at QB that will provide stable production and a chance to WIN NOW, while we develop or attain a long term solution to replace him ... and we could do this now, without tossing another season down the drain for a guy who WILL NOT BE HERE NEXT YEAR.

Maybe this is too complex to understand .. but I think it should be pretty easy to grasp.

^ HUH?????

I don't get it.

RayNAustin wrote:NEVERTHELESS, he is still being "TREATED LIKE" the franchise QB by continuing to run with him as the starter regardless of how poorly he plays

So by this standard, the Bear's "Franchise" QB before Orton and Cutler was REX GROSSMAN!!!!!

You're too funny

Campbell has never experienced the kind of pass rush pressure that Collins was exposed to in that game ... NEVER

Uh...did you forget the Steelers game last year? 7 sacks, and getting hit on nearly every play? Although he was under tremendous pressure in the Seahawks game, it wasn't the same. Collins was only sacked three times.

Also while Collins had 260 yards and 2 TDs, he also had 2 INTs that were returned for TDs. Why don't we just say that Collins threw for 4 TDs that game

So Ray, over 71% of the voters voted this was Campbell's last year with us. A margin of 43%. By comparison, Obama who's win was apparently devastating, won by about 7%. That JC is about to go was SIX times that margin.

Yet you have apparently united pretty much everyone in a forum that is not spreading the JC love that starting a career backup over him in the first game is actually a pretty stupid idea.

Does that make you reflect at all that maybe you're just a little bit out there on this one?

By this mentality, Chase Daniel should start. He's proven THIS YEAR that he can perform at a high level. Aren't CAPS really COOL?!

One thing to keep in mind regarding Collins' "magic" run in 2007.

He was running an offense he knew better than everyone else alive with the exception of his coordinator, who designed it.

As soon as you disconnected Todd Collins from the Al Saunders offense, you see what he really is.

RedskinsFreak wrote:One thing to keep in mind regarding Collins' "magic" run in 2007.

He was running an offense he knew better than everyone else alive with the exception of his coordinator, who designed it.

As soon as you disconnected Todd Collins from the Al Saunders offense, you see what he really is.

A good backup to have on the team?

PulpExposure wrote:

Campbell has never experienced the kind of pass rush pressure that Collins was exposed to in that game ... NEVER

Uh...did you forget the Steelers game last year? 7 sacks, and getting hit on nearly every play? Although he was under tremendous pressure in the Seahawks game, it wasn't the same. Collins was only sacked three times.

Also while Collins had 260 yards and 2 TDs, he also had 2 INTs that were returned for TDs. Why don't we just say that Collins threw for 4 TDs that game

Thanks Pulp,... you're right .. my bad .. but it does illustrate my main point precisely ... given that the Redskins couldn't score a single TD in that game even though we started our first two possessions inside Steeler territory and couldn't get the ball moving. And those two set up 3 pointers were our only scores of the game...we were shut out for the next 55 minutes. I think that proves my point that had Campbell been playing in that playoff game instead of Collins, we would have been shut out.

Yeah, Campbell got sacked 7 times (and we'd probably see that 4 of them were because of his slow decision making and holding the ball forever)... BUT We got 5 sacks on the Steelers and they still managed to score 23 points.

Fact is, the Steelers o-line was worse than ours all year (49 sacks), and they WON the Super Bowl. Aaron Rogers was sacked 34 times and had a great year .. Matt Cassel was sacked 47 times and did pretty well too, so I think blaming the o-line for Campbell's failures is not a reason, just an excuse, and getting worn out.

Irn-Bru wrote:

RedskinsFreak wrote:One thing to keep in mind regarding Collins' "magic" run in 2007.

He was running an offense he knew better than everyone else alive with the exception of his coordinator, who designed it.

As soon as you disconnected Todd Collins from the Al Saunders offense, you see what he really is.

A good backup to have on the team?

Not based on his struggles we've seen in any offense not named Saunders.

RedskinsFreak wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

RedskinsFreak wrote:One thing to keep in mind regarding Collins' "magic" run in 2007.

He was running an offense he knew better than everyone else alive with the exception of his coordinator, who designed it.

As soon as you disconnected Todd Collins from the Al Saunders offense, you see what he really is.

A good backup to have on the team?

Not based on his struggles we've seen in any offense not named Saunders.

That's not obvious in the least. In fact, the reverse seems more true: he's played well for D.C. as a backup.

Irn-Bru wrote:

RedskinsFreak wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

RedskinsFreak wrote:One thing to keep in mind regarding Collins' "magic" run in 2007.

He was running an offense he knew better than everyone else alive with the exception of his coordinator, who designed it.

As soon as you disconnected Todd Collins from the Al Saunders offense, you see what he really is.

A good backup to have on the team?

Not based on his struggles we've seen in any offense not named Saunders.

That's not obvious in the least. In fact, the reverse seems more true: he's played well for D.C. as a backup.

Collins was a suitable fill in for JC in Al's offense but in Zorn's version of the WCO Todd is at best a back up. A game and a half at most if Campbell goes down, then "the Danny" will break the bank or mortgage the future to find a replacement (that more than likely won't fix the WCO) to finish out the season. As far as who's on a leash - there isn't a short on at Redskin Park. JZ can go wth Jason for 16 games as long as he gets at least 8 wins, even if he doesn't he'll be able to hold on to his job, by blaming "the Danny" and Vinny for screwing up JC then failing to get a QB in the process.

I actually think Campbell will have a good year and surprise most here on the board.

RayNAustin wrote:you're right .. my bad .. but it does illustrate my main point precisely ...

Even when you're wrong it just proves all the more how right you were!!!!

Notice as preseason progresses so does the amount of people that answer this poll

langleyparkjoe wrote::lol: Notice as preseason progresses so does the amount of people that answer this poll

Isn't that logical? The longer a poll is up, the more people answer it?

Deadskins wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote::lol: Notice as preseason progresses so does the amount of people that answer this poll

Isn't that logical? The longer a poll is up, the more people answer it?

it's also getting hot and there are more people drinking the "cool aid"

Deadskins wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote::lol: Notice as preseason progresses so does the amount of people that answer this poll

Isn't that logical? The longer a poll is up, the more people answer it?

I think I put a 60 day limit on it. That means they have until about a month into the season.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:So Ray, over 71% of the voters voted this was Campbell's last year with us. A margin of 43%. By comparison, Obama who's win was apparently devastating, won by about 7%. That JC is about to go was SIX times that margin.

Yet you have apparently united pretty much everyone in a forum that is not spreading the JC love that starting a career backup over him in the first game is actually a pretty stupid idea.

Does that make you reflect at all that maybe you're just a little bit out there on this one?

yes it does. It causes me to reflect back to mid 2007 when the overwhelming majority viewed Campbell as the almighty franchise QB, in spite of his struggles to grasp the offense in his second season as the starter.

I recall pointing out his problems as being "fundamental" and not just his lack of understanding the "system". (you may research old posts if you require proof, but you remember.. I know you do!), I was one of the very few (maybe the only one) who thought we should consider a change back then. However, majority opinion contended it was the entire offense ... o-line ... short receivers ... play calling that was the problem then, and not Jason Campbell. The predominant view then was that Jason's star potential was being suffocated by the inadequacies of those players and coaches supporting him. I rejected those arguments then, but for lack of tangible evidence at that point, I was completely out of touch with reality, and OF COURSE, the popular opinion was correct. What a "stupid idea" to even think about pulling Campbell.

Then ... Jason went down ... and in comes that noodle armed career back up who wouldn't even have a job save for the fact that he was the only man alive that could decipher Al Saunders gazillion page playbook. We were doomed. DOOMED without Jason Campbell ... as I recall.

Of course, Collins immediate success (2 TD's in 3 1/2 minutes in the Chicago game) was a fluke. 4 wins later, Collins finished with the highest QB rating over that period than any other QB in the NFL ... all with those too short receivers, lousy o-line and the same coaches. And a whole new set of excuses began flowing about why Collins was successful when Jason wasn't, and none of those excuses would even consider the possibility that maybe .. just maybe .. Collins was just a better QB. That "idea" was, well, "stupid".

Now, we find ourselves preparing for the 2008 season and Collins is still a noodle armed career back up, who, in Zorn's new offense, would be virtually useless. Jason Campbell was still the man, and would thrive in this new WC offense. So the notion that there should be at least a competition for the starter role was .. yet another "stupid idea".

So Jason was once again the obvious starter, by default. After a mediocre preseason, and after he stunk the joint out in NY on opening day, ole Jason, by some fluke of nature or divine intervention had three decent games in a row. And the Jason Campbell fan club roared, with fists pumping!!! Calls went out to the bronze-smiths to begin preparing Jason's bust for his future induction to the Hall, and his Pro Bowl jersey was being back ordered. But the wheels began to fall off and the Redskins 2008 season began to implode. Why? .. injuries to Portis and the o-line .. and dropped passes by lousy receivers. Sound familiar? After a 6-2 start, an almost sure lock for the playoffs went up in smoke. The Redskins offense became the NFL's version of the keystone cops, and a laughing stock. Poor, unlucky Jason was once again victim of an aging and injured o-line, just when his star was about to go super nova.

Now, here we are in 2009. The majority are now forced to concede that this is probably Jason's last chance, and last year as a Redskin. Many "Still Believe", but many others are beginning to conclude that hey were wrong, and that Jason probably isn't going to the Hall of Fame, with some even conceding that (gasp) Jason just doesn't have what it takes to be a good starting QB in the NFL.

And now, you want me to admit how wrong I've been and how stupid my ideas are? LOL Are you for real? You just never quit, do you?

Why don't you get off the fence, and take a position. Don't sit there and cover your @#$ with this "he's probably done, but he's the best we have right now" nonsense. You sound like a weatherman ... "Tomorrow partly sunny, with a chance of rain". Of course, no matter what happens, you can "claim" to be right all along. But I remember you being a member of the JC fan club. Yes I do. Now, you waffle.

Look, Campbell is most likely gone at the end of this season regardless of what happens on the field. And I take no pleasure in that. I'd rather have been totally wrong about him, and have him playing at a Pro Bowl level, because the Redskins are just a good QB away from being legit contenders. But the bottom line is Jason is what he is. A successful college QB who couldn't make the transition to successful NFL QB. Period. He happens to fall into the same category as countless others who've been drafted and failed. Get over it. Time to move on. Time to admit that wasting another season on a guy who still displays the same fundamental flaws he had in his first three years isn't likely to magically "get it" this year.

Would Collins provide the spark this team needs? I don't know. He was clearly the better QB in 2007. Old noodle arm may have left it all on the field then, but what I DO know is that Campbell has sufficiently proven that he isn't the answer. And if that idea isn't "Stupid" any longer, how could opening up the starting position to competition this year be a "stupid idea"? Why would playing the best player EVER be a stupid idea?

Oh ... because YOU SAY SO? Sorry, but you've been wrong the whole time, and making Jason the starting QB this year without competition is repeating the same mistake all over again.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:you're right .. my bad .. but it does illustrate my main point precisely ...

Even when you're wrong it just proves all the more how right you were!!!!

Think outside the box once. Consult the dictionary about being "facetious".

The Steelers game cited clearly showed that under pressure, Campbell folds like a lawn chair, and can't put points on the board unless conditions are "ideal" i.e. he has all day to stand in the pocket, which of course, rarely happens in the NFL.

Two errors by the Steelers in the first minutes of the game GAVE the Redskins two FG's. Campbell and the Offense was IN FACT SHUT OUT.

RayNAustin wrote:Why don't you get off the fence, and take a position. Don't sit there and cover your @#$ with this "he's probably done, but he's the best we have right now" nonsense. You sound like a weatherman ... "

I have taken a clear position. I'll recap since apparently I need to do that in each of the 5 or so simultaneous discussion on this since I get the same points ignored in each one.

JC is our best alternative now. We have a potential monster D and with the O-line looking good (so far) and our young receivers looking like they may give our QB more then two targets we have a chance to go somewhere even with a mediocre QB who isn't improving very much. He's better then Grossman.

TC was a sub in the system that suited him most of his career and based on a few games success starting in that system you're projecting he can play well in one that doesn't suit him. Sure Ray, that's an argument. At least you're not arguing for the long shots, I agree if that were my choice I'd pick TC while we're alive any day of the week.

As for the future, I am saying JC is not going to stay because unless to Freak's point the owners opt out of the collective bargaining agreement and change free agency from 4 years to 6 we never make an agreement with him. Assuming he doesn't vastly improve this year, I'd be fine with keeping him as long as we start working on the starter now, I'm predicting it won't happen because I don't think he'll improve enough to justify the money he would want. I think he'd turn down equivalent starting money from other teams to stay, but I think he'd turn down equivalent backup money from us to leave.

So other then taking your position that we should dump a mediocre starting quarterback for a career backup in another system, what exactly am I blowing in the wind about, Ray? I'm arguing with your TC group, the bush league group (Colt & Chase) and the JC is our guy group at the same time with the same position. JC now yes, next year no. No blowing in the wind, Ray.

RayNAustin wrote:Two errors by the Steelers in the first minutes of the game GAVE the Redskins two FG's. Campbell and the Offense was IN FACT SHUT OUT.

To be fair, I don't think Dan Marino in his prime would have done much against the Steelers that night. That's one of the best defenses of all times, and it pretty much kicked our butts up and down the field in all facets of the game. They were playing so fast and loose it was ridiculous. After the game, a few Steelers friends said that's the best they'd seen their defense play all year...and that says something.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:TC was a sub in the system that suited him most of his career and based on a few games success starting in that system you're projecting he can play well in one that doesn't suit him.

Not to mention the last time that he was a starting QB, he was pretty terrible (55.5% completions, 12 TDs, 13 INTs, 69.5 passer rating). He got kicked out of Buffalo for Rob Johnson, after all...

RayNAustin wrote:Consult the dictionary about being "facetious"

Ironic, you know when you're joking about a point and can't tell when your joke is used to mock that your whole argument that a career backup in another system should be starting is being "facetious"...

BTW, thinking "outside the box" is meant to be a term used to create ideas you can then support with reason and facts, it's not meant to be an excuse to ignore them.

PulpExposure wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:Two errors by the Steelers in the first minutes of the game GAVE the Redskins two FG's. Campbell and the Offense was IN FACT SHUT OUT.

To be fair, I don't think Dan Marino in his prime would have done much against the Steelers that night. That's one of the best defenses of all times, and it pretty much kicked our butts up and down the field in all facets of the game. They were playing so fast and loose it was ridiculous. After the game, a few Steelers friends said that's the best they'd seen their defense play all year...and that says something.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:TC was a sub in the system that suited him most of his career and based on a few games success starting in that system you're projecting he can play well in one that doesn't suit him.

Not to mention the last time that he was a starting QB, he was pretty terrible (55.5% completions, 12 TDs, 13 INTs, 69.5 passer rating). He got kicked out of Buffalo for Rob Johnson, after all...

Actually the WCO does suit Collins well. Bill Walsh devised its short passing attack because he was dealing with a weak-armed QB. I'm not saying he is the man for the job, just pointing out that he is a fit for this system.