SkinsFreak wrote:
I understand you like to compare JC to some of the best QB's the game has ever seen, and especially QB's in completely different systems, but those comparisons hold little value without caveats of objectional perspective. Your prejudice against Campbell has existed for quite a long time, so expecting recognition or acknowledgment of improved play is something we already know won’t happen from you. But as others have said, what do you think your 978,854,245 posts bashing Campbell are going to change? What’s the point? It’s like the worlds oldest broken record player… broken record player… broken record player… broken record player. The coaches have reviewed the tape and obviously disagree with your nonprofessional opinion.
First, I haven't been comparing Campbell to some of the best QBs directly. Any comparisons I've made in that area revolve around one thing ... that being their relative performance in the first three years of their careers. That point is the counter point to the 928,455 posts claiming how most of the good QBs take at least 3 years to develop. A point that is directly contradicted by facts as proven by the vast majority of good QBs success much earlier, historically speaking.
Secondly, during the early 4 game stretch (weeks 2-5) I was quick to personally admit that perhaps my assessment of Campbell was wrong ... that it appeared Campbell had finally turned the corner. And I was happy to do so, because I'm far more interested in the Redskins being successful that I am ME being right. The only caveat to that was that he needed to "maintain" that level of play for more than 4 games. By all means, look up those posts if you don't believe me. Unfortunately he didn't, and his decline began long before o-line injuries and top defenses of the second half of the season came into the picture. It started in week 6, and continued to digress not just against the Steelers and Ravens defenses, but against the Browns and the Rams and the Bengals "powerhouse" defenses too.
SkinsFreak wrote:Here's another glaring fact you fail to comprehend, but one that has been recently discussed by industry professionals like Herm Edwards and a few on the NFLN, specifically regarding to which teams might be a good fit for Cutler.
They've said, if you break it down, there are basically two types of teams in this league that incorporate two fundamentally different philosophies, and therefore require different disciplines from their respective QB's.
On one side, you have teams with weaker defenses, and therefore emphasize high powered offenses. Those teams need gunslingers at QB to put up a lot of points to offset the amount of points their weaker defenses will give up. They understand that turnovers will be more frequent in that type of offense, but need to continue throwing the ball downfield to score a lot of points. Examples are teams like the Colts, Saints, Cardinals and Broncos, among others.
On the other side, you have teams that emphasize strong defenses. With that philosophy, the team doesn't need to incorporate a QB with a gunslinger mentality, rather a QB that limits turnovers and manages the game. Examples would be teams like the Ravens, Vikings, Titans and Panthers.
With all due respect to the "experts", I choose to form my own opinions based on facts and my own observations rather than allowing someone else tell me what to think based on theirs.
And here are the documented facts. In 2004, both New England and Philadelphia were the AFC and NFC representatives in the Super Bowl. Both teams ranked in the top 10 on both offense and defense. In 2005, Pittsburgh, the Super Bowl Champs ranked in the top 10 in both points scored and points allowed, as did their counterpart the Seahawks. In 2007, the Super Bowl Champ Colts, almost universally recognized as an "offensive" powerhouse team actually ranked 5th on offense, and 3rd on DEFENSE.
It wasn't until this past season that this trend was broken with the Steelers being a top defense and middle of the road offense against a top offense with a middle of the road defense. And one year is not a trend.
I think if you look back even further, you'll see that the best and most competitive teams are more often than not strong on both sides of the ball when it comes to both points scored and points allowed, with some exceptions. One exception could be the 2000 Baltimore Ravens which clearly rode their defense to the Super Bowl. But in the Super Bowl they did score 34 points against a 5th ranked NYG defense.
SkinsFreak wrote:The Skins ranked 4th in total defense and their offense had a very strong running attack. Therefore, their offensive philosophy doesn’t incorporate or require a gun slinger. So trying to compare Cutler and Campbell, two QB's that played in two completely different set of circumstances with completely different team philosophies is, for the most part, a baseless comparison. If Campbell played for Denver, he’d have increased numbers by slinging the ball all over the place as Cutler did.
That is pure speculation on your part, and far more "baseless" given Campbell's demonstrated ineffectiveness throwing anything longer than short possession type throws, not just last year, but the previous year as well when he repeatedly failed to connect down field. Or perhaps you don't remember the Redskins going almost an entire half of a season in 2007 without a single TD pass to a WR? To suggest that he didn't have the opportunities that Cutler had in 2008 to rack up better passing and TD stats might be true to some extent, but it just might be that coaches tend to steer away from what is NOT working. Campbell is very likely a victim of his own inability to execute a deeper passing attack, and not a victim of an overly conservative philosophy that focuses on running. Denver did throw more (7.9 more) passes per game than did the Redskins, but conventional wisdom suggests that a good running attack actually helps the passing game.
Conversely, ... the Chargers threw less (29.9 /g) than the Redskins (31.9/g) and still scored 34 passing TDs to the Redskins 14. The Chargers rushing attack wasn't far off of the Redskins either. Rivers ability to make plays down field and maximize his scoring opportunities is what made the Chargers offense so successful ... not the number of opportunities given him.
And of course, in 2006, Al Saunders offense was supposed to crank up the offensive numbers from a too conservative Joe Gibbs version, and we all know now how well that worked out.
SkinsFreak wrote:Nevertheless, Campbell and the entire offense has room for improvement. Just about everyone here has acknowledged that. The team averaged just 12.5 points a game in the second half of last season, so clearly they need to improve on that. The team has said they are committed to developing and incorporating the young receivers, so that, in itself, should help Campbell and the passing game.
Ya think? Yes, 12.5 points per game does suggest room for improvement. But I disagree with the idea that either rookie receiver is capable of turning those paltry numbers around significantly. First, you'd have to conclude that the lack of production was largely the fault of the receivers to begin with. And I don't. Secondly, you'd have to conclude that the two rookies are that much better than the current starters, and I certainly saw no evidence to suspect that this could be true either. Please identify to me what evidence supports your high expectations?
SkinsFreak wrote: Zorn’s version of the West Coast Offense doesn’t require a gun-slinging QB. Zorn’s version emphasizes short to intermediate passing with occasional downfield attempts, so he needs a QB that can manage the game and limit turnovers. Campbell can do that. I do, however, expect them to take more shots downfield, and based on Zorn’s post-season comments, I believe he recognizes that as well. The development and use of Thomas and Kelly, bigger WR’s, will help that. This coming year will tell the story and I’m cautiously optimistic the offense and Campbell can be effective.
I actually like Campbell, think he has tons of potential and I'll be fully supporting him this coming season. I don't know what will happen, but I believe the ship is heading in the right direction. I actually think they're closer than some here may recognize…
This was the predominant theory coming into 2007 with Al Saunders high power down field offense, and again in 2008 with that the WC offense that would open things up offensively and help Campbell fulfill his "Potential". I had my doubts about Campbell being a proper fit for the WC given that the skills for successfully executing the WC style revolves around quick reads and decisions and accurate throws .. the very areas Campbell has consistently shown weakness. I was right, at least in the results we all witnessed last year ... though all of the Campbell "apologists" are loath to admit that for a second, even in the face of the worst offensive performance in recent memory.
Furthermore, my 9 gazillion, broken record, broken record responses (as you label them) are just that ... responses to the 9 gazillion threads and comments which continue to make the same, lame excuses for Jason Campbell's poor results as a QB. You only consider MY opinion so monotonous because you disagree with it, while not considering with the other, equally monotonous broken record posts you do agree with.
Of course, I'm the "Biased" one, and you are totally "objective" and "unbiased"?
Well of course you are both unbiased and right, and eventually, no matter how many years it takes, you're willing to wait until the facts finally agree with you, as they surely will some day.
How ironic you'd say such a thing.
And there you have it, folks, right there in black and white. It doesn't matter what the PAID PROFESSIONALS think or say, RayNAustin forms his opinions based on his own observations.
But next, you call into question the length of his passes? Which is it, short passes or long passes that he doesn't do well?