Official QB switch? Thread

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:22 pm

Are YOU serious??? What to you think a quarterback controversy is? Trust me, it's not about reporters running around, looking for juicy quotes (although that is part of it). It's not about NFL commentators saying "Campbell just doesn't have it", although that's part of it. It IS about fans arguing over who should be the Quarterback...

Seems to me that we have that. Or... are you pretending that it's not happening?

Unfortunately, I happen to agree with you about Jason. It's stupid to consider a switch. There SHOULD be no controversy. REALITY, however, is that there IS a controversy. Pretend all you wish, it is there, and the only thing that will change that is a Pro Bowl performance by Campbell next year.

I can't just let inane comments pass, however. The fact is, there are no noises of disatisfaction leaking from the players at Redskins park.

Where we disagree is your opinion that, even if the players were not happy with him, they wouldn't say anything. That, sir, is a load of dung. Unhappy players make their opinions known. It has always been that way... and it always will.

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:35 pm

SkinsFreak wrote:For those few of you that have been lobbying for Collins, I'm just curious if you have any direct quotes from any expert, former or current player/coach or any related professional analyst stating Collins is the better, more talented QB and that JC should be benched in favor of Collins. Seriously, I'd like to see it.

And even though some of you think Jason La Canfora is an expert (at what, I have no idea) his quotes are not what I'm looking for.

Well look at the Redskins during the regular season when Collins started and look at them when Campbell has started. There you go Collins is better and the system had nothing to do with it. Brett did not struggle learning a new system, ether did Flaco or Ryan. Knowing the system does not help a Qb in any way. Its a sutpid ass myth.

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:47 pm

Countertrey wrote:Are YOU serious??? What to you think a quarterback controversy is? Trust me, it's not about reporters running around, looking for juicy quotes (although that is part of it). It's not about NFL commentators saying "Campbell just doesn't have it", although that's part of it. It IS about fans arguing over who should be the Quarterback...

Seems to me that we have that. Or... are you pretending that it's not happening?

Unfortunately, I happen to agree with you about Jason. It's stupid to consider a switch. There SHOULD be no controversy. REALITY, however, is that there IS a controversy. Pretend all you wish, it is there, and the only thing that will change that is a Pro Bowl performance by Campbell next year.

I can't just let inane comments pass, however. The fact is, there are no noises of disatisfaction leaking from the players at Redskins park.

Where we disagree is your opinion that, even if the players were not happy with him, they wouldn't say anything. That, sir, is a load of dung. Unhappy players make their opinions known. It has always been that way... and it always will.

Untill a Qb comes into the game, on the field for Jason, there is no controvesy. I have not seen anyone Qb for the Skins this year, besides the idiot starting now. Untill someone comes in for Jason, there is no Qb controversy. Stop living in dream land. Why was Sunny and Bill a controversy? Billy came in for Sunny, and played thats why, not because of a stupid message board calling for Billy to play. No one has done that this year, so there is no controversy. I wish there was a controversy, because that would mean that JC might not start. No one is doubting who is going to start against the Eagles, thats why there is no controversy. I don't know anyone that thinks JC might not start today, thats why there is no controversy. Do you really believe the crap that you type? Believe me I want a controversy, because Jason sucks, but sadly there isn't one. Now quit getting my hopes up about a Qb controversy, and the possibility of JC getting benched. Believe me I want a controversy because thats one step towards running Jason out of town, but unfortunatley there isn't one.

markshark84 · Post by **markshark84** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:56 pm

Countertrey wrote:Are YOU serious??? What to you think a quarterback controversy is? Trust me, it's not about reporters running around, looking for juicy quotes (although that is part of it). It's not about NFL commentators saying "Campbell just doesn't have it", although that's part of it. It IS about fans arguing over who should be the Quarterback...

Seems to me that we have that. Or... are you pretending that it's not happening?

Unfortunately, I happen to agree with you about Jason. It's stupid to consider a switch. There SHOULD be no controversy. REALITY, however, is that there IS a controversy. Pretend all you wish, it is there, and the only thing that will change that is a Pro Bowl performance by Campbell next year.

I can't just let inane comments pass, however. The fact is, there are no noises of disatisfaction leaking from the players at Redskins park.

Where we disagree is your opinion that, even if the players were not happy with him, they wouldn't say anything. That, sir, is a load of dung. Unhappy players make their opinions known. It has always been that way... and it always will.

We will just have to disagree here. There wasn't much said about Brunell during a time where he couldn't throw the ball 10 yards a couple of years ago. The fact is that just because people "talk" doesn't mean that Zorn is listening. He is ultimately the one that makes the decision and he has given no indication of a switch. Generally there is a QB controversy when the coach decides there is, not the media.

Like I said, the state of the media has changed and players have wised up. They are not going to pick apart JC because they know it would label them as a locker room cancer and hurt their marketability for other teams. They are no dopes. Also, JC is a likeable guy. That is part of the reason he was drafted. Why would another player put down such a nice guy? They wouldn't and that is part of the issue.

Right now, there is no controversy. In a real controversy the determination of who is starting is a week to week process. Here, this is not the case. We KNOW that JC is starting and we know that he will start for the remainder of the season. If that was not the case, I would say you have a point, but because this is the case, not so much. And therefore, there would be no point for someone to bad mouth JC. Because in reality, is he doing a good job? Is 11 points per game on offense satisfactory? Is a QB rating of 70 the industry standard for a good QB? His numbers are poor and has "lead" this team to a .500 season with a top 5 defense. That is horrible.

redskins14ru · Post by **redskins14ru** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:03 pm

Zorn can learn alot from the young qb and develop is system to his liking and the wideouts aswell as the oline will develop. To lead the skins on offense is a tough task, Jason is doing his best with what he is given, if the coach learns and the qb and offense continues to play the game then I beleive that coach will step up, there is plenty of talent sooooo the skins qb and skill guys are coachable, jason will be fine and coach will be better, that all starts this week. perfection is possible.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:23 pm

markshark84 wrote:Like I said, the state of the media has changed and players have wised up. They are not going to pick apart JC because they know it would label them as a locker room cancer and hurt their marketability for other teams. They are no dopes. Also, JC is a likeable guy. That is part of the reason he was drafted. Why would another player put down such a nice guy? They wouldn't and that is part of the issue.

Lol. Here in DC, there's a very well-paved history of players expressing discontentment, both on-the-record and off-the-record.

Didn't our most prominent player just publicly rip the head coach of the Redskins? Haven't "unnamed players" and LaVar Arrington publicly in the past ripped Joe Gibbs? Do you really think other coaches see players ripping into head coaches as less of an issue than ripping into the QB?

Come on...

markshark84 · Post by **markshark84** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 5:14 pm

PulpExposure wrote:
markshark84 wrote:Like I said, the state of the media has changed and players have wised up. They are not going to pick apart JC because they know it would label them as a locker room cancer and hurt their marketability for other teams. They are no dopes. Also, JC is a likeable guy. That is part of the reason he was drafted. Why would another player put down such a nice guy? They wouldn't and that is part of the issue.

Lol. Here in DC, there's a very well-paved history of players expressing discontentment, both on-the-record and off-the-record.

Didn't our most prominent player just publicly rip the head coach of the Redskins? Haven't "unnamed players" and LaVar Arrington publicly in the past ripped Joe Gibbs? Do you really think other coaches see players ripping into head coaches as less of an issue than ripping into the QB?

Come on...

Actually, thank you for that. You helped prove my point. with your examples. Check back a couple of pages. I said the exact same thing you do. I provide some caveats which include player vs. coach differences in the media, however. But, yes I know this and have already brought attention to it.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 5:21 pm

So... despite the fact that there are factions of fans, some in favor of Campbell, some wanting any change, some insisting that Collins should start, and some that Brennan needs a shot now, arguing within not only this thread, but in others within this site and on virtually every Redskins fan site, there is no controversy.

What do you think a controversy is?

Just to help you and your piling on bandwagon friend, this is from Webster:

Controversy
One entry found.

Main Entry:
con·tro·ver·sy Listen to the pronunciation of controversy
Pronunciation:
\ˈkän-trə-ˌvər-sē, British also kən-ˈträ-vər-sē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural con·tro·ver·sies
Etymology:
Middle English controversie, from Anglo-French, from Latin controversia, from controversus disputable, literally, turned against, from contro- (akin to contra-) + versus, past participle of vertere to turn — more at worth
Date:
14th century

1 : a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : dispute 2 : quarrel , strife

Never mind... it's clear that you are just arguing, despite your lack of a point.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 5:24 pm

markshark84 wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
markshark84 wrote:Like I said, the state of the media has changed and players have wised up. They are not going to pick apart JC because they know it would label them as a locker room cancer and hurt their marketability for other teams. They are no dopes. Also, JC is a likeable guy. That is part of the reason he was drafted. Why would another player put down such a nice guy? They wouldn't and that is part of the issue.

Lol. Here in DC, there's a very well-paved history of players expressing discontentment, both on-the-record and off-the-record.

Didn't our most prominent player just publicly rip the head coach of the Redskins? Haven't "unnamed players" and LaVar Arrington publicly in the past ripped Joe Gibbs? Do you really think other coaches see players ripping into head coaches as less of an issue than ripping into the QB?

Come on...

Actually, thank you for that. You helped prove my point. with your examples. Check back a couple of pages. I said the exact same thing you do. I provide some caveats which include player vs. coach differences in the media, however. But, yes I know this and have already brought attention to it.

You have also made the fantastic argument that players never criticize each other in the press... do you have a point?

markshark84 · Post by **markshark84** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 5:52 pm

Countertrey wrote:
markshark84 wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
markshark84 wrote:Like I said, the state of the media has changed and players have wised up. They are not going to pick apart JC because they know it would label them as a locker room cancer and hurt their marketability for other teams. They are no dopes. Also, JC is a likeable guy. That is part of the reason he was drafted. Why would another player put down such a nice guy? They wouldn't and that is part of the issue.

Lol. Here in DC, there's a very well-paved history of players expressing discontentment, both on-the-record and off-the-record.

Didn't our most prominent player just publicly rip the head coach of the Redskins? Haven't "unnamed players" and LaVar Arrington publicly in the past ripped Joe Gibbs? Do you really think other coaches see players ripping into head coaches as less of an issue than ripping into the QB?

Come on...

Actually, thank you for that. You helped prove my point. with your examples. Check back a couple of pages. I said the exact same thing you do. I provide some caveats which include player vs. coach differences in the media, however. But, yes I know this and have already brought attention to it.

You have also made the fantastic argument that players never criticize each other in the press... do you have a point?

Seriously, you need a clue. You cite a highly ambiguous dictionary definition to prove a football point and then you ask, after someone --- who doesn't agree with me --- proves what I have been saying --- if I have a point. Really? Oh and genious, the word "quarterback" is not in front of your controversy definition. The term QB controversy is a two word term and each term is linked to one another. You are REALLY trying to split hairs on this one by segregating the two and formulating a segregated definition. Come on, get real. That is the biggest stretch I have seen on this board.

Face it, my point is that there is no QB controversy because there isn't and I place my definition of a QB controversy as the same definition that everyone else besides you has (where you chose to use the dictionary :roll:

).

And this is an arguement. That is what it is. Thick, man. Thick.

I just find it so difficult to stop responding when someone comes on here and is so wrong about things. And to be honest, I don't even think YOU yourself agree with what you are saying. Because there is no logical explanation for your points.

markshark84 · Post by **markshark84** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:02 pm

Countertrey wrote:
markshark84 wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
markshark84 wrote:Like I said, the state of the media has changed and players have wised up. They are not going to pick apart JC because they know it would label them as a locker room cancer and hurt their marketability for other teams. They are no dopes. Also, JC is a likeable guy. That is part of the reason he was drafted. Why would another player put down such a nice guy? They wouldn't and that is part of the issue.

Lol. Here in DC, there's a very well-paved history of players expressing discontentment, both on-the-record and off-the-record.

Didn't our most prominent player just publicly rip the head coach of the Redskins? Haven't "unnamed players" and LaVar Arrington publicly in the past ripped Joe Gibbs? Do you really think other coaches see players ripping into head coaches as less of an issue than ripping into the QB?

Come on...

Actually, thank you for that. You helped prove my point. with your examples. Check back a couple of pages. I said the exact same thing you do. I provide some caveats which include player vs. coach differences in the media, however. But, yes I know this and have already brought attention to it.

You have also made the fantastic argument that players never criticize each other in the press... do you have a point?

To remind you, my point revolved around the fact that players would not publicly critize JC because it was not in their best interests --- providing a counter argument to the JC supporters that say he is good because the players have not critized him.

I have to say that JC is having a decent game today, but then again he has had great time in the pocket, only fumbled once, and only missed wide open receivers 3 times in one quarter.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:05 pm

What is an ambiguous dictionary definition? Looks pretty clear to me... or do you need a definition for ambiguous as well?

markshark84 · Post by **markshark84** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:07 pm

Countertrey wrote:What is an ambiguous dictionary definition? Looks pretty clear to me... or do you need a definition for ambiguous as well?

Are you serious. If you are to cite that definitioon anything woudl be a controversy. We would have a coaching controversy, ownership controversy, GM controversy, OL controvery, DL controversy. It is not precise enough.

Also a number of other NFL teams would have a QB controversy, such as Philly, who, many of their fans woudl like to see McNabb gone.

Do we have any of those controversies right now? No, we don't.

Hopefully you get this so I don't have to spell it out again for you.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:14 pm

markshark84 wrote:
Countertrey wrote:What is an ambiguous dictionary definition? Looks pretty clear to me... or do you need a definition for ambiguous as well?

Are you serious. If you are to cite that definitioon anything woudl be a controversy. We would have a coaching controversy, ownership controversy, GM controversy, OL controvery, DL controversy. It is not precise enough.

Also a number of other NFL teams would have a QB controversy, such as Philly, who, many of their fans woudl like to see McNabb gone.

Do we have any of those controversies right now? No, we don't.

Hopefully you get this so I don't have to spell it out again for you.

I believe that a 33 page thread entitled "Official QB Switch? Thread" suggests that there is.

I also believe the definition is clear... regardless the Adjective you place in front of it.

markshark84 · Post by **markshark84** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:51 pm

Countertrey wrote:
markshark84 wrote:
Countertrey wrote:What is an ambiguous dictionary definition? Looks pretty clear to me... or do you need a definition for ambiguous as well?

Are you serious. If you are to cite that definitioon anything woudl be a controversy. We would have a coaching controversy, ownership controversy, GM controversy, OL controvery, DL controversy. It is not precise enough.

Also a number of other NFL teams would have a QB controversy, such as Philly, who, many of their fans woudl like to see McNabb gone.

Do we have any of those controversies right now? No, we don't.

Hopefully you get this so I don't have to spell it out again for you.

I believe that a 33 page thread entitled "Official QB Switch? Thread" suggests that there is.

I also believe the definition is clear... regardless the Adjective you place in front of it.

Again: the fact that the website "thehogs.net" has a qb controversy thread doesn't mean there is one and for all the reasons I have stated in my past posts.

Thehogs.net also has a coaching controversy thread, but this fact, today, was debunked by the organization; therefore, because thehogs.net has a thread doesn't make it so. Please get that through your head.

And that definition is not clear because of the reasons I have stated in my prior posts.

Please try to make "counter" arguements. Thanks.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:17 pm

The problem is, the CONTROVERSY isn't just on THN. It exists in the papers, it exists on virtually every Redskins fan site, it exists wherever Redskins fans congregate.

Dude... that is what a quarterback controversy IS. It's a highly visible, often emotional debate among FANS about who should be the quarterback... It's just no more complicated than that. You seem to believe that there needs to be more than that... like an official government declaration... (Obama declares Quarterback controversy in DC... directs the Secretary of Football to initiate negotiations).

But, I'm done with it. I'll not discuss this (apparently) very complicated issue with you further.

markshark84 · Post by **markshark84** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:21 pm

Countertrey wrote:The problem is, the CONTROVERSY isn't just on THN. It exists in the papers, it exists on virtually every Redskins fan site, it exists wherever Redskins fans congregate.

Dude... that is what a quarterback controversy IS. It's a highly visible, often emotional debate among FANS about who should be the quarterback... It's just no more complicated than that. You seem to believe that there needs to be more than that... like an official government declaration... (Obama declares Quarterback controversy in DC... directs the Secretary of Football to initiate negotiations).

But, I'm done with it. I'll not discuss this (apparently) very complicated issue with you further.

I'm not really looking for a government position, but I am looking for something from Zorn or the skins front office. Neither of which has been issued. Neither Zorn nor the front office has said anything that may indicate a QB switch.

Also, the skins have 10 points entering the 4th quarter. Do you think, do you, that JC can put up more points than his awesome 11 average over the past 6 games????

brad7686 · Post by **brad7686** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:59 pm

markshark84 wrote:
Countertrey wrote:The problem is, the CONTROVERSY isn't just on THN. It exists in the papers, it exists on virtually every Redskins fan site, it exists wherever Redskins fans congregate.

Dude... that is what a quarterback controversy IS. It's a highly visible, often emotional debate among FANS about who should be the quarterback... It's just no more complicated than that. You seem to believe that there needs to be more than that... like an official government declaration... (Obama declares Quarterback controversy in DC... directs the Secretary of Football to initiate negotiations).

But, I'm done with it. I'll not discuss this (apparently) very complicated issue with you further.

I'm not really looking for a government position, but I am looking for something from Zorn or the skins front office. Neither of which has been issued. Neither Zorn nor the front office has said anything that may indicate a QB switch.

Also, the skins have 10 points entering the 4th quarter. Do you think, do you, that JC can put up more points than his awesome 11 average over the past 6 games????

Actually, thats the offense's average, not Campbell. Contrary to your belief, there are more players on the offense than Campbell. Many of which are more deserving of crticism.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:05 pm

brad7686 wrote:Actually, thats the offense's average, not Campbell. Contrary to your belief, there are more players on the offense than Campbell. Many of which are more deserving of crticism.

I do not think so. But I challenge you to name them.

There are needs at the OL. But it all starts at the QB position.

markshark84 · Post by **markshark84** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:26 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote:
brad7686 wrote:Actually, thats the offense's average, not Campbell. Contrary to your belief, there are more players on the offense than Campbell. Many of which are more deserving of crticism.

I do not think so. But I challenge you to name them.

There are needs at the OL. But it all starts at the QB position.

agreed. that is my position.

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:15 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote:
brad7686 wrote:Actually, thats the offense's average, not Campbell. Contrary to your belief, there are more players on the offense than Campbell. Many of which are more deserving of crticism.

I do not think so. But I challenge you to name them.

There are needs at the OL. But it all starts at the QB position.

Agreed, Campbell is the main problem and he must be replaced this off season, in some way.

welch · Post by **welch** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:45 pm

I saw an OL with holes, and no WR's.

Fix the OL. If the receivers can't get open and can't hold the ball, at least we can smash people.

Campbell looks OK. He's not Sonny, and not Joe T, but maybe he's a nimble Rypien. What if Rypien had had no Posse and no Hogs?

markshark84 · Post by **markshark84** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:49 pm

welch wrote:I saw an OL with holes, and no WR's.

Fix the OL. If the receivers can't get open and can't hold the ball, at least we can smash people.

Campbell looks OK. He's not Sonny, and not Joe T, but maybe he's a nimble Rypien. What if Rypien had had no Posse and no Hogs?

Man, I'll tell you that the staff here at THN sure LOVES JC. All in all, I am not looking for an "OK" QB. I want a solid one that can orchestrate an offense that can produce more than 10 points per game.

JC is no Rypien, though.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:51 pm

markshark84 wrote:
welch wrote:I saw an OL with holes, and no WR's.

Fix the OL. If the receivers can't get open and can't hold the ball, at least we can smash people.

Campbell looks OK. He's not Sonny, and not Joe T, but maybe he's a nimble Rypien. What if Rypien had had no Posse and no Hogs?

Man, I'll tell you that the staff here at THN sure LOVES JC. All in all, I am not looking for an "OK" QB. I want a solid one that can orchestrate an offense that can produce more than 10 points per game.

Yes, in our secret lair we all agree on pain of death to support him on the boards. :roll:

You've got a bold position there, markshark. You don't say: it would be better to have a stud QB than a merely OK one? My god, I hadn't thought of it like that.

I don't think that's what's being debated. The question is always: which needs are most pressing? Which needs are we capable of addressing? What can wait? What can't?

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:25 am

markshark84 wrote:
welch wrote:I saw an OL with holes, and no WR's.

Fix the OL. If the receivers can't get open and can't hold the ball, at least we can smash people.

Campbell looks OK. He's not Sonny, and not Joe T, but maybe he's a nimble Rypien. What if Rypien had had no Posse and no Hogs?

Man, I'll tell you that the staff here at THN sure LOVES JC. All in all, I am not looking for an "OK" QB. I want a solid one that can orchestrate an offense that can produce more than 10 points per game.

JC is no Rypien, though.

calling JC an okay Qb is overstatement, he is horrible. He is the wrost Qb we have had since Heath Shuler.