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

IMO JC may be the last victim of our previous sins. By sins I'm referring to the constant turn arond/turnover and basic lack of stability that plagued this franchise for more than a decade.

If you look at the top tier QB's in this league, what do they all have in common? Stability. Peyton has had the same OC for 11 years I believe. Brady, same HC... McRibb, has stability. Brett had stability. Hassleback, Eli (don't hate), David Garrad (Jags)...

Stability, consitency throughout... The JC doubters/haters/Colt lovers(I like the kid a lot) harp on Jason's inability to get the ball out quickly. It's a fact. Jason is thinking too much, he's double checking, second guessing... ANd that's to be expected. Wake up time people!

Not only is it his 1st year in the offense, it's his 200th offense in the past 10 years. I'm sorry but if he fails, it's not entirely on him. This franchise is not a conduit for success. The enviroment in which these players are thrust is often set for failure. Turnover, new OC's, new playbooks, terminology and routes every year is not going to grow a QB. Jason is going to have to unlearn everything that's been plugged in by Joe, and then Don Breaux, and then Al, and then Al & Joe and then garner 100% comfortability in a new offense in just a few weeks to appease an overly critical fan base that refuses to understand the predicament that he's been thrown into...

I'll tell you what, if things don't change, our promising Colt Brennan will be in the same boat, facing the same unrealistic goals.

Now, I've been pleased and satified with the direction in which this franchise seems to be moving but time will only answer certain questions. If Zorn fails to make the playoffs for 3 years, do we toss him away because we want to win now? Will we finally give a HC and players enough time to mature in a system, master it and then evaluate them. We can't continue to do that. We have to buckle down and say that we're going to ride this thing out thoroughly.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we've been "winning now" for the past decade. And we'll continue to "win now" without a Lombardi or any resemblance of consecutive winning seasons if we don't not change this habit.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:IMO JC may be the last victim of our previous sins. By sins I'm referring to the constant turn arond/turnover and basic lack of stability that plagued this franchise for more than a decade.

If you look at the top tier QB's in this league, what do they all have in common? Stability. Peyton has had the same OC for 11 years I believe. Brady, same HC... McRibb, has stability. Brett had stability. Hassleback, Eli (don't hate), David Garrad (Jags)...

I'm sorry, but I can't take it. This is totally misrepresented. All of the QB's mentioned put up good numbers in their first and second years under those systems too. And just to correct the record, is it not true that the Packers fired their entire coaching staff in 2000, and again in 2006? Didn't Brett Favre have a new system under Mike McCarthy starting in 2006, where the packers went 21-11 in the past two years? And is it not true that Romo has had 2 OC's in his only 2 seasons starting? (Unlike Campbell, Romo's first year was outstanding...the Cowboys brought in Garrett and Romo got even better? Manning? No QB in the league has had the pressure Manning has had....NY traded the damn farm for him...and he underperformed when everyone demanded that he be Payton Manning? Didn't the NYG as a team almost mutiny in NY in 2006? Wasn't McNabb being called out by his top receiver, with rumors of him being traded and the fans calling for the trade?

What a load of bull. Campbell has been treated with kid gloves. Had he been playing in NY or Philly, HE"D BE PARKING CARS FOR A LIVING NOW, if they didn't stone him to death.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Stability, consitency throughout... The JC doubters/haters/Colt lovers(I like the kid a lot) harp on Jason's inability to get the ball out quickly. It's a fact. Jason is thinking too much, he's double checking, second guessing... ANd that's to be expected. Wake up time people!

I said this in another thread, but in case you missed it.....every regular season game Jason Campbell has started (second half of 2006, and 2007) has been under the SAME SYSTEM. Al Saunders installed his system when Brunell was the starter.

So there is only two possibilities here. 1) Jason Campbell is as dumb as a box of rocks, because he couldn't learn Saunders system after 20 starts and a year and a half 2) he failed to improve and correct his deficiencies (holding the ball too long...missing open receivers...staring down receivers...fumbling when he is hit) which, by the way, was the rub on him in college too.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Not only is it his 1st year in the offense, it's his 200th offense in the past 10 years.

The past two years (which is all that counts) he's played in ONE system...20 starts...one system....and he digressed in 2007, instead of improving.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I'm sorry but if he fails, it's not entirely on him. This franchise is not a conduit for success. The enviroment in which these players are thrust is often set for failure.

In this we agree. This club is it's own worst enemy, and toughest opponent. Contrary to the political bull and the smoke blown up everyone's arse about continuity, we made the playoffs last year and what do we do? New HC (didn't have a choice on that one) new OC and new DC. Every lead coach retired or fired.

What should have happened? GW-Head Coach. Al Saunders OC- Todd Collins starting QB until Jason Campbell or someone else beat him out of the job.

We took the only real successful coach (GW) of the bunch and fired him. We took the only successful QB and we benched him and fired the OC. And you complain about stability issues?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I'll tell you what, if things don't change, our promising Colt Brennan will be in the same boat, facing the same unrealistic goals.

He has been facing the same issues, plus it's his first MONTH in the NFL compared to Jason's 4 years. And he's handled it all much better.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
Now, I've been pleased and satified with the direction in which this franchise seems to be moving but time will only answer certain questions. If Zorn fails to make the playoffs for 3 years, do we toss him away because we want to win now? Will we finally give a HC and players enough time to mature in a system, master it and then evaluate them. We can't continue to do that. We have to buckle down and say that we're going to ride this thing out thoroughly.

Wait a minute....didn't we try that with Norval Turner? 7 years...49-59-1 record. That didn't seem to be the answer either. How soon we forget.

And didn't the Redskins win a Super Bowl in Gibbs SECOND YEAR, and returned to the big game the following year?

The problem I see with the Redskins is that you are more likely to be fired for being successful than for failing. Just ask Marty. Didn't Marty go 6-2 in his final 8 games only to be fired after just one year? Then Spurrier presided over two losing seasons....but he wasn't being fired...he just quit.

Then we have Gibbs II, who after 4 years still couldn't manage the game clock or get plays in on time or feild a team that could score....but we did have an excellent defense that carried the team for 3 of those four years and we fire the defensive coach (as well as disrepect him in the process).

We have a backup QB who comes in cold and saves the season for us last year and takes us to the playoffs...what do we do? We bench him. We don't even allow him to compete for the starting position the following year.

So the moral to the story it seems is....don't you dare be successful with the Washington Redskins unless your resume is polished up....but if you SUCK, and stink the joint out, the Redskins will find someone other than you to blame it on, and fire them.

Your sunny optimism is going to make this season fun, personally I hope you're right and that JC sucks because that will make this year so much more tolerable. Why hope for success when we can wallow in frustrating mediocrity for 16 games?

agreed everyone is forgetting they put up good numbers there first year too. I don't see anyone talk about lack of stability when Ramsey was Qb. The bottom line is if ur good, than u will play well. This stability thing is a crock, JC does not have it. Collins does well and we bench him. Marty does well in his first year we fire him. The problem is when a player does well we don't reward him, its not stability. Brett Favre will be fine in New York, that stability thing is a bunch of crap, BIg Ben went 15-1 while learning a new system and was a rookie.

A whole year and a half in the same system... wow. He got a whole extra half year out of one of his last 7 offenses?

That's awesome and obviously the guy should be able to pick things up way more quickly. The problem couldn't possibly be that there's so little stability here that NOBODY ever seems to get the time to learn a system INTIMATELY. There's a HUGE difference between LEARNING an offense and knowing it so well that it becomes second nature IMO.


Whether you like Jason or not, there is absolutely NO way that the number of offenses and plays he has had to learn shouldn't at least be mentioned and considered. That doesn't give him a pass forever, but it certainly allows him the grace of settling into a season under a new coach and not having to worry about any mistake costing him his job. Especially when arguably the most important cog in our offense (Clinton Portis) isn't even really playing.

If you think that's a healthy environment - that's your prerogative. But in a game that depends so much on confidence and at a position that absolutely requires it, I think its irresponsible to just discount something as monumental as AGAIN learning a new system.

I would bet that Zorn does too.

But if we want to start discounting things that might affect the offense like say, a running game, or constantly changing ofensive systems for EVERYONE, that's cool, go ahead...you'll just never find any common ground with people not willing to make such leaps.

I just think that right now, he's still our best option. It may not be perfect, but it is what it is. Collins has looked to be having just as tough a time in the new offense as JC has to me, and I'm just NEVER going to see a rookie QB that has played against basically scrubs as our best option on opening day.

John Manfreda wrote:BIg Ben went 15-1 while learning a new system and was a rookie.

Totally different situation. Ben came to an already established team that had had the same coaching staff for ten years before he got there. They had a dominant running game. All he had to do was not turn the ball over. He wasn't asked to go out and win games, just not lose them. If Campbell had come into a similar situation, the results would have been the same.

JSPB22 wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:BIg Ben went 15-1 while learning a new system and was a rookie.

Totally different situation. Ben came to an already established team that had had the same coaching staff for ten years before he got there. They had a dominant running game. All he had to do was not turn the ball over. He wasn't asked to go out and win games, just not lose them. If Campbell had come into a similar situation, the results would have been the same.

Haha, BIg Ben does not hold on to the ball too long, he does not lock down on one receiver, he does not make stupid turnovers. JC was on a playoff caliber team and went 5-6 the results would have been the same.

BossHog wrote:A whole year and a half in the same system... wow. He got a whole extra half year out of one of his last 7 offenses?

That's awesome and obviously the guy should be able to pick things up way more quickly. The problem couldn't possibly be that there's so little stability here that NOBODY ever seems to get the time to learn a system INTIMATELY. There's a HUGE difference between LEARNING an offense and knowing it so well that it becomes second nature IMO.


Whether you like Jason or not, there is absolutely NO way that the number of offenses and plays he has had to learn shouldn't at least be mentioned and considered. That doesn't give him a pass forever, but it certainly allows him the grace of settling into a season under a new coach and not having to worry about any mistake costing him his job. Especially when arguably the most important cog in our offense (Clinton Portis) isn't even really playing.

If you think that's a healthy environment - that's your prerogative. But in a game that depends so much on confidence and at a position that absolutely requires it, I think its irresponsible to just discount something as monumental as AGAIN learning a new system.

I would bet that Zorn does too.

But if we want to start discounting things that might affect the offense like say, a running game, or constantly changing ofensive systems for EVERYONE, that's cool, go ahead...you'll just never find any common ground with people not willing to make such leaps.

I just think that right now, he's still our best option. It may not be perfect, but it is what it is. Collins has looked to be having just as tough a time in the new offense as JC has to me, and I'm just NEVER going to see a rookie QB that has played against basically scrubs as our best option on opening day.

we thought JC was our best option last year too. Personally I don't think Colt should start. But he should be held accountable for his mistakes. People shouldn't be making exscuses saying its the receivers fault when he overthrows somebody. First its the receivers fault, now its the system, yes I am gonna be critical when we might start blaming good players for his mistakes.

JSPB22 wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:BIg Ben went 15-1 while learning a new system and was a rookie.

Totally different situation. Ben came to an already established team that had had the same coaching staff for ten years before he got there. They had a dominant running game. All he had to do was not turn the ball over. He wasn't asked to go out and win games, just not lose them. If Campbell had come into a similar situation, the results would have been the same.

Ah!! So now Campbell is as good as Roethlisberger, minus a good team to help him? Have you no shame man? You're just going to make' it up as you go also? Look, this is how it's gonna work....nothing personal...but if anyone thinks they're going to just make stuff up and not get called on it, think again.

In 2003, the Steelers finished 6-10. They were 22nd in total offense (one spot behind the power house offense of the Ravens at 21st, and one spot better than the Redskins at 23rd), and that dominant rushing attack you referred to was 31st, one better than the league worst, Detroit Lions.

The only truth in your entire statement was that the staff had been together for a long time, though I fail to see the significance of that as it pertains to one player's execution or lack thereof. So NO, your statement is false.

Using your own logic as an argument, it is Campbell, not big Ben that should have been hugely successful given that the 2005 Redskins (the year before Campbell started) finished 10-6...went to the playoffs, and finished 11th in total offense and 7th in rushing. But it's not that simple is it?

Now in all fairness, the 2006 Redskins played poorly across the board, and in hindsight, it was a mistake for them to make a major change in the offense after 2005, just when they started getting it together. And both Brunell and Campbell experienced difficulty with Saunders offense. To be honest, I didn't think Campbell did all that badly in 2006 under the circumstances. He didn't set the world on fire, but his personal performance was decent to moderately good, and encouraging.

The problem came in 2007. Campbell didn't improve as one might expect. He actually regressed. So if familiarity with the system was truly the problem, you would have expected the opposite. The defense was tremendously improved in 2007 (so that wasn't the issue). But if we had nothing else to draw a comparison to, Campbell's performance in 2007 would be pure opinion and speculation. But we do have something more. Collins performance. And his impact on the offense was both immediate, as well as dramatic., so much so, that the Jason Campbell fan club have been scrambling ever since trying to come up with excuses for it.

The main excuse was Collins familiarity with Saunders system. That too is total bunk, because Collins never started a single game running Saunders offense, as compared to Jason's 20 games of practical, live game experience which should at least offset some of that 4 years of Collins clipboard expertise. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Now, here we are in 2008, and Jason Campbell fans can thank God that there is a "new system" that can be blamed for Jason's continued poor performance. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...or that Rookie who is making Campbell look just as bad this year as that tired old career backup QB did last year. Mere coincidences.

Of course, I know what to expect now from the JC fan club:

Ray: what a cloudy dreary, rainy day it is today

JCclub: No it's not. It's a beautiful sunny day.

Ray: But don't you see those dark clouds right there?

JCclub: Yeah...but look...there....no a little to the right...there's the sun

Ray: But it's pouring down....cats and dogs? You're getting soaked

JCclub: So?

Ray: So it isn't a bright sunny day, damn it.

JCclub: oh sure it is. just wait....give it time, you'll see.

Fios wrote:Your sunny optimism is going to make this season fun, personally I hope you're right and that JC sucks because that will make this year so much more tolerable. Why hope for success when we can wallow in frustrating mediocrity for 16 games?

I prefer to look at it differently. Why continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results?

Expecting the worst and hoping for the best may seem rather pessimistic to you...but to me, expecting the best when all the evidence suggests otherwise seems rather foolish to me.

Safety can only be attained by the Ostrich once he realizes that no matter how deeply he buries his head, his arse is still in trouble.

Campbell vs. other young qb's in rating last year had him behind Cutler, Anderson, Romo, Big Ben, probly forgetting someone, but also above a whole lot of qbs, including Eli by a ton. He was middle of the pack overall. He wasn't exactly terrible in Saunders system, and he wasn't working with much. If he can hit cooley with no problem, the other receivers have to be screwing up somewhere. He has looked bad under Zorn so far, and really only Brennan looks somewhat comfortable, but it is important to remember that we have no effective WR's, and a line that is susceptible to injury and the pass rush, and now a new system. The offense will have growing pains, they won't put Brennan in no matter what, and it may be ugly this year.

And perhaps you should check some of the other important statistics when comparing Eli and Jason.....like 23 TD to Jason's 12.

Last time I checked, points were kinda important, especially when you lose 3 or 4 games by less than 7....those extra points might be the difference between 8-8 and 11-5.

I think that might be important. Don't you?

RayNAustin wrote:And perhaps you should check some of the other important statistics when comparing Eli and Jason.....like 23 TD to Jason's 12.

Last time I checked, points were kinda important, especially when you lose 3 or 4 games by less than 7....those extra points might be the difference between 8-8 and 11-5.

I think that might be important. Don't you?

i'm not sure you can put all that on the qb. we don't have an effective receiver over 5-10. That's why the term "red zone target" exists. Qb rating is a pretty effective stat, but i agree, its not the be all end all. I was just saying that is wasnt like Campbell was terrible last year.

RayNAustin wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:BIg Ben went 15-1 while learning a new system and was a rookie.

Totally different situation. Ben came to an already established team that had had the same coaching staff for ten years before he got there. They had a dominant running game. All he had to do was not turn the ball over. He wasn't asked to go out and win games, just not lose them. If Campbell had come into a similar situation, the results would have been the same.

Ah!! So now Campbell is as good as Roethlisberger, minus a good team to help him? Have you no shame man? You're just going to make' it up as you go also? Look, this is how it's gonna work....nothing personal...but if anyone thinks they're going to just make stuff up and not get called on it, think again.

In 2003, the Steelers finished 6-10. They were 22nd in total offense (one spot behind the power house offense of the Ravens at 21st, and one spot better than the Redskins at 23rd), and that dominant rushing attack you referred to was 31st, one better than the league worst, Detroit Lions.

The only truth in your entire statement was that the staff had been together for a long time, though I fail to see the significance of that as it pertains to one player's execution or lack thereof. So NO, your statement is false.

Actually Ray, the statistics totally back my contention. Not the ones from 2003, which you cited, but the ones from 2004, when Ben Roethlisberger was actually on the team. In 2004, Pittsburgh ranked #1 in total defense, #2 in rushing offense (a figure I would call dominant), yet #28 in passing offense (Wow! BR was really great, wasn't he?), for an overall offensive ranking of #16. The 6-10 to 15-1 turnaround was not because of BR, it was in spite of him.

I have a hard time believing you didn't see these numbers when you were looking up your 2003 stats, trying to discredit my post. You remind me of the Bush administration cherry-picking intelligence to defend your predefined conclusions.

Do you really believe that Jim Zorn doesn't know more about playing QB in the NFL than you? If he says Campbell is our best QB at the moment, how can you argue with that? He says, and anyone with eyes would agree, that Colt Brennan is making throws right now, that would not be successful against 1st string defenses in the NFL. Collins looked worse than either of the other two in pre-season as he struggles to learn the WCO, just further proof that last year's success had everything to do his familiarity with Al Saunders offense, and not his skill as a QB.

JSPB22 wrote:
Actually Ray, the statistics totally back my contention. Not the ones from 2003, which you cited, but the ones from 2004,
when Ben Roethlisberger was actually on the team. In 2004, Pittsburgh ranked #1 in total defense, #2 in rushing offense (a figure I would call dominant), yet #28 in passing offense (Wow! BR was really great, wasn't he?), for an overall offensive ranking of #16. The 6-10 to 15-1 turnaround was not because of BR, it was in spite of him.

I have a hard time believing you didn't see these numbers when you were looking up your 2003 stats, trying to discredit my post. You remind me of the Bush administration cherry-picking intelligence to defend your predefined conclusions.

JSPB22, you seem to be a pretty sharp fellow, and no matter how much I disagree with your points on Campbell, I'd never liken anyone to that monkey face destroyer of lives and countries. Those are some pretty ugly insinuations, and you should take them back.

Anyhow, I cited the 2003 statistics SPECIFICALLY because and in direct context with your CLAIM that - "Ben came to an already established team that had had the same coaching staff for ten years before he got there. They had a dominant running game. All he had to do was not turn the ball over. He wasn't asked to go out and win games, just not lose them"

The operative phrase here is - already established team hence my citing of the Steelers team stats the year prior to Ben Roethlisberger's presence for which it is my contention (contrary to yours) that he was RESPONSIBLE for much of that offensive dominance given the Steelers poor performance in 2003.

Moreover, your claim that Ben joined a team with a DOMINANT running game is proven untrue based on the fact that they were next to last in the NFL in rushing the year before Ben joined the team. Ben's ability to pick apart opposing defense's secondaries in 2004 was responsible for this huge production surge in their running game.

Your statement "(Wow! BR was really great, wasn't he?), for an overall offensive ranking of #16. The 6-10 to 15-1 turnaround was not because of BR, it was in spite of him." Roethlisberger had a QB rating of 98.1 for 2004 (which is great, and a number that Campbell will never even sniff) and he was unanimously selected as the NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year. I don't think the facts support your claim that the Steelers won in spite of Ben the boat anchor QB.

A hand full on this board have trouble with context. I DO NOT. I try to respond IN CONTEXT. And I know EXACTLY WHAT YOU are TRYING TO IMPLY with your citing the 2004 stats. You are trying to imply that Ben was the beneficiary of a power house Steelers team in 2004. The citing of the Steelers 2003 stats the year before Ben was on the team shows that THEY WERE NOT A POWER HOUSE TEAM IN 2003 as you declared, and suggests that Ben was in no small measure RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR SUCCESS in 2004.

After all, that is what we are debating here isn't it? That Rookies can't, and shouldn't be expected to perform....that they need 3-4 years of grooming before being expected to produce?

The entire Steelers 2003-2004 stats only serve to support MY position, NOT YOURS.

Roethlisberger, AS A BLOODY ROOKIE went undefeated, and in his second year took the Steelers to the Super Bowl. Campbell hasn't managed to complete passes to open receivers consistently yet.

That IS THE POINT.

brad7686 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:And perhaps you should check some of the other important statistics when comparing Eli and Jason.....like 23 TD to Jason's 12.

Last time I checked, points were kinda important, especially when you lose 3 or 4 games by less than 7....those extra points might be the difference between 8-8 and 11-5.

I think that might be important. Don't you?

i'm not sure you can put all that on the qb. we don't have an effective receiver over 5-10. That's why the term "red zone target" exists. Qb rating is a pretty effective stat, but i agree, its not the be all end all. I was just saying that is wasnt like Campbell was terrible last year.

Going 8 games without a TD to a WR is terrible. And Santana Moss was what...2nd in the league in 2005 with Brunell throwing to him? He was terrific. Last year, AND I"LL SAY IT AGAIN, Tod Collins didn't seem to be aware of the fact that we didn't have effective receivers? They seemed pretty effective for him.

Sorry Ray, I take back the Bush remark (I knew that would hit you where it hurts). I was responding in anger to your insinuation that I was making up my argument out of thin air.

My dominant running game assertion was a direct reflection of their #2 ranking in that department in 2004. The established team remark was in deference to the coaching staff stability. I never argued that BR was not a good QB, just that if Jason had gone to a team that had the #1 defense (surely you can't give BR the credit for that), and the #2 running attack (more a reflection of their O-line, than BR's prowess), then he would have had similar results. The #28 ranking in passing, clearly shows that BR did not have that much to do with the great success the Steelers had in '04. His QB ranking (a stat you have railed against in this very thread) is merely a reflection of his ability to not make costly mistakes on the opportunities when he was asked to throw the ball. JC is clearly our best option at this point, so why not just get behind him?

Again, Roethlisberger was the offensive rookie of the year in 2004, and amazed everyone. To suggest that he was just a guy out there driving Pittsburgh's version of the Ferrari, asked only that he not wreck it, just isn't what actually happened. And even though the QB rating isn't the end all be all, a QB has to perform exceptionally well to achieve a 98 rating for the entire year. It shows consistency. Something Campbell has NEVER shown.

To suggest that given the same scenario, Campbell would have done equally well as Roethlisberger is at the very least, wild, unsupportable speculation. I think it's laughable. Campbell isn't anywhere close to being at Roethlisberger's level. Had this been true, the Redskins might have made it to the Super Bowl last year.....because that is all that was missing....a top tier QB.

Honestly, I would LOVE to see Jason have a breakout year, and I'd gladly EAT ALL OF MY WORDS. I'd have no problem with that at all, so long as the Redskins win, and you all can even make it a sticky for everyone to read for years to come.

Unfortunately, I see not a shred of evidence that points to this being a remote possibility. He still looks like a fish out of water, and beginning to smell.

RayNAustin wrote:Again, Roethlisberger was the offensive rookie of the year in 2004, and amazed everyone. To suggest that he was just a guy out there driving Pittsburgh's version of the Ferrari, asked only that he not wreck it, just isn't what actually happened. And even though the QB rating isn't the end all be all, a QB has to perform exceptionally well to achieve a 98 rating for the entire year. It shows consistency. Something Campbell has NEVER shown.

To suggest that given the same scenario, Campbell would have done equally well as Roethlisberger is at the very least, wild, unsupportable speculation. I think it's laughable. Campbell isn't anywhere close to being at Roethlisberger's level. Had this been true, the Redskins might have made it to the Super Bowl last year.....because that is all that was missing....a top tier QB.

OK, so there are 32 teams and a few truly great QBs, some even do well as rookies. You can name some of them, well done. So what? Almost every team has to groom quarterbacks over several years to get them decent and even then it's iffy as so many of them still suck. JC may be in that category, may not. But again the ODDS are a lot better with him then our alternatives. No one thinks he's the next Joe Montana. He's smart, got a great arm and we've invested in bringing him along. Joe thought he was the best option as does Jim. If he's a disappointment this year you'll find a lot different tone at the end of the year. But running him down in pre-season with no viable alternatives is just pointless.

The Tribe has spoken. Thanks. Alot of interesting points......

I AGREE WITH YOU A 100%. CARSON PALMER,DEREK ANDERSON, JAY CUTLER AND MANY QB'S ALIKE GET HIGH PRAISES FOR HAVING DONE NOTHING FORGET THE NUMBERS WIN SOME BIG GAMES CONSISTANTLY THEN YOU GET THE HONORS JUST REMEMBER EVERYONE IN N.Y. WANTED ELI'S HEAD ON A PLATTER BEFORE THE SUPERBOWL WIN SO JUST GIVE CAMBELL A CHANCE

alceazy wrote:I AGREE WITH YOU A 100%. CARSON PALMER,DEREK ANDERSON, JAY CUTLER AND MANY QB'S ALIKE GET HIGH PRAISES FOR HAVING DONE NOTHING FORGET THE NUMBERS WIN SOME BIG GAMES CONSISTANTLY THEN YOU GET THE HONORS JUST REMEMBER EVERYONE IN N.Y. WANTED ELI'S HEAD ON A PLATTER BEFORE THE SUPERBOWL WIN SO JUST GIVE CAMBELL A CHANCE

Welcome alceazy. But you don't have to shout. We can all hear just fine.

When Campbell over throws receivers when there open, how is that the system's fault? When Campbell throws into double coverage instead of throwing it away how is that the system's fault? I am sorry I am not buying into this system crap.

John Manfreda wrote:When Campbell over throws receivers when there open, how is that the system's fault? When Campbell throws into double coverage instead of throwing it away how is that the system's fault? I am sorry I am not buying into this system crap.

That and a buck-fifty will get you a cup of coffee. Jim Zorn's opinion is the only one that matters, so rather than bitch about it, why not get behind him and hope he does well.