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

All this Collins talk is nonsense. No way do you start a 36 year old qb that has been in the same system for 10 years. For all those people clamoring for Collins, he looked even worse than Campbell did during the preseason. Whether or not JC earned the job is immaterial. The bottom line is that he is the only qb on our roster that has the potential to be a long-term solution. That is why he is starting and Collins isn't. And don't even bring Colt Brennan into this discussion. He wouldn't even be able to execute basic plays against a first team NFL defense. He hardly ever even took snaps from under center at Hawaii with the run and shoot style offense that they ran. Maybe in a few years he can be a second string qb.

SkinsFreak wrote: That's not the whole story. Damn dude, you don't quit.

No I don't....not when I keep hearing the same lame excuses and outright falsehoods like:

1) Campbell has had to deal with so many systems, and hasn't had enough time to get comfortable - TOTAL NONSENSE, AND UNTRUE, every game he has started the past two years was under the same one system...ALL OF THEM. So you can declare otherwise as often as you want, but it doesn't make it true. So why don't you quit? Stick to the facts.

SkinsFreak wrote:We were in a must win situation and the coaches opened up the play book. They did not employ the same offense at the end of the season similar to the conservative offense used at the beginning. If you think the QB change was the only difference, then perhaps the 2 eyes and 2 braincells are lacking from someone else. Just saying it here doesn't make it so.

I'm having a hard time buying the idea that midway through the Bears game (when Campbell went out) the coaching staff decided that this was the ideal time to open up the playbook with a cold back up QB coming in to see his first regular season action in a decade. But if you say so, of course it must be true. And let's just say for the sake of argument, that's what happened. Why do you suppose they were so conservative for 3/4 of the season? The coaches didn't want to win those games too? Or could it be because they didn't trust Campbell....because he turned the ball over on average of twice per game? That's right, 24 turnovers in 12 games. And 9 times out of 10, he missed the open play down field, so I could see why they might be a bit hesitant to open it up if that is in fact true. I believe that the coaches are smart enough to understand when something isn't working, so they try a different approach. The offensive play calling wasn't holding Campbell back, it was Campbell's poor performance and execution that required training wheels to be put on the offense.

And that situation is exemplified in this recent bologna of Campbell wanting to work more from the shotgun because he doesn't see the receivers very good working from under center. Is this new? NEVER HAVE I HEARD A PROFESSIONAL NFL QB SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT. That's enough reason right there to bench his lame butt. What whining nonsense from a third year player!!! Oh coach Zorn....please.....can we put some training wheels on your offense too?

SkinsFreak wrote: I don't think anyone here is surprised that Collins played well in Saunders system last year when he got his chance. Damn, he'd been holding a clipboard of that offense on the sidelines for a decade, I'd damn sure hope he knows the system.

Oh yeah? Well even Saunders was surprised...at least he said so in an interview. He said he knew he was a capable QB but NO ONE had a clue that Collins would perform so well.

And holding a clipboard and knowing the system means what exactly? He wasn't taking a darn written quiz for crying out loud. He had to go out there cold, no reps, no warning, no preparation, and execute. And he did that so well that it made Campbell as well as that all-star coaching staff look like a gaggle of fools for not playing him sooner in the year.....like maybe after a four game losing streak that was an inch away from ending the team's season early?

SkinsFreak wrote:If Collins is so talented and more skilled, answer me this...

1. With all the teams struggling at the QB position this year, why weren't there a half dozen teams trying to sign Collins this offseason when he was a free agent?

Why did the Redskins sign him? Why did the SI rate him the best backup QB in the NFL. and a quote from SI "1. Washington: Todd Collins -- The unspoken truth in D.C. is that the veteran would run Jim Zorn's offense better today than starter Jason Campbell, who I still think might struggle in his transition to the West Coast style attack. It was Collins, not Campbell, who orchestrated the Redskins' four-game late season winning streak and wild-card playoff berth last year."

And why wasn't there a bidding war for Favre amongst all those desperate teams?

2. Why has Collins never been awarded a starting QB job in his entire career?

He was the starter in Buffalo, so that statement is false. And the rest of his career was behind Trent Green. That's a good reason for him not starting. I dare say if Roethlisburger was with the Colts, I doubt they'd sit Peyton and start Ben.

3. When Saunders came to Washington, why couldn't Collins win the starting job over an inexperienced QB in Campbell?

Because the great Jason Campbell was anointed the starter by the Pope himself. There was no competition offered, then or now.

4. Why have Gibbs, a HOF coach with 3 SB's, Al Saunders, Collins OC in KC, and an ex-NFL QB in Zorn, not named Collins the starter?

Because much like many on this board, they refuse to accept that their declared "franchise QB" is a bloody bust on par with Heath Shuler. That's why.

(And just to put the upcoming BS answer to death, Zorn benching Jansen in favor of an undrafted 2nd year player in Heyer proves the coaches aren't forced to play the "sexy" or high paid guy, they are going to play the better man.)

Zorn wasn't brought in to teach Jansen how to block. The association is totally irrelevant.

5. Who has a stronger arm with more velocity on his passes?

Brett Favre, at age 37, and unlike Campbell his passes wind up in the receivers hands

6. Who has the better scrambling abilities?

My grandmother...and shes passed on now

7. Who has a longer future ahead of him?

[b] If Campbell keeps playing like he has...George W. Bush, he'll be here till January

SkinsFreak wrote: Regardless of game stats, because there are many variables to consider, I would bet my house JC has a more accurate arm than Collins, and Zorn and co. see that in practice every day.

That's pretty funny. Sound like denial in the first degree. I don't care what the stats say, I THINK otherwise therefore it is TRUE. Lends new meaning to the old saying 'who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes'. But I'd wait till spring if I were you...it's going to be a long cold winter.

SkinsFreak wrote:Are you seriously suggesting you have a better understanding of the talents of our QB's over Gibbs, Saunders and Zorn? Are these guys, who see the QB's on the field 24/7, not as smart as you are? Wow...

Who says it was EVER Saunders decision? Hell, he didn't even have free rein to call the plays as he was promised. And Zorn? Well, listening to his presser doesn't tell me that he's planning to die with Campbell.

SkinsFreak wrote:Campbell may never turn out to be a HOF QB, that's a possibility. But just as no one can say he will, you can't say he won't. RIGHT NOW, he's our best option and has earned that through his play, maybe not from last week, but what he's done over the past few years.

A possibility? A possibility? Oh yes sirree I can say it. That clown will NEVER be in the HOF. If he ever makes it to Canton Ohio, it'll be on an airplane. Wanna bet that house?

And what alternate universe did earn a starting position in? What spectacular accomplishments has he had? His 8-13 record? His horrendous 2 to 1 ratio of turnovers to touchdowns?

SkinsFreak wrote:Why not take your arguments down to Redskins Park and see if you can impress anyone there? Three experienced, well paid, highly touted coaches who have seen these QB's in practice everyday have deemed Campbell to be the better option at this point. That holds so much more weight than some armchair QB who thinks he knows it all. And to endlessly hack on fans just because they throw support for their starting QB is tiresome and obnoxious, to say the least.

Rhetorical bull. These coaches are going to be the one's that finally bench this loser, or they'll go down with the ship.

And I find it equally obnoxious to make up stories that have no truth or relevance, while ignoring that fact that no matter how much perfume you put on it, tha pig is still a pig.

CanesSkins26 wrote:All this Collins talk is nonsense. No way do you start a 36 year old qb that has been in the same system for 10 years. For all those people clamoring for Collins, he looked even worse than Campbell did during the preseason. Whether or not JC earned the job is immaterial. The bottom line is that he is the only qb on our roster that has the potential to be a long-term solution. That is why he is starting and Collins isn't. And don't even bring Colt Brennan into this discussion. He wouldn't even be able to execute basic plays against a first team NFL defense. He hardly ever even took snaps from under center at Hawaii with the run and shoot style offense that they ran. Maybe in a few years he can be a second string qb.

I'll tell you what nonsense is. Nonsense is this endless list of excuses and reasons preventing Jason from already being a two time pro bowler.

You and I have had this discussion numerous times last year. If you will recall, I was saying that we ought to give Collins a look early last year. You were the one that said (and continue to say) how much better Campbell is and how crazy it would be to play Collins.

The difference between us is that I was proven right, and still, you refuse to admit you were wrong.

I expect at some point, I'll be proven right again. And you already have your list of excuses. You can re-use all of the ones you used last year.

ZZZZzzzzzzz

They don't match receivers and qb's well. JC was a good qb for saunders system but the WR's couldnt win a jump ball downfield if their lives depended on it. Collins was efficient but still lacked the explosiveness like campbell did. Now they have the right receivers to run the quick routes of the WCO but have a qb that isn't quick enough to run it. Same thing with Collins, he can't run this thing either. Really, I think Brennan would be the best option but i'm willing to let campbell prove me wrong.

I just can't imagine a team bringing in a head coach who's system and philosophy is so clearly not right for the roster.

All our WR are short, our QB isn't right for it, etc.

The Redskins are just a badly run organization.

Maybe we ruined Campbell's development, I don't know... but I do know it's damned unfair for him to have been forced to learn all these systems, when you see Aaron Rogers and others doing well because they were coached in the same system their whole careers.

A quarterback is supposed to be drafted, then build upon his success in the system. Campbell has never gotten that opportunity and someday, a few years from now he'll get a chance with some other team and he'll kick butt.

Hmmm.... believe Ray or believe a HOF coach and a former NFL QB, the coaches paid to make those evaluations?

Hmmm... that's a tough one...

... actually, it's not that tough, I was just kidding.

I'll accept their evaluations and decisions looooooong before I'd ever consider yours. I think they are a lot more qualified and have a bit more credibility then you offer. Thanks for your input, but the coaches choice demonstrates proof that your assessment may be a weeeeee bit off the mark. Thanks for the long list of excuses for why Collins isn't starting.

RayNAustin wrote:And holding a clipboard and knowing the system means what exactly? He wasn't taking a darn written quiz for crying out loud. He had to go out there cold, no reps, no warning, no preparation, and execute. And he did that so well that it made Campbell as well as that all-star coaching staff look like a gaggle of fools for not playing him sooner in the year.....like maybe after a four game losing streak that was an inch away from ending the team's season early?

I've got to disagree with these two points. Just because he was not the starter, doesn't mean that he gets no preparation in practice. He gets plenty of prep in practice every week. He has to know the gameplan and prepare just as if he was going to start due to the very real chance that the #1 QB goes down with an injury. Did he play exceptionally well when called? You bet, but only because he prepared well during the week, and knew the system as well as Saunders.

As for the 4 game losing streak, that was not because of Campbell's lame play, as you keep intimating. The first loss of that streak was to the E-gals. In that game we had a big lead late in the game, but Sean Taylor went down with an injury, and they came back, moving through our defense like crap through a goose. Those losses were on the D, and conservative play calling by the coaches, not Campbell's performance, per se. Possibly you can blame the Dallas loss on Jason, only because he threw a pick at the end when we were attempting a comeback, we wouldn't have had to make had ST been playing. This is my problem with Jason. He doesn't seem to have that spark, call it luck, call it fate, call it karma, that allows a QB to bring his team back on a final drive. He has never done that. Someone, and often it's him, always makes a costly mistake that kills that final drive.

RayNAustin wrote:

roybus14 wrote:The bottomline is this, Jason Campbell and this team has not had the benefit of being in one system long enough to even get it. The closest was the playoff we had a few years ago then Gibbs goes and get's the 700-page playbook when it was clear that this team was comfortable running his offense.

Bull. They had all of 2006 and all of 2007.....two full seasons running Saunders offense. Campbell couldn't get it together, and every excuse under the sun was given except blaming Campbell. He gets hurt, and Collins comes in cold, and immediately the offense starts working and we won 4 in a row....and won them handily, two of which were against the Giants and Cowboys.

If we had not changed coaches, Campbell's poor play so far would be blamed on the receivers again, or the o-line, or the alignment of the stars, or whatever.

The real bottom line is that the offense revolves around how well or how badly the QB plays. All anyone needs is two eyes and two brain cells to see whats wrong with the Redskin offense......the same players that won 4 in a row last year to make it to the playoffs are on the field now....the only difference is Campbell.

Bull2. Look at the resumes of the guys that have run Al Sanders' offense at the QB position with Trent Green being the most successful. These guys had time to develop plus had great O-Lines to allow for effective running game. Nobody is trying to make excuses for JC but name another QB with the same amount of experience that JC has that has been successful switching offenses basically every other year? As far as Collins is concerned, I expected him to do well at the end of last season in Sanders' system. Hell, he's been in it longer than JC's pro and college career. So he should know it in his sleep.

Now we change offenses yet again and you have a veteran like Collins struggling himself with the WCO. So what makes one think that Campbell will not either? No matter what anybody says, no other young QB has dealt with what JC and this team is dealing with and been successful.

Let's take JC out of the equation for a second and look at the whole team. Now look at the Cowboys, Patriots, Eagles, Giants, Steelers, Colts, Chargers, and the other top teams in this league. Now compare their front office's and the changes that have been made over the past 2-4 years with those organizations.

Dallas - Hired Wade Phillips to coach a team that was built by Parcells. Not much has changed the schemes or players.

Patriots - They been the same since winning their first one with Brady. Picked up players here and there and plugged them in.

Eagles - Nothing has changed except players.

Giants - Stuck with Eli; Coughlin mellowed; couple of draft picks, strahan retired, and injuries.

Steelers - New Coach but they are pretty much the same offense and defense.

Colts - Same; Peyton running the offense;

Chargers - Got rid of Marty hastily but they didn't change their philosophy much on defense and added Norv who is a very good coordinator (not coach).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Us - past 2-4 years
Gibbs comes back; we run his offense and GW's defense with some success; make playoffs

Gibbs decides to ride Brunell too long not giving JC a sniff to get any experience;

Gibbs changes the offense after we got on a roll at the end to make the playoffs to the 700-Page Play Book; players balk so it's not well received; defense stays the same under GW;

Rides Brunell too long again and finally gives JC a shot with the 700-Page playbook;

Sanders tries to tweak JCs mechanics; Sean Taylor passes...R.I.P.; JC is hurt, Collins get's us into the playoffs;


Gibbs, Williams and Sanders are out for a new coach but when we can't get one we promote the new OC Jim Zorn;

Zorn installs the WCO; we draft two WRs (that have looked like busts so far) and a TE we probably didn't need; acquire J.T. from the Fins; don't invest one of those high picks into the OL or DL; Zorn preaches quick tempo and we get to the line with 10 more seconds left on the clock in the preseason but barely get to the line in time in the first game of the season;


Now.... We can crucify JC and even Zorn all we want but they are not the problem. What has made those teams I mentioned successful is stability. Yes some have had coaching changes but their systems were not seriously altered like ours have been nor did they have coaching changes just about every other year or two. They have stability and continuity. That wins games and championships not a bunch of new offenses in 3 years. Gibbs bought some of that back but he was a shell of his former self and didn't have what he had before to get this team where it needed to be. He doubted himself too much and gave up the offense after a successful run at the end of the previous season. Do you blame a young QB for being cautious in an environment that appears to be unstable? If JC is truly struggling them what is being done to help him adjust? Cassel is no Brady in NE but Belicheck and his staff I'm sure, will make the necessary adjustments to ensure that Cassel can do what he needs to do and they be successful. That's what good teams do....

Stability and continuity killed a many a team...

I've said it time and time again, Collins success hinged on his intricate knowledge of Al's system. His knowledge allowed him to not think (this is what Jason does). Todd knew where everyone should be and could check down without a second thought. This is a benefit of being groomed in ONE OFFENSE FOR MANY YEARS (a luxury that Jason will not have with this franchise).

Another thing that Todd had going for him is that nobody had film on him. Nobody new his tendencies or weaknesses. That is one (one...as in one of many but still a main factor) reason why those chikins were able to complete dismantle the offense in the playoffs.

Todd will not have the same level of success in the WCO as he did in Al's system last year. Honestly, Todd was dumb for not following Al IMHO. Todd may fare a bit better than Jason because he hasn't been ruined by retarded coaching (scared to make a mistake and just play the game).

Zorn cannot quit on JC because he made a commitment to him and his words are all he has right now with the players. Zorn cannot toss JC under the bus and expect to keep his locker room intact.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I've said it time and time again, Collins success hinged on his intricate knowledge of Al's system. His knowledge allowed him to not think (this is what Jason does). Todd knew where everyone should be and could check down without a second thought. This is a benefit of being groomed in ONE OFFENSE FOR MANY YEARS (a luxury that Jason will not have with this franchise).

Todd will not have the same level of success in the WCO as he did in Al's system last year. Honestly, Todd was dumb for not following Al IMHO. Todd may fare a bit better than Jason because he hasn't been ruined by retarded coaching (scared to make a mistake and just play the game).

Agreed!!!

Maybe we should have Flacco train up JC, then... he actually won his 1st game.

JSPB22 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:And holding a clipboard and knowing the system means what exactly? He wasn't taking a darn written quiz for crying out loud. He had to go out there cold, no reps, no warning, no preparation, and execute. And he did that so well that it made Campbell as well as that all-star coaching staff look like a gaggle of fools for not playing him sooner in the year.....like maybe after a four game losing streak that was an inch away from ending the team's season early?

I've got to disagree with these two points. Just because he was not the starter, doesn't mean that he gets no preparation in practice. He gets plenty of prep in practice every week. He has to know the gameplan and prepare just as if he was going to start due to the very real chance that the #1 QB goes down with an injury. Did he play exceptionally well when called? You bet, but only because he prepared well during the week, and knew the system as well as Saunders.

As for the 4 game losing streak, that was not because of Campbell's lame play, as you keep intimating. The first loss of that streak was to the E-gals. In that game we had a big lead late in the game, but Sean Taylor went down with an injury, and they came back, moving through our defense like crap through a goose. Those losses were on the D, and conservative play calling by the coaches, not Campbell's performance, per se. Possibly you can blame the Dallas loss on Jason, only because he threw a pick at the end when we were attempting a comeback, we wouldn't have had to make had ST been playing. This is my problem with Jason. He doesn't seem to have that spark, call it luck, call it fate, call it karma, that allows a QB to bring his team back on a final drive. He has never done that. Someone, and often it's him, always makes a costly mistake that kills that final drive.

Well I don't agree with your disagreement . Collins certainly knew the plays (he's a study junky too-nickname rainman) because of the years in the system no doubt, but his preparation last year was due to his own work ethic as much as anything...and you you are add libbing a bit here. Backup QBs each week study and run the opposing offense for defense preparation for games, while the starter takes all of the reps for the offense. So, to say Collins ran Saunders offense in practice every week for years wouldn't be an accurate statement at all. That's just not the way it works.

But it's true that Collins was brought in originally because he knew the offense. His job really was to help Brunell and Campbell learn it, and to provide a viable backup. He never was even a remote consideration to become the starter, then or now, and Campbell never played a down running Gibbs offense, so the only system Campbell has ever run for the Redskins is Saunders, until this year.

Though it's reasonable to say that new offensive systems take time to learn, Brunell put up 31 points and 36 points back to back in games 3 and 4 with Saunders new offense in 2006. So again, I'll say it shouldn't take 2 years for Campbell to learn it. In the 9 games Brunell started in 2006, he put up 22 points or more in 5 of them, but as we all know, the defense dropped from the top 10 to 31st in 2006. Contrast that with Campbell who failed to score 20 points in 5 out of 7 games started in 2006. Only the last two games of 2006 did Redskins put up decent offense, and the 31 points against the Rams in week 16 wasn't really Campbell and his mediocre numbers (13 of 26 for 160 yards and 1 TD) that did it.

Sorry if you don't like numbers, but numbers are facts as opposed to opinions. In 21 starts for Campbell, the Redskins have scored 24 or more in only 4 of them. Contrast that with Collins 4 starts in which 3 of them were 24 or more, and the other 22 points. (the 22 point game was that monsoon night in NY where Manning only put up 10 points and had a completion percentage of like 35-40 %.

So you can analyze it anyway you want. Those are the facts. The consistent theme here is that Campbell has trouble putting points on the board, and only 1 game in 21 has he put up exceptional numbers (34 points) and that was against the defenseless pathetic Lions.

When you take all of the FACTS into consideration, including the inordinate number of turnovers that Campbell brings to the party, along with his inability to put points on the board, and an 8-13 record as a starter, the rest of the numbers mean nothing.

And you know what they say about "excuses: right?

The latest RED FLAG from Campbell (as if there aren't enough already) is this nonsense about him not liking to play from under center because he can't see receivers unless he's playing from the shotgun. Great. Can't throw an accurate deep ball. Holds the ball too long which causes sacks. Fumbles the ball more often than not when sacked. Locks onto receivers like a heat seeking missile....and now he wants to tell every defense in the league that he can't throw unless he's in the shotgun formation.

Oh yeah....Campbell has amazing potential. Potential to be the biggest knucklehead ever to QB the Redskins.

Of course, of the two choices, Collins 4-1, and Campbell 8-13, clearly Campbell is the best option. Why or how you can come up with that conclusion is certainly not based on the facts.

The facts show Campbell sucks. My opinion is that it will continue.

Tell us how you really feel about Campbell, Ray.....

Seriously, Ray you make some interesting points and the numbers do not lie but I will take pause on JC because he is in situation that none of his younger QB peers and even those veterans in their past have had to face as a young QB.

Ray, you might very well be dead on about JC but I will not completely kill the guy because he didn't have the benefit of playing and developing as a starter in one system over time. I think that JC is better than Eli but we can't really say that because of the numbers and the fact that the Giants stuck with Eli from the start in the same system We probably won't really know and JC will be gone and us let wondering what could have been?

Numbers analyzed out of context mean nothing. As many posters have said before, this team has been a model for managerial incompetence the last decade. Campbell has lived through this mess the last four years.

Surely the first 21 games of other QBs resemble Campbells? Of course you have your Ben Rothlisbergs and Bradys, that are an exception to the rule, but I can assure you that, even without looking at the numbers, those first 20 games of other QBs are also unnimpressive.

I don't know what this love with Collins is about. He came in and did a very good job last year and helped lead the Redskins to the playoffs, but Al Saunders is gone and a completely new offense is in place now. His comfort level has to be gone.

To be honest, I'd rather have Colt Brennan come in and play QB if something were to happen to Campbell. I don't think Collins would be able to thrive in this offense at all.

El Mexican wrote:Numbers analyzed out of context mean nothing. As many posters have said before, this team has been a model for managerial incompetence the last decade. Campbell has lived through this mess the last four years.

Surely the first 21 games of other QBs resemble Campbells? Of course you have your Ben Rothlisbergs and Bradys, that are an exception to the rule, but I can assure you that, even without looking at the numbers, those first 20 games of other QBs are also unnimpressive.

First, nothing I posted is out of context. It's just pure facts compiled over two years and 20 games Campbell has started. The fact is, for every 1 win, we can expect 2 losses with Campbell. Those are the numbers. We can also count on 2 turnovers for every TD. Funny how those numbers compare, isn't it?

Furthermore, I posted a list of 30 QB and their stats for the first 2 years. The majority (ones that remain starters in the NFL) have done MUCH better in their first 20 games. Those that didn't are no longer around.

Ah yes, those fun little things known as facts. Sooo, you like facts, do ya?

I like facts too. When used accurately and in the proper context, they can really help sell a point. Ahh, facts....

Gee.... here's a neat little FACT I came across...

[fact] Jason Campbell is the starting QB for the Washington Redskins. [/fact]

Don't believe that neat little fact? You can check it if you want, it's true... really.

Ahh facts, gotta love em'.

SkinsFreak wrote:

hailskins666 wrote:campell didn't EARN anything.

he is in the position he is in, because snyder has to have SOME return on his investment.

hey skinsfreak, i hear that there are still j campell jersey's for sale at redskins.com. he would love for you to show your support. (so would snyderatto)

I believe he has, at least from the standpoint of our current QB roster. And the excuses for Collins are just that... excuses. Talent trumps all in this league. If Collins had the talent, he'd be starting and I'd be backing him.

You and a few others seem to be missing my general point... my instincts are to believe the coaches, not some armchair QB's on a message board.

Excuses for Collins? He played great. He needs no excuses. The coaches didn't hit those TD passes, and neither did the system. Collins did it, with his weak arm. Campbell is the one who needs excuses.

Your instincts? Your beleifs? That's what I should believe instead of what I see with my own eyes?

I hate to break the news to you, but Campbell isn't the only "questionable" personnel decision made by the previous regime, in case you have amnesia.

And Zorn didn't "choose" Campbell, Zorn is stuck with him until the organization puts the teams best interests ahead of their massive egos.

If Campbell was a 5th round pick, or his name was Mark Brunell, ALL OF YOU would be calling for execution...and not just benching.

And for the record, I happen to like Colt more than JC, I posted about Colt before the draft. It's just that I believe Colt needs to sit and learn a while and JC is our better option... at this point.

It's funny actually, I agree with Gibbs and Zorn, not the perpetual nay sayers, and I'm the one, along with the coaches, who has it all wrong. That's a good one.

Hey hailskins, sure would love to see you wear a Collins jersey to a game. That would be a hoot, I can hear the jokes now. [/quote]

hailskins666 wrote:GM anyone? if our front office could even half way tell their ass from a hole in the ground, zorn wouldn't be coach, and they would have hired a coach to fit the players. gibbs spent four years building a round peg, and snyderatto in their infinte wisdom decided to try to shove it in a square hole by hiring zorn. (zorn may be a great coach at some point, he seems like a smart guy, but he was NOT the best fit for the redskins)

i just ordered one of these to ship to redskins park. i'll send a card too, the card reads "2 + 2 ain't 5 either, jackasses"


maybe it will help....

I agree with most of your assessment. The one thing I'm not on the same page about is hiring a coach to fit the players. Once Zorn was hired as OC they painted themselves into a corner and a smart coach, HELL, ANY STUPID COACH could see that we didn't have the personnel to run the WCO, but Dannyboy has to make a splash. I think he needs more attention than TO or Chad Ochocinqo. They are trying to fit square pegs into round holes and Snyder is the squarest peg there is.

Thundersloth wrote:Once Zorn was hired as OC they painted themselves into a corner and a smart coach, HELL, ANY STUPID COACH could see that we didn't have the personnel to run the WCO, but Dannyboy has to make a splash. I think he needs more attention than TO or Chad Ochocinqo.

Seriously? You think hiring Jim Zorn is making a splash?

Throwing 15 million a year at Cowher would have made a splash. Hiring an unknown like Zorn...not so splashy.

welch wrote:Sure. I wish Snyder (and Cerrato?) had hired Williams and kept Saunders. I never understood why Zorn got the job, unless he interviews well. So did Norv Turner.

Unfortunately, that means nothing now.

Zorn is the coach, and I hope he knows how to fix the problems on offense, because there seem to be so many. We'll see.

He got the job because he was the convenient choice not neccassarily the right choice. If I remember correctly, wasn't Zorn shocked that he got interviewed for the head job? Didn't he actually leave the interview to put on a coat and tie because this offer was so unexpected, or am I just imagining it?

roybus14 wrote:Bull2. Look at the resumes of the guys that have run Al Sanders' offense at the QB position with Trent Green being the most successful. These guys had time to develop plus had great O-Lines to allow for effective running game. Nobody is trying to make excuses for JC but name another QB with the same amount of experience that JC has that has been successful switching offenses basically every other year?

What total nonsense. Are you telling me that Jason Campbell hasn't had a running game? In that 4 game losing streak last year, Betts ran for over a 100 yards every game....in fact over 150 yards in two of them. More illegitimate and nonsensical excuses, and again....every game Campbell has started in 2006 and 2007 was the same system. Why do you all keep talking like he's had 4 systems? That was college.

roybus14 wrote:Let's take JC out of the equation for a second and look at the whole team. Now look at the Cowboys, Patriots, Eagles, Giants, Steelers, Colts, Chargers, and the other top teams in this league. Now compare their front office's and the changes that have been made over the past 2-4 years with those organizations.

Dallas - Hired Wade Phillips to coach a team that was built by Parcells. Not much has changed the schemes or players.

Are you for real? Talk about revisionist history. I'll have you know that Romo's first year starting was excellent. The Cowboys then brought in Jason Garrett with a new offense the very next year. Romo's 2nd year? Better than his first, and a trip to the pro bowl. Two years, two systems, and lights out fantanstic. Campbell (as much as it pains me to say) can't shine Romo's shoes. And this is coming from a long time cowboy hater.

Patriots -Tom Brady (6th round pick) Immediately successful....didn't need 3 years of grooming and learning one system

Eagles - McNabb 2nd year 21 TD's 3rd year 25 TD's

Giants - Stuck with Eli; Eli sucks almost as bad as Campbell. Id rather have RIVERS and so would the Giants

Steelers - Big Ben, immediately successful (no 3 year grooming, he knew how to comb his own hairl) and rookie of the year.

Colts - Manning immediately successful, 28 TD's in his rookie year...no grooming and learning for 3 years.

Chargers - Rivers immediately successful, and continues to be, even with a new system and our old retread coach

roybus14 wrote: If JC is truly struggling them what is being done to help him adjust? Cassel is no Brady in NE but Belicheck and his staff I'm sure, will make the necessary adjustments to ensure that Cassel can do what he needs to do and they be successful. That's what good teams do....

Stability and continuity killed a many a team...

What should we do for Campbell? They put training wheels on Saunders offense and he still could not get it together in two years. Now they're talking about how he is uncomfortable lining up under center????? That's what NFL QBs do!!!! If he wants to line up in the shotgun, BECOME A PUNTER, and the side benefit would be he only has one play to learn.

Contrary to all of the bogus claims that it takes years to groom an NFL QB (totally untrue) here is a sample list of those that somehow were born with a familiarity with their new teams offense:

Tom Brady, first year, instantly successful

Ben Roethlisberger first year 98.1

Peyton Manning, second year 90.7

Tony Romo first year 95.1

Jeff Garcia second year 97.6

Kurt Warner first year 109.2

Philip Rivers first year (4 games experience) 92.0

Mark Brunell first year (2 games experience) 82.0

Marc Bulger first year 101.5

Carson Palmer second year (13 games experience) 101.1

Chad Pennington first full year (3 games experience) 104.2

Steve McNair first year (4 games experience) 90.6

The facts are, almost all really good QB's make an impact by their 2nd year or sooner. There are the rare exceptions to that rule, as in all rules.

You all however want to recreate reality and have it become truth that only the rare exceptions don't require years of grooming. That's flat out false.

Poor poor Jason Campbell has been handled with kid gloves...protected from criticism like a child.....given the benefit of the doubt when there wasn't any doubt about why he fumbled..what caused the interception....and who's fault for the overthrown passes.....

Yes, it was a great conspiracy comprising the entire team of midget receivers and lazy lineman and an evil FO that set out from day one to ruin Jason's rightful place in the NFL history books.

So, like the Redskins starting QB position Jason did nothing to earn, we should just ignore the stats and the losses and the lack of production, and vote Jason into the Hall of Fame now, cuz God knows, if it weren't for all those different systems, and all of those pigmy receivers, Jason would have made it on his own....no doubt about it.

SkinsFreak wrote:Ah yes, those fun little things known as facts. Sooo, you like facts, do ya?

I like facts too. When used accurately and in the proper context, they can really help sell a point. Ahh, facts....

Gee.... here's a neat little FACT I came across...

[fact] Jason Campbell is the starting QB for the Washington Redskins. [/fact]

Don't believe that neat little fact? You can check it if you want, it's true... really.

Ahh facts, gotta love em'.

Wow. What brilliance. Where's my shades? Seems to be the only fact you are interested in though. If you think that fact is good, you should try more of them......

But if you can't beat em with facts, you can baffle them with bull.

Thundersloth wrote:HELL, ANY STUPID COACH could see that we didn't have the personnel to run the WCO

Seriously? Do you just throw it out and hope it sticks. Come on, man.

I understand there's been some hesitation regarding Campbell fitting a WCO. But the fact remains he had his most successful year, in his entire football playing career, playing in a WCO. Until he fails in this system, the history is in his favor. And if he does fail, Colt Brennan has the arm and the mobility needed in a WCO, probably why Zorn wanted him. Colt threw a lot of passes in college and had a 70+ completion percentage.

Portis had his best days playing in a WCO in Denver. Sellers is an outstanding FB, a staple position in a WCO. Both Portis and Betts, even Sellers, are good receivers out of the backfield.

"WCO" systems also rely on agile running backs that catch the ball as often as they run.

ey is a Pro Bowler. We drafted the top TE in the draft this year in Davis. He's a very talented TE, he looked great in preseason. TE's are also prevalent features in a WCO.

Many think larger, taller receivers are the only type to have in a WCO. That's true, but only to an extent. We did draft Kelly and Thomas, so we have big receivers that covers that area. But smaller, faster receivers, like Moss and ARE, are just as critical and vital components in a WCO.

The West Coast offense requires sure-handed receivers comfortable catching in heavy traffic, and the system downplays speedy, larger receivers who are covered easily in short yardage situation. One result has been the longevity of receivers in the West Coast system (such as the notable Jerry Rice) because a decline in speed is not as harmful, when, in "stretch the field" systems, a receiver who loses a step is a major liability.

So looking at our offensive roster, even a half-wit could recognize we have enough skill players to run a WCO.