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

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:28 am**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
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.

Give the man a SeeGar. That's precisely my point. Several teams have really good QB's, and the rest of them waste years "grooming" QBs that will never be better than mediocre. But the point you are missing is that all of the really good QBs seem to show it much earlier on (first and second years). None of the really good ones I know of flounder for 3 years and then magically transform into fine QBs. If there are any, perhaps you can name some for me? And don't bother naming Eli Manning, OK. Eli is the mother of all enigmas, and when he retires, many will still be wondering whether he was a good QB or not. I personally think the Cowboys, Eagles and Redskins are fortunate that Eli is the QB for the Giants instead of Rivers.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:JC may be in that category, may not. But again the ODDS are a lot better with him then our alternatives.

I say the mathematical odds say that Collins (record of 4-1) is a better bet than Campbell at what ? 8-12 ?

KazooSkinsFan wrote: No one thinks he's the next Joe Montana. He's smart, got a great arm and we've invested in bringing him along.

Sure you do. You all speak of Campbell as if he is the other JC (Jesus Christ) around here. And smart? Oh yeah, he's a flipping rocket scientist isn't he. He got all the way up to page 13 of Al Saunders 700 page play book in just two short years. At that rate, he'd be 67 years old before he made it to the last page.

And his arm may be strong, but it's not even close to great. Great requires accuracy, touch, and consistency, none of which Campbell has ever demonstrated. I'm speaking of the physical aspects of the position here. That's where he continues to struggle. That he also has trouble making quick decisions only compounds the trouble, but is not the sole source of his inadequacies. Now you can rationalize why that is until the moon is blue, but at the end of the day, it has way less to do with what "system" he's asked to execute than is suggested. He had plenty of time to get comfortable with Saunders offense, so either he isn't as smart as everyone claims, or he just doesn't have that "it" that separates the good QBs from the also ran.

Campbell's numbers are firmly set in the mediocre category, and as long as the Redskins insist on making him their "franchise QB" at all costs, disappointment will be the only thing we can look forward to. And as long as the Redskins are willing to accept marginal performance from the QB position, they will continue flirting with the basement of the NFC east. The division is just too strong to expect to be competitive without an offensive play maker at the QB position. If we were in the NFC West, we might be able to get by with riding Portis like a pack mule, but not in the East.

And, very rarely do you see a team come along that is a true contender who's QB is marginal. The Ravens, for a short time had such a dominant defense, they were able to do it, but only temporarily. The Bears did it for one year. All of the rest of the real contenders have a solid QB. Peyton Manning, Brady, Romo, (last year Favre), Rivers, Roethlisberger, and not a single one of them took "years of grooming". NOT ONE.

Of course, I expect you and many others to "rub my nose in it" when Campbell rocks the NFL this year, but in the likely event that he doesn't, I'd suggest a bit more pragmatism, if I were you.

KazooSkinsFan wrote: 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.

Yes, "Joe" thought he was the best option last year, and Joe turned out to be wrong, didn't he? Or are you still unwilling to admit that?

As for what "Jim" thinks....that's hard to say. I don't think Jim knows what Jim thinks yet. He certainly can't be thrilled with Campbell's pre-season performance, but starting Campbell may be the only option he has, politically speaking. But I don't think Zorn's leash is going to be as long as Gibbs leash was regarding Campbell. If Campbell stinks the joint up over the next 5 or 6 games and we go 1-5, or 0-6, he might start leaning toward a change. I suspect Campbell has half a season to start showing him something, not the whole season. After that, I think Campbell will have either solidified his position as the starter, or Collins, and or maybe even Brennan will get a look if we are in a big enough hole by then.

Realistically, the first 8 games will tell the story of 2008. A win against the Giants (unlikely) would go a long ways in building some much needed confidence. And a 3-5 or 4-4 start would be a major victory this year. But we could also see a 1-7 or 2-6 start, and the second half of the season looks to be the toughest stretch of the schedule.

I suspect the Redskins will have to rely on Portis and the defense to keep us in games early on. Don't look for Campbell to do it. And I'm not running him down. I'm just being realistic, given what I saw from him in pre season. He looked awful. Just like he did in 2007.

What has he done that would inspire confidence or optimism? Nothing that I can see.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:05 am**

RayNAustin wrote: And I'm not running him down.

Yes you are, and at any opportunity to do so. At least have the stones to admit it.

We get it, you think he sucks. It doesn't mean that people have to, or are going to, agree with you. Many here still think he's our best option - that doesn't make him a superstar, and it hardly qualifies as the second coming of Jesus Christ.

And gee, what a surprise that we're going to run the ball and rely on defense in the NFC East. But just out of curiosity, since you obviously realize the value of the run game to us, and we didn't run much in the pre-season, you don't think using a running game (and arguably our best offensive weapon in CP) is going to help JC at all? You don't think that having Moss, ARE and CP in there affects the QB's ability to make plays?

I do.

How many balls did Cool

ey catch?

You can't just strip an offense down to nothing and not expect it to affect the overall product, and the guy held accountable for it.

And since to me, Collins looked as bad as Campbell (against 2nd stringers to boot) in pre-season, and since I'd NEVER put a rookie in at QB, I personally think that JC is easily our best option for 2008.

We get that you don't though.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:34 pm**

RayNAustin wrote:Peyton Manning, Brady, Romo, (last year Favre), Rivers, Roethlisberger, and not a single one of them took "years of grooming". NOT ONE.

You're right, not one... it was four. Romo sat for 3 and a half years before playing. Rivers sat for 2. Brady sat for a year, and only came in because Bledsoe went down. And Favre didn't play his first year in Atlanta. Of the QB's you mentioned, only Manning and Roethlisberger played their rookie season, and their numbers were good, not great.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:30 pm**

I don't think that JC sucks or should not be the QB for this team. My problem is not with JC but with the system. He's not been allowed to grow into one like the Palmer's, Cutler's, Rothliesberger's, etc., etc. has. It's always been a new system for him to have to adjust to. He has not had the luxury of coming in and starting the year in one system and then moving into the next season with the same season like these other dudes have. Plus he is now having somebody tweak with his mechanics, Ahh-gain instead of taking what they have and figuring out a way to best use what he has and does best.

I heard folks say that because he's been in all of these systems, he should be able to adjust and what not. That's a pile of bullocks. It would be a different story if JC was a veteran with at least a couple of years under his belt in one system. Remember, dude just got drafted and spend the first few years of career holding a clip board watching a coach keep a guy a starter was clearly done. Which reminds me, where is Mark Brunell at today?

And if JC's intelligence is being questioned, then he's got the right coach to deal with that. When Zorn was at Seattle, they discovered that Seneca Wallace had trouble with visual concepts, so instead of dumping him, Zorn and the Seahawks sent him to a learning lab. He's still their number 2 behind Hasselbeck and I'm sure he's improved.....

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:06 pm**

RayNAustin wrote:As for what "Jim" thinks....that's hard to say

Actually for this conversation it's easy to say. We are saying that JC is the BEST OPTION. A fact you keep ignoring and converting into we're saying JC is Brett Favre, which we're not, we're saying JC is the BEST OPTION. By that we mean he's a BETTER option then Collins or Brennen, not that he's a BETTER option then BRETT FAVRE. The point you keep arguing. Which is why it's not going over so well, a lot of people are telling you you're not addressing OUR position, you're addressing a FICTIONAL position that exists in your MIND.

So based on our ACTUAL positions, Zorn thinks JC is the BEST OPTION. Zorn has I'm sure watched every pass JC has thrown a hundred times and scouted Colt and Todd throughly and decided JC is the BEST OPTION. How do we know that, he's starting JC. Joe Gibbs, HOF, 3 time Super Bowl winner thought JC was the BEST OPTION, he didn't think he was Brett Favre either. At least he never indicated he thought that. It's not that complicated. If your plan is to just draft Brett Favre, good luck with that. There aren't that many of them. In fact there are remarkably few. Saying that's the standard, we draft Brett Favre is like the people who don't save for retirement and buy lottery tickets and plan to retire on their winnings. A few make it, the rest should SAVE. Like teams should groom QBs.

Posted: **Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:06 am**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:As for what "Jim" thinks....that's hard to say

Actually for this conversation it's easy to say. We are saying that JC is the BEST OPTION. A fact you keep ignoring and converting into we're saying JC is Brett Favre, which we're not, we're saying JC is the BEST OPTION. By that we mean he's a BETTER option then Collins or Brennen, not that he's a BETTER option then BRETT FAVRE. The point you keep arguing. Which is why it's not going over so well, a lot of people are telling you you're not addressing OUR position, you're addressing a FICTIONAL position that exists in your MIND.

So based on our ACTUAL positions, Zorn thinks JC is the BEST OPTION. Zorn has I'm sure watched every pass JC has thrown a hundred times and scouted Colt and Todd throughly and decided JC is the BEST OPTION. How do we know that, he's starting JC. Joe Gibbs, HOF, 3 time Super Bowl winner thought JC was the BEST OPTION, he didn't think he was Brett Favre either. At least he never indicated he thought that. It's not that complicated. If your plan is to just draft Brett Favre, good luck with that. There aren't that many of them. In fact there are remarkably few. Saying that's the standard, we draft Brett Favre is like the people who don't save for retirement and buy lottery tickets and plan to retire on their winnings. A few make it, the rest should SAVE. Like teams should groom QBs.

I know you get confused easily sometimes. So I'll try to be more clear.

I am not comparing Campbell to Favre. I've been saying that of the long list of QBs that I listed, the majority of good QB's don't take 4 years of grooming. OK.

Furthermore, I totally reject the contention that Campbell's difficulties lie in his having to learn new systems. That argument is tired, it's old, and it is no longer a "reason", but just an overused excuse. It might have seemed reasonable in 2006, but by week 12 of 2007, it was dead...not breathing.

I reject the idea that Campbell is the best option argument not because he isn't Brett Favre, but because of Campbell's inherent weaknesses. Clear enough?

Zorn's offense requires the QB to make more decisions more quickly than Saunders offense. More decisions on the line in reading defensive alignments, and a much shorter, less vertical passing attack that requires the QB make quick reads and get rid of the ball fast, and throw accurately, since many of those passes will be in close traffic. Considering the fact that Campbell's difficulties lie in not making decisions quickly enough, holding the ball too long, and demonstrating inconsistency in the accuracy department, that spells trouble. The skills required to run Zorn's offense are Campbell's very weaknesses. Those weaknesses that might otherwise be masked somewhat by another form of offensive system like Gibbs power running offense, will amplify under Zorn's. I think that makes Campbell a poor fit, and a major liability.

I further believe that this is not "coachable" to any significant degree. You can change mechanics. You can alter footwork. You can hone physical skills of all sorts. But you can't alter how a man's mind processes information. Campbell's style of play is a more deliberate and slower style not naturally suited for extra quick decision making.

The problems are compounded by Campbell's accuracy issues even with a slower delivery. So how do you expect to quicken the trigger and improve accuracy at the same time? When someone has accuracy issues, you generally try to slow them down a bit in order to improve accuracy....you don't expect to improve it by speeding them up. That's going to have a negative effect on accuracy. And I think it's just Campbell's nature. And you can't change who he is.

The bottom line is that Campbell, like so many successful college players before him is having serious trouble with the speed of the NFL game as it compares to college. Those that manage to adapt, usually do so by now, and those that can't rarely ever do.

Nothing....I repeat NOTHING happened last year to indicate Campbell had made any major strides in those areas of weakness.

He was God Awful, and every bit as bad as Brunell 2004. Jason Campbell had 12 TD's 11 ints and 13 fumbles. Thats 24 turnovers in 12 1/2 games. 24!!!! That's a 2 to 1 in turnovers to TD's and a 5-6 record. How in the world you all can spin that to show promise is beyond reason.

I'm not going to compare that to Favre. Let's compare it to Collins. 4 games, 5 TD's O int's 4 fumbles and a 4-0 record.

Now as far as what Zorn thinks, only Zorn knows that. Not me, and certainly not you. You ASSUME you know what he's thinking. But starting Campbell is probably the only choice available to him, as I'm sure he already understood the owner's desire for him to make Campbell a success before ever being hired. There was no decision to make. That decision was made before camp ever started and before Zorn signed the contract.

Of course we all recognize how great Vinny and Danny are with personnel decisions, so in that regard, Campbell is the clear winner of the competition that never existed.

And contrary to some claims that EVERYONE in the NFL agrees that Campbell should be the starter....that's not true. One unnamed GM recently said that he doesn't believe Campbell has what it takes to be an NFL QB, period. Not a good one...not even an average one.

We'll soon see who's right. I hope I'm wrong, because if history is any measure, we're going to kick that dead horse to pieces before the Vinny and Danny admit a mistake was made.

Posted: **Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:29 am**

And just for the record, I believe the Campbell issue has something in common with the Archuletta debacle.

Archuletta was a poor fit for the Redskins. Several NFL personnel types said so right after the trade was announced. Every well informed personnel guy in the NFL knew that AA was lousy in coverage and couldn't understand why the Redskins would go after him, knowing that Williams defense required the SS to provide coverage. Apparently that was a consideration that just got overlooked by the experts at Redskin park. What made it so laughable is that they paid this clown the largest contract ever given a safety. And he got beat out by his backup, and then his backup's backup.

And it's not like there aren't plenty of other examples of questionable personnel decisions that were made. I don't think Rodgers has lived up to a #1 pick CB either.

But the experts know best. They're super smart. Like Chicago, who after watching AA in Washington, thought hmmm, I'd like to have him on our team. He busts there, and the Raiders say hmmm, I'd like to have him on our team too.

Posted: **Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:35 am**

So based on our ACTUAL positions, Zorn thinks JC is the BEST OPTION. Zorn has I'm sure watched every pass JC has thrown a hundred times and scouted Colt and Todd throughly and decided JC is the BEST OPTION. How do we know that, he's starting JC. Joe Gibbs, HOF, 3 time Super Bowl winner thought JC was the BEST OPTION, he didn't think he was Brett Favre either. At least he never indicated he thought that. It's not that complicated. If your plan is to just draft Brett Favre, good luck with that. There aren't that many of them. In fact there are remarkably few. Saying that's the standard, we draft Brett Favre is like the people who don't save for retirement and buy lottery tickets and plan to retire on their winnings. A few make it, the rest should SAVE. Like teams should groom QBs.

You're assuming that Zorn has full control of the decisions on the team. I have some doubt about that. I suspect, but cannot prove, that Snyder and Cerrato are making a lot of day-to-day personnel decisions that coaches normally make. I and a number of other people speculated at the time that Zorn was hired specifically BECAUSE he had no experience and would therefore not demand full control of the team, as any experienced coach would. This preseason, we kept an inordinate number of drafted rookies (e.g., Tryon) who did not seem to be NFL caliber. Zorn seems to have strong reservations regarding at least on of the receivers (I think it was Kelly) we drafted high, and yet we kept the WR anyway.

Of course, the proof of the pudding will be on the field. We'll see how well Snyderatto's creation works out pretty soon.

Posted: **Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:06 pm**

old-timer wrote:
So based on our ACTUAL positions, Zorn thinks JC is the BEST OPTION. Zorn has I'm sure watched every pass JC has thrown a hundred times and scouted Colt and Todd throughly and decided JC is the BEST OPTION. How do we know that, he's starting JC. Joe Gibbs, HOF, 3 time Super Bowl winner thought JC was the BEST OPTION, he didn't think he was Brett Favre either. At least he never indicated he thought that. It's not that complicated. If your plan is to just draft Brett Favre, good luck with that. There aren't that many of them. In fact there are remarkably few. Saying that's the standard, we draft Brett Favre is like the people who don't save for retirement and buy lottery tickets and plan to retire on their winnings. A few make it, the rest should SAVE. Like teams should groom QBs.

You're assuming that Zorn has full control of the decisions on the team. I have some doubt about that. I suspect, but cannot prove, that Snyder and Cerrato are making a lot of day-to-day personnel decisions that coaches normally make. I and a number of other people speculated at the time that Zorn was hired specifically BECAUSE he had no experience and would therefore not demand full control of the team, as any experienced coach would. This preseason, we kept an inordinate number of drafted rookies (e.g., Tryon) who did not seem to be NFL caliber. Zorn seems to have strong reservations regarding at least on of the receivers (I think it was Kelly) we drafted high, and yet we kept the WR anyway.

Of course, the proof of the pudding will be on the field. We'll see how well Snyderatto's creation works out pretty soon.

On most teams the coach doesn't have the final say in cuts. Its normally a collective effort. Normally its the coachs and GM. Here I think its coach, Vinny and Danny. I don't think coaches ever make the decisions by themselves. But I do think that Dan should not do the roster stuff and it should be the coachs and Vinny. I would love for them to hire a GM and the coaches and GM decide on who makes the team. But thats wishful thinking I don't think Dan will ever do that.

Posted: **Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:34 pm**

John Manfreda wrote:
old-timer wrote:
So based on our ACTUAL positions, Zorn thinks JC is the BEST OPTION. Zorn has I'm sure watched every pass JC has thrown a hundred times and scouted Colt and Todd throughly and decided JC is the BEST OPTION. How do we know that, he's starting JC. Joe Gibbs, HOF, 3 time Super Bowl winner thought JC was the BEST OPTION, he didn't think he was Brett Favre either. At least he never indicated he thought that. It's not that complicated. If your plan is to just draft Brett Favre, good luck with that. There aren't that many of them. In fact there are remarkably few. Saying that's the standard, we draft Brett Favre is like the people who don't save for retirement and buy lottery tickets and plan to retire on their winnings. A few make it, the rest should SAVE. Like teams should groom QBs.

You're assuming that Zorn has full control of the decisions on the team. I have some doubt about that. I suspect, but cannot prove, that Snyder and Cerrato are making a lot of day-to-day personnel decisions that coaches normally make. I and a number of other people speculated at the time that Zorn was hired specifically BECAUSE he had no experience and would therefore not demand full control of the team, as any experienced coach would. This preseason, we kept an inordinate number of drafted rookies (e.g., Tryon) who did not seem to be NFL caliber. Zorn seems to have strong reservations regarding at least on of the receivers (I think it was Kelly) we drafted high, and yet we kept the WR anyway.

Of course, the proof of the pudding will be on the field. We'll see how well Snyderatto's creation works out pretty soon.

On most teams the coach doesn't have the final say in cuts. Its normally a collective effort. Normally its the coachs and GM. Here I think its coach, Vinny and Danny. I don't think coaches ever make the decisions by themselves. But I do think that Dan should not do the roster stuff and it should be the coachs and Vinny. I would love for them to hire a GM and the coaches and GM decide on who makes the team. But thats wishful thinking I don't think Dan will ever do that.

In other words, you have no idea, like the rest of us....

Posted: **Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:38 pm**

VetSkinsFan wrote:
John Manfreda wrote:
old-timer wrote:
So based on our ACTUAL positions, Zorn thinks JC is the BEST OPTION. Zorn has I'm sure watched every pass JC has thrown a hundred times and scouted Colt and Todd throughly and decided JC is the BEST OPTION. How do we know that, he's starting JC. Joe Gibbs, HOF, 3 time Super Bowl winner thought JC was the BEST OPTION, he didn't think he was Brett Favre either. At least he never indicated he thought that. It's not that complicated. If your plan is to just draft Brett Favre, good luck with that. There aren't that many of them. In fact there are remarkably few. Saying that's the standard, we draft Brett Favre is like the people who don't save for retirement and buy lottery tickets and plan to retire on their winnings. A few make it, the rest should SAVE. Like teams should groom QBs.

You're assuming that Zorn has full control of the decisions on the team. I have some doubt about that. I suspect, but cannot prove, that Snyder and Cerrato are making a lot of day-to-day personnel decisions that coaches normally make. I and a number of other people speculated at the time that Zorn was hired specifically BECAUSE he had no experience and would therefore not demand full control of the team, as any experienced coach would. This preseason, we kept an inordinate number of drafted rookies (e.g., Tryon) who did not seem to be NFL caliber. Zorn seems to have strong reservations regarding at least on of the receivers (I think it was Kelly) we drafted high, and yet we kept the WR anyway.

Of course, the proof of the pudding will be on the field. We'll see how well Snyderatto's creation works out pretty soon.

On most teams the coach doesn't have the final say in cuts. Its normally a collective effort. Normally its the coachs and GM. Here I think its coach, Vinny and Danny. I don't think coaches ever make the decisions by themselves. But I do think that Dan should not do the roster stuff and it should be the coachs and Vinny. I would love for them to hire a GM and the coaches and GM decide on who makes the team. But thats wishful thinking I don't think Dan will ever do that.

In other words, you have no idea, like the rest of us....

no, with the Redskins I don't know exactly. But I am willing to bet that Vinny and Danny have a lot of say on who makes the team. I know for sure with two organizations because I know guys on those teams, amd that the coach doesn't have complete control on who makes the team and who doesn't.

Posted: **Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:54 pm**

no, with the Redskins I don't know exactly. But I am willing to bet that Vinny and Danny have a lot of say on who makes the team.

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

JC and A "Fair Shake"