JC's ability and comparison to other QB's

Talk about the Washington Football Team here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

markshark84 wrote:And as far as JC not taking back up money ---- if he has a bad year, he will either have to take backup money or he won't be in the league. If you think about it, the skins front office couldn't get a 3rd round pick for JC straight up in the offseason.

Actually I didn't say he wouldn't work for backup money. What I said was I don't believe that if we offered him starting money he would leave for equivalent money and if we offer him backup money he wouldn't stay for equivalent money.

I don't believe those who think he's a thin skinned whiny baby who would leave to spite us if he has a great year and we pay him to stay. But if he's mediocre again and we're not willing to pay starter money then I think he'd rather give it a go somewhere else.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

I agree Kaz - as has been said many times the best thing for the team and, I believe, Campbell, is for him to have a very good year - If that happens, he should get what he's worth either here or elsewhere - I also think he will prefer to stay here with Zorn if that happens. We are fast approaching (we may already be there) the "accepted" pay rate of over a milllion per game for a good NFL QB :shock:

I still don't think he's going to be a very good QB but I think that is the best, short term scenario for both the team and for Campbell :wink:
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
RedskinsFreak wrote:I don't think there are many -- if any -- people here who are fervently rooting FOR any member of the Redskins to do poorly

Oh I do. I agree the majority of us just want the Skins to win and are happy if players we're getting down on step it up. But there are a lot of people who are more invested in their views on certain players then their making it and contributing to the team.

Look at my view on JC for example, I started a forum that this is his last year because I don't think he'll stay for backup money and I don't think he's going to be worth start up money. Then most of the rest of my arguments are against those who want to start TC or the babies based basically only on their hatred of JC.

Of that group they have picked a side. JC is ALL bad and their pets are all good. With that extremity that they want or would recognize if JC actually plays OK is doubful to me in a lot of cases. If JC plays well for a few games I'm going to be slow to change my overall view until later in the season to be sure he keeps it up. But I'm going to be looking for signs he's improving, not proof that I was right. I really, truly don't think quite a few people are going to do anything but look for arguments to come here and pound him with.


*smdh


I'm one of (if not the harshest ) critic of Jason Campbell. And from what I saw in the highlights (didn't see the game down here), he looked much crisper, and I was "relieved" to see that.

Given that Campbell will begin the season as the starter, I hope he plays well, because if he plays poorly, it will mean the Redskins will play poorly, and NO ONE HERE wants that!

The outrageously cynical opinion that anyone here would secretly root for an individual player to fail simply to validate their own argument is offensive. Those that have been critical of Jason Campbell have had very valid reasons for being critical of his play, and do so, I believe, for no other reason than they want to see the Redskins as a Team be successful. The critics realize that there is no more critical position on the team that can effect success or failure more than that of the QB, and THAT is the only point being made relative to Jason Campbell.

I remember saying last year (during the games 2-4 stretch) that maybe I was wrong about Campbell, though it was only three games, and he needed to maintain consistency for the entire season before I'd be comfortable changing my overall opinion of him as the QB for the Redskins.

Contrast that to those who were attempting to blame other players for Jason's difficulties (like saying Santana Moss was a liability to Jason) and those that were already talking about sending Campbell to Hawaii in October and engaging in the "I told you so" after only three good games shows that some may indeed have an unhealthy ego attachment to being right, and look for any signs ... no matter how fleeting, to raise the victory flag.

My victory flag is reserved for the team, and not an individual player or my personal opinions and projections. And if Jason Campbell leads the Redskins to a successful year, no one will be more pleased than I to see that occur.

If his performance remains inconsistent and negatively impacts the Team's overall success, then I will continue to criticize.

It's as simple as that.
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

SnyderSucks wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
USAFSkinFan wrote:Cambell is capable of getting the job done. He's not the type to take the whole team on his back, but if the guys around him do good things, I think he will too...

I agree, which is why I support him starting this year. But we can't count on the D we at least should have this year indefinitely being able to carry the team and I just don't think his upside is that great. If he can't loft deep passes or complete simple throws to open receivers, which he can't, then no amount of intelligence or learning is going to make up for it. We need to start looking for someone better.


Pretty obvious the team already started looking this offseason...

Also, be careful what you wish for.

Replaced Rypien with Shuler/Freisz/Frerrotte. Used #1 pick.
Replace Frerotte with Green and lost green during ownership change.
Replaced Green with Johnson, giving up more than a first round pick.
Replaced Johnson with George.
Replace George with Tony Banks.
Replaced Banks with Weurfel/Mathews. Drafted Ramsey in the first.
Replaced Ramsey with Brunnell.
Replaced Brunnell with Campbell. Gave up more than a first round pick.

Basically numerous years of ineptitude punctuated by brief periods of competence. Looking back, it's obvious that Green or Johnson should have been retained. Would hate to trade campbell and more than a first round pick and get back Shuler, George, Banks, Weurfel, Mathews, Ramsey...the percentage of busts to competent players is pretty high, and there are no superstars on the list.


You forgot Stan Humphries who had a great career with the Chargers after we traded him. He was 47-29 in his career with San Deigo and lead them to their only Super Bowl appearance in franchise history.
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

RayNAustin wrote:The outrageously cynical opinion that anyone here would secretly root for an individual player to fail simply to validate their own argument is offensive

That is not what I said. I never said "secretly." The only thing they don't do is admit to those words, though everything else they say is pretty clear. Glad I could offend though, thanks!

RayNAustin wrote:If his performance remains inconsistent and negatively impacts the Team's overall success, then I will continue to criticize

And if not you'll be silent
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
User avatar
SnyderSucks
Hog
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:56 pm
Location: Colorado

Campbell Speaks:

Post by SnyderSucks »

roar
With the Cardinals reaching the Super Bowl, is Dan Snyder officially the worst owner in the league?
User avatar
SnyderSucks
Hog
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:56 pm
Location: Colorado

Post by SnyderSucks »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/28/AR2009082804118_pf.html


Quarterback Regains His Footing

By Mike Wise
Saturday, August 29, 2009



Whenever I read a poorly constructed e-mail lambasting Jason Campbell -- or, okay, willingly participate in a debate on Miserable Suburban Guy radio -- I have to remember to conserve my passion for a debate that matters.

Like health care.

Or "Hard Knocks," or "Mad Men."

Heck, Re-tweets vs. Original Thought.

Because I can't waste another spare minute defending the player who is rightly the Washington Redskins' starting quarterback this season, the guy who marshaled his team down the field in Friday night's 27-24 loss to the Patriots, managing a first half that the Redskins' porous defense almost ceded to Tom Brady and Randy Moss.

In fact, the next person who seriously wants to engage in a meaningful argument about why Campbell can't play like he's related to Archie Manning, or Brady or Drew Brees, I submit the next paragraph as conclusive proof of why you're wrong.

Shaun Hill. JaMarcus Russell. Brady Quinn. Kyle Orton. Marc Bulger. Mark Sanchez. Trent Edwards. Byron Leftwich. Daunte Culpepper. Matt Schaub.

At this moment in his career, I would take Campbell over every one of those NFL starting quarterbacks. (I want to say Matt Hasselbeck, Jay Cutler and Joe Flacco, too. But to avoid the predictable, "You homer, Wise, Hasselbeck went to a Super Bowl, Flacco was one game short of playing in the Super Bowl and even owner Daniel Snyder and Vinny Cerrato, the team's executive vice president of football operations, wanted Cutler instead of Campbell." I'll just stick with those inferior 10 quarterbacks listed above.)

The point is, before the masses grow dark and dour over the quarterback they have leading their offense, think about who they don't have and be thankful.

Look, Campbell needed this as much as his loyalists, to thread a beautifully thrown ball to Santana Moss along the left sideline on his first possession -- a spiral that just evaded the Patriots' defensive back. After completing as many passes in the first two preseason games (four) as Michael Vick completed while taking six snaps on Thursday night, Campbell needed to put up 17 first-half points against the Patriots, and he watched Chris Cooley catch and rumble for 73 electrifying yards in an offense so bereft of the big play a year ago.

Heading into the Meadowlands on Sept. 13 against the Giants requires regaining your confidence, even in the preseason.

But more than that, Campbell needed his fence-sitting supporters back, the people doubting whether he has the goods or whether he's Patrick Ramsey in training -- just another kid with a cannon arm who, between musical-chair coaches and systems, had his head on a swivel.

Cooley recently said the reason Campbell had such a lousy second half in 2008 was because he had three seconds or less to throw every snap, that a cut-and-paste offensive line could not protect him. Jim Zorn, the man whose career as a head coach in this league is married to Campbell's development, has gone so far as to say he called conservative plays the last two months of the season because he feared for Campbell's safety.

"I was very pleased," Zorn said of Campbell's first-half performance, according to a halftime transcript provided by the Redskins. "He was very much into the game. He was competing hard and doing the things you want. We missed on a couple of long ones, but he came back and was running the show."

Zorn went on to prove his central point from last season: When Campbell has time, he's a different player.

"We're executing," Zorn said. "When you get protection -- when you get pass protection -- you can do a lot more things. You can run these longer-developing plays. Our offensive line, I'm very pleased with how they played, particularly protecting the quarterback."

Sure, you can say Campbell's coach and teammates are adhering to an old jock code: even when the guy behind center looks bad, have his back and take the blame yourself. And, yes, it would have been nice to see Campbell scramble out of danger and make up something on the fly -- like Brett Favre before he went gray or the Vick of five years ago.

But here is what truly matters: Todd Collins was named the backup for a reason; the Redskins already have a quarterback who started 16 games in a single season last year, the first time that happened since Brad Johnson in 1999.

And I don't want to hear another word about Cutler and how good he looks with Chicago. He's a malcontent, a time bomb who could detonate a locker room at any time. Much more risk than reward.

The best thing Campbell did all week was unleash a bit of a sneer when asked about his 1-of-7 outing a week ago against Pittsburgh, saying he was also the quarterback who once completed 20 of 23 passes in a game that actually mattered.

It was Campbell saying what the people who still believe in him have been saying for most of the last year:

He's here. He's tired of hearing you jeer. Get used to it
[url][/url]
With the Cardinals reaching the Super Bowl, is Dan Snyder officially the worst owner in the league?
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

There you have it. PROOF! From the venerable Mike Wise.

Too bad he isn't the GM for the Chicago Bears ... he could have saved the organization a tone of picks and money ... since he could have gotten Campbell for a 2nd round pick instead of that "malcontent" and useless Jay Cutler who cost them two 1st rounders, a 3rd rounder, and Kyle Orton.
PulpExposure
Pushing Paper
Pushing Paper
Posts: 4860
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:01 pm

Post by PulpExposure »

What I liked about yesterday was that while we ostensibly run a WCO, there was very little dink and dunks. It seemed as if the pass patterns were run a bit longer...perhaps Zorn modifying the offense to fit Campbell's strengths. I don't think Campbell is a great deep ball thrower (in fact, I think he's actually pretty inaccurate, and throws a ball that is too flat), but I do think he's pretty damn good at throwing intermediate range routes...and that seemed to be what we were running mostly yesterday.

Campbell isn't a traditional WCO quarterback, so if Zorn really is modifying his offense to fit Campbell's strengths, that bodes very well for our season. Because if Campbell isn't good enough to pose enough of a passing threat to back out that 8th guy in the box, this season is lost, regardless of how good the defense plays.

RayNAustin wrote:I remember saying last year (during the games 2-4 stretch) that maybe I was wrong about Campbell, though it was only three games, and he needed to maintain consistency for the entire season before I'd be comfortable changing my overall opinion of him as the QB for the Redskins.


To be fair, I do remember you saying this as well.
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

I won't even click on Wise columns on the Skins page of the Washington Compost, he's a complete moron. I don't care what he thinks. Same with Sally Jenkins.

They provide the most Skins coverage, but their Skins columnists are all pretty bad. I generally like Kornheiser but he's sort of a different category anyway.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
Chris Luva Luva
---
---
Posts: 18887
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 1:55 pm
Location: AJT
Contact:

Post by Chris Luva Luva »

PulpExposure wrote:What I liked about yesterday was that while we ostensibly run a WCO, there was very little dink and dunks. It seemed as if the pass patterns were run a bit longer...perhaps Zorn modifying the offense to fit Campbell's strengths. I don't think Campbell is a great deep ball thrower (in fact, I think he's actually pretty inaccurate, and throws a ball that is too flat), but I do think he's pretty damn good at throwing intermediate range routes...and that seemed to be what we were running mostly yesterday.

Campbell isn't a traditional WCO quarterback, so if Zorn really is modifying his offense to fit Campbell's strengths, that bodes very well for our season. Because if Campbell isn't good enough to pose enough of a passing threat to back out that 8th guy in the box, this season is lost, regardless of how good the defense plays.

RayNAustin wrote:I remember saying last year (during the games 2-4 stretch) that maybe I was wrong about Campbell, though it was only three games, and he needed to maintain consistency for the entire season before I'd be comfortable changing my overall opinion of him as the QB for the Redskins.


To be fair, I do remember you saying this as well.


THis!

Also, I was glad to see JC prove myself and others wrong. Hopefully he can consistently prove us wrong.
The road to the number 1 pick gaining speed!
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

I agree with you Pulp, Campbell's strength seems to be in intermediate pass range ... but even with these, he's "streaky". He can zip off a 6 for 6 drive and look like the real deal and then follow it up with 4 straight 3 and outs.

Part of that is also the defenses adapting. He NEEDS to make all of the throws because you can't survive as a one trick pony. The defenses are just too sophisticated and will learn to focus on taking away that part of the field. If you can't punish a defense with a deep threat, those coverages will get tighter and take those intermediate ranges away.

I think this explains the early success and subsequent collapse of the offense last year. We had a new offense and it took a little while for the defenses to figure out what we were doing and build a strategy. Because we were not a deep threat, defense began to tighten coverages and stack the box.
User avatar
markshark84
Hog
Posts: 2642
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:44 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Post by markshark84 »

Deadskins wrote:
markshark84 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
markshark84 wrote:Collins won. Plain and simple. JC didn't. JC was 5-7 -- having lost 4 straight. Collins then went 4-0 and LEAD us into the playoffs. People who concentrate on stats don't understand the position.

To be fair, that 4 game losing streak coincided with the loss of Sean Taylor, first to injury, then to murder. The first game of the streak was against the Smeagols, when we had a big lead, then ST went down and they came back on the defense. Then the Pies exploited ST's absence and TO scored four TDs. We also should have won the Bills game, having a late lead before they marched for a game winning FG, aided by Gibbs double time out, 15-yard penalty. None of those losses were JC's fault. I'm no JC apologist, but let's at least get the facts straight.


Taylor died on Nov. 27th. The skins had already lost 3 straight before his death. The Bills game was lost because of an oversight by Gibbs more than grieving.

Did you even read my post?


Yes, and I do agree with the Gibbs double time out. I do not, however, agree that the lossing streak had as much to do with ST as you imply. TC didn't have ST in his wins.
Post Reply