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

Snout wrote:Congratulations to Jason Campbell. He is making some big plays and enjoying some success. The Raiders are looking a lot better than anyone expected, and J.C. has been a big contributor. I wish him the best.

Same feelings around here. Wish him the best always. I have reservations about the ongoing trend of his good performance:

OAKLAND, Calif. -- As the Oakland Raiders poured out onto the field to celebrate Sebastian Janikowski's overtime kick, the 13 penalties, three turnovers and long stretches of offensive ineptitude were merely a footnote.

I even think that some of the members of that cast of players around him are making fantastic moves. Why can we not draft or get a young talented player like Jacoby Ford ???

But do not raise your hopes (a useless exercise as a Redskins fan anyway, he is no longer here) Jason is a master to deflate hopes and expectations once he has gained some measure of support among the fans. The Raiders offense was not stellar yesterday, withe EXCEPTION of Jacoby Ford and Kanikowsky.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Snout wrote:Congratulations to Jason Campbell. He is making some big plays and enjoying some success. The Raiders are looking a lot better than anyone expected, and J.C. has been a big contributor. I wish him the best.

Same feelings around here. Wish him the best always. I have reservations about the ongoing trend of his good performance:

OAKLAND, Calif. -- As the Oakland Raiders poured out onto the field to celebrate Sebastian Janikowski's overtime kick, the 13 penalties, three turnovers and long stretches of offensive ineptitude were merely a footnote.

I even think that some of the members of that cast of players around him are making fantastic moves. Why can we not draft or get a young talented player like Jacoby Ford ???

But do not raise your hopes (a useless exercise as a Redskins fan anyway, he is no longer here) Jason is a master to deflate hopes and expectations once he has gained some measure of support among the fans. The Raiders offense was not stellar yesterday, withe EXCEPTION of Jacoby Ford and Kanikowsky.

If you're talkin about offense, someone had to throw that ball.

VetSkinsFan wrote:If you're talkin about offense, someone had to throw that ball.

Yep, that ONE ball. Only one.

Enough to get an exciting and emotional win. Enough to give him some credit. Enough to stir a controversy. Enough to wait for further development. Enough to create expectations. Enough to divide the fans. Enough not to be considered a permanent bench warmer .... but ...

not enough to prove anything as a franchise QB:

... and long stretches of offensive ineptitude were merely a footnote.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:If you're talkin about offense, someone had to throw that ball.

Yep, that ONE ball. Only one.

Enough to get an exciting and emotional win. Enough to give him some credit. Enough to stir a controversy. Enough to wait for further development. Enough to create expectations. Enough to divide the fans. Enough not to be considered a permanent bench warmer .... but ...

not enough to prove anything as a franchise QB:

... and long stretches of offensive ineptitude were merely a footnote.

He threw enough to help win the game.

all the best to him - I hope he continues to help that team out there but I think he'll find a way to disapoint everyone again just like he did here

I used to be a fan but he just doesn't seem to get it - I think he's a good back up

even though Campbell's a lot better back up than Grossman, I'm still glad he's not here - he let the players around him and the fans down too many times

I guess benching him helped.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:If you're talkin about offense, someone had to throw that ball.

Yep, that ONE ball. Only one.

Enough to get an exciting and emotional win. Enough to give him some credit. Enough to stir a controversy. Enough to wait for further development. Enough to create expectations. Enough to divide the fans. Enough not to be considered a permanent bench warmer .... but ...

not enough to prove anything as a franchise QB:

... and long stretches of offensive ineptitude were merely a footnote.

Everyone here is judging the McNabb on the team's W/L record (Even though the team is better than last year) but Campbell gets no credit? That was a PERFECT deep ball against tight coverage to win the game.

SkinsJock wrote:I watched this game and the Raiders did not win because of Campbell - they won in spite of this loser of a QB

You have got to be kidding me. Are you really that big of a hypocrite? Campbell actually makes a big throw to win the game and gets no credit. We win a game with McNabb making no plays down the stretch and all you talk about as how he "lead" the team to a win. Is that a joke?

Even more exasperating is the reality that the Raiders have actually drafted better than Washington during the last 5-7 years.

It clearly shows on the field.

Shabutie wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:I watched this game and the Raiders did not win because of Campbell - they won in spite of this loser of a QB

You have got to be kidding me. Are you really that big of a hypocrite? Campbell actually makes a big throw to win the game and gets no credit. We win a game with McNabb making no plays down the stretch and all you talk about as how he "lead" the team to a win. Is that a joke?

in my opinion this guy is a loser because of his lacking intangibles and the fact that McNabb might not be the QB that he once was but he's a "leader"in how he handles the players around him

I did like some of the things he did in that game but that doesn't suddenly make him a winning QB, he's not

this guy let the players and the franchise down here by his lack of desire and lack of ability to help the offense here - I used to be a Campbell supporter and feel very let down by how he handled himself here as our QB

what's hypocritical about that?

The Hogster wrote:I guess benching him helped.

Plus, he's been given access to 100% of the playbook.

Shabutie wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:I watched this game and the Raiders did not win because of Campbell - they won in spite of this loser of a QB

You have got to be kidding me. Are you really that big of a hypocrite? Campbell actually makes a big throw to win the game and gets no credit. We win a game with McNabb making no plays down the stretch and all you talk about as how he "lead" the team to a win. Is that a joke?

Well, if JC is having ANY success out in Oakland, it's ALL because of the Redskins?

Had he not learned a new offense every year in DC, how would he have ever grasped the OAK playbook in time to deliver the game winning pass yesterday?

(Funny how what was once an excuse for his lack of success in DC can be spun into a strength with his new team, eh? )

The Hogster wrote:I guess benching him helped.

Maybe it will help DMac...

Cable leaning toward sticking with Campbell at QB wrote:Just last week coach Tom Cable said the quarterback situation was "clear cut" and Gradkowski would be the starter when he was healthy. But Cable backtracked Monday and said he might stick with Jason Campbell, who just led Oakland to its first three-game winning streak since 2002 following a 23-20 overtime win over Kansas City

El Mexican wrote:Even more exasperating is the reality that the Raiders have actually drafted better than Washington during the last 5-7 years.

Not QB

El Mexican wrote:It clearly shows on the field.

Because someone gave them a QB

As someone that posted insessantly about JC and his QB abilities last year, I don't understand the contention here. After nearly 4 seasons in DC, the one thing that we learned is that JC is not the franchise QB we envisoned having moving forward. This was obvious by his play.

After seeing him play this year, my mind has not changed one bit. He is still sacked on well over 10% of his dropbacks, he has 7 TDs in as many games, continues to pass up downfield passing to dump passes off to his TE and RBs, has a low passing yards per game average, yet continues to have a half-decent QB rating due to his low INTs and high % rate.

I think that it is great that OAK is 5-4 and that it appears that JC is panning out for them. He is a good guy. They have a decent line and he can fully rely on the running game. JC tends to succeed behind superior running attacks as was the case in the first part of 2008. In the past 3 games, OAK has rushed for an average of 226 yards per game. If that continues, I am sure that JC will be fine. JC is not one that can win a game on his own, so as long as they continue to rush for 200+ yards per game, he should continue picking up Ws.

markshark84 wrote:As someone that posted insessantly about JC and his QB abilities last year, I don't understand the contention here. After nearly 4 seasons in DC, the one thing that we learned is that JC is not the franchise QB we envisoned having moving forward. This was obvious by his play.

After seeing him play this year, my mind has not changed one bit. He is still sacked on well over 10% of his dropbacks, he has 7 TDs in as many games, continues to pass up downfield passing to dump passes off to his TE and RBs, has a low passing yards per game average, yet continues to have a half-decent QB rating due to his low INTs and high % rate.

I think that it is great that OAK is 5-4 and that it appears that JC is panning out for them. He is a good guy. They have a decent line and he can fully rely on the running game. JC tends to succeed behind superior running attacks as was the case in the first part of 2008. In the past 3 games, OAK has rushed for an average of 226 yards per game. If that continues, I am sure that JC will be fine. JC is not one that can win a game on his own, so as long as they continue to rush for 200+ yards per game, he should continue picking up Ws.

Exactly! He did make a nice deep pass for the Raiders. How long will it be before the next one, though? He made one here too, against NO a couple of years back. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again. He also made a throw that would have been an INT if the receiver hadn't stolen it away from the DB. I'm happy for him that he's having success, but the Raiders are kidding themselves if they think he's the long-term answer.

SkinsJock wrote:

Shabutie wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:I watched this game and the Raiders did not win because of Campbell - they won in spite of this loser of a QB

You have got to be kidding me. Are you really that big of a hypocrite? Campbell actually makes a big throw to win the game and gets no credit. We win a game with McNabb making no plays down the stretch and all you talk about as how he "lead" the team to a win. Is that a joke?

in my opinion this guy is a loser because of his lacking intangibles and the fact that McNabb might not be the QB that he once was but he's a "leader"in how he handles the players around him

I did like some of the things he did in that game but that doesn't suddenly make him a winning QB, he's not

this guy let the players and the franchise down here by his lack of desire and lack of ability to help the offense here - I used to be a Campbell supporter and feel very let down by how he handled himself here as our QB

what's hypocritical about that?

You vehemently tried to defend McNabb's terrible level of play by how many wins the team has. You used that is your measurement of the QB, because he clearly plays 22 positions and special teams. In the games that McNabb played terrible but we will won despite him, you would talk about how he still lead the team to a win, even though he did not make any plays.

Now Campbell actually makes a perfect throw against tight coverage in overtime and you are downplaying it. If McNabb did the same thing for us to win a game, you would talk about how that is the difference between him and Campbell. You have a completely biased view because, like you said you feel "let down". Why not just judge everything objectively? Why do you always let your personal feelings impact effect your ability to process what is really happening. You were clearly a huge supporter of picking up McNabb and will defend him simply because of that.

He let the team down with lack of desire? Don't let the demeanor of the two QBs fool you. Campbell gets very upset with himself after bad plays. McNabb always laughs after he throws INTs. That does not mean either one of them have "more desire". His lack of ability is hard to judge. He had a horrendous (Worse than this year) OL and Antwaan Randle El (Who should be a 4 or 5) as a second receiver. He also had many new systems to learn.

I wish he could have played at a higher level to. He was always a professional and always gave it his all. The offense we have now is actually suits his abilities better than other philosophy we have had. It would have been interesting to see how he could perform in it.

I really like Campbell as a person and don't feel the same about McNabb

I think Campbell did everything he could as well as he could - I have no issue with him trying to be a good QB and I spent a lot of time here hoping he would get better and hoping that he would take control of the team as it's 'leader'

He's just not a good QB - he's an OK QB but no better than a good back-up QB, if that

I think that he has all the ability in the world and he might even be able to do more things than McNabb but he's just not a QB that I want playing here because he just doesn't have what it takes to be the leader and QB of this franchise

McNabb's leadership more than his QB play, IMO contributes to the attitude that this franchise now has that they can find a way to win games - this is something that Campbell will never have - he's not a winner


the QB get's too much credit for wins and also too much blame for the losses - playing the position well does not guarantee success anymore than playing it badly costs the team a win
a QB like McNabb gives the guys on offense and defense a feeling that they can find a way to win that a QB like Campbell can not

Some QBs make the whole team feel like winners - QBs like Campbell do not inspire their teams because they're not good enough to make a difference when it counts

SkinsJock wrote:I really like Campbell as a person and don't feel the same about McNabb

I think Campbell did everything he could as well as he could - I have no issue with him trying to be a good QB and I spent a lot of time here hoping he would get better and hoping that he would take control of the team as it's 'leader'

He's just not a good QB - he's an OK QB but no better than a good back-up QB, if that

I think that he has all the ability in the world and he might even be able to do more things than McNabb but he's just not a QB that I want playing here because he just doesn't have what it takes to be the leader and QB of this franchise

McNabb's leadership more than his QB play, IMO contributes to the attitude that this franchise now has that they can find a way to win games - this is something that Campbell will never have - he's not a winner


the QB get's too much credit for wins and also too much blame for the losses - playing the position well does not guarantee success anymore than playing it badly costs the team a win
a QB like McNabb gives the guys on offense and defense a feeling that they can find a way to win that a QB like Campbell can not

Some QBs make the whole team feel like winners - QBs like Campbell do not inspire their teams because they're not good enough to make a difference when it counts

You said "Campbell is not a winner" but then stated that QBs get too much credit for wins and losses. An example of this would be McNabb getting ANY credit against Philly or the Bears. How do you know the franchise has a different attitude? People play their hardest to win the game in this league. Is McNabb being too lazy to learn the entire playbook inspiring?

The sentence about Campbell not good enough to make a difference when it counts is also false. He just had a perfect throw to win a game in OT. That is when it counts. McNabb has failed to put together any late game drives in Washington. THIS year they are playing at a very similar level. In fact, the last 3 years they have been playing at a similar level, especially when you consider what McNabb had surrounding him in Philly vs Campbell here.

Shabutie wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:I really like Campbell as a person and don't feel the same about McNabb

I think Campbell did everything he could as well as he could - I have no issue with him trying to be a good QB and I spent a lot of time here hoping he would get better and hoping that he would take control of the team as it's 'leader'

He's just not a good QB - he's an OK QB but no better than a good back-up QB, if that

I think that he has all the ability in the world and he might even be able to do more things than McNabb but he's just not a QB that I want playing here because he just doesn't have what it takes to be the leader and QB of this franchise

McNabb's leadership more than his QB play, IMO contributes to the attitude that this franchise now has that they can find a way to win games - this is something that Campbell will never have - he's not a winner


the QB get's too much credit for wins and also too much blame for the losses - playing the position well does not guarantee success anymore than playing it badly costs the team a win
a QB like McNabb gives the guys on offense and defense a feeling that they can find a way to win that a QB like Campbell can not

Some QBs make the whole team feel like winners - QBs like Campbell do not inspire their teams because they're not good enough to make a difference when it counts

You said "Campbell is not a winner" but then stated that QBs get too much credit for wins and losses. An example of this would be McNabb getting ANY credit against Philly or the Bears. How do you know the franchise has a different attitude? People play their hardest to win the game in this league. Is McNabb being too lazy to learn the entire playbook inspiring?

The sentence about Campbell not good enough to make a difference when it counts is also false. He just had a perfect throw to win a game in OT. That is when it counts. McNabb has failed to put together any late game drives in Washington. THIS year they are playing at a very similar level. In fact, the last 3 years they have been playing at a similar level, especially when you consider what McNabb had surrounding him in Philly vs Campbell here.

McNabb should get some credit for both the Smeagols and Da Bears victories. In Philly he ran for a key first down late in the game (though he should have stayed in bounds), something I don't believe JC would have done. Against Da Bears, he had a perfectly thrown TD pass to AA dropped, and he hit Santana with a perfect pass after leading us on a really nice drive. And yes, he has put together late drives here; against the Packers. But this is something he's done over and over in his career, whereas JC has now done it twice. And if you watched the Raiders game, on the drive leading to the tying FG, JC threw a pick that the receiver stole away from the DB to keep the drive alive.

Deadskins wrote:

Shabutie wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:I really like Campbell as a person and don't feel the same about McNabb

I think Campbell did everything he could as well as he could - I have no issue with him trying to be a good QB and I spent a lot of time here hoping he would get better and hoping that he would take control of the team as it's 'leader'

He's just not a good QB - he's an OK QB but no better than a good back-up QB, if that

I think that he has all the ability in the world and he might even be able to do more things than McNabb but he's just not a QB that I want playing here because he just doesn't have what it takes to be the leader and QB of this franchise

McNabb's leadership more than his QB play, IMO contributes to the attitude that this franchise now has that they can find a way to win games - this is something that Campbell will never have - he's not a winner


the QB get's too much credit for wins and also too much blame for the losses - playing the position well does not guarantee success anymore than playing it badly costs the team a win
a QB like McNabb gives the guys on offense and defense a feeling that they can find a way to win that a QB like Campbell can not

Some QBs make the whole team feel like winners - QBs like Campbell do not inspire their teams because they're not good enough to make a difference when it counts

You said "Campbell is not a winner" but then stated that QBs get too much credit for wins and losses. An example of this would be McNabb getting ANY credit against Philly or the Bears. How do you know the franchise has a different attitude? People play their hardest to win the game in this league. Is McNabb being too lazy to learn the entire playbook inspiring?

The sentence about Campbell not good enough to make a difference when it counts is also false. He just had a perfect throw to win a game in OT. That is when it counts. McNabb has failed to put together any late game drives in Washington. THIS year they are playing at a very similar level. In fact, the last 3 years they have been playing at a similar level, especially when you consider what McNabb had surrounding him in Philly vs Campbell here.

McNabb should get some credit for both the Smeagols and Da Bears victories. In Philly he ran for a key first down late in the game (though he should have stayed in bounds), something I don't believe JC would have done. Against Da Bears, he had a perfectly thrown TD pass to AA dropped, and he hit Santana with a perfect pass after leading us on a really nice drive. And yes, he has put together late drives here; against the Packers. But this is something he's done over and over in his career, whereas JC has now done it twice. And if you watched the Raiders game, on the drive leading to the tying FG, JC threw a pick that the receiver stole away from the DB to keep the drive alive.

I would argue that McNabb's terrible level of play made both of those games close at the end. The worst QBs to ever play in this league have a few good plays every single game. You do realize that is the QBs job? We need to hold QBs and WRs and RBs to the same scrutiny as the OL. No one would Trent Williams credit for a victory after giving up 5 sacks if he made a "nice block" late in the game. My point is, he cannot say that they won DESPITE Campbell, but then give credit to McNabb on terrible performances. Especially when Campbell made a big play in OT. Also, you have no idea if JC would not have run for that first down, that is just pure speculation. He is just about as mobile (Speed wise, not feet) as McNabb right now. McNabb had a drop by AA and he also had a dropped pick 6 by a defender. McNabb has had several dropped INTs this year. Campbell has had several INTs that were off receivers hands and last year had several as well.

Campbell is going to show what most here think - he's not good enough

McNabb has already shown that he's both good enough and he's a leader


Hey! I'm glad we have McNabb instead of Campbell - no big deal

SkinsJock wrote:Campbell is going to show what most here think - he's not good enough

McNabb has already shown that he's both good enough and he's a leader


Hey! I'm glad we have McNabb instead of Campbell - no big deal

How have McNabb shown that he's a leader? I am not saying that he isn't but I want you to prove it. How can you measure leadership?

I just want to know actually.

mastdark81 wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Campbell is going to show what most here think - he's not good enough

McNabb has already shown that he's both good enough and he's a leader


Hey! I'm glad we have McNabb instead of Campbell - no big deal

How have McNabb shown that he's a leader? I am not saying that he isn't but I want you to prove it. How can you measure leadership?

I just want to know actually.

That is the same thing I am wondering. I actually saw JC talking with the OL, WRs, and coaches. He would look be looking at coverage pictures and alignments. I see McNabb put on his hat, stand by himself and sometimes joke around.

Shabutie wrote:

mastdark81 wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Campbell is going to show what most here think - he's not good enough

McNabb has already shown that he's both good enough and he's a leader


Hey! I'm glad we have McNabb instead of Campbell - no big deal

How have McNabb shown that he's a leader? I am not saying that he isn't but I want you to prove it. How can you measure leadership?

I just want to know actually.

That is the same thing I am wondering. I actually saw JC talking with the OL, WRs, and coaches. He would look be looking at coverage pictures and alignments. I see McNabb put on his hat, stand by himself and sometimes joke around.

Yeah I actually dont' know and I really wasn't doing a comparison between the two but how do you know if a guy is a good leader?! I think one thing is convincing your teammates to follow you. Others?

No worries guys - there's no proving something subjective like this and there's no need to

you should follow and support the players you like

I used to be a big Campbell supporter (actually, I also used to think that Snyder was not a bad guy too ) and then I started to look a little more closely and realised this guy is just not going to be a good QB - that is my opinion and I think that he'll let the Raiders down too - when the going gets tough and it will, Campbell is not going to be able to help because he just doesn't have IT


no worries - I'm just really glad that we have McNabb here working with Kyle & Mike and being the leader that we've lacked at QB