Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=dgack;600891]I wish those caps were in HD so I could tell who all the receivers and defenders were, but at least that guy illustrated his points.

I don't know enough about progressions or playcalling to know if those examples are entirely on Jason or not, but I will say this:

-- Regardless of what we think of Zorn as a playcaller or head coach, his coaching expertise was supposed to be as a QB coach, right?

I mean, working with Zorn for almost two years, I would expect that Jason is doing what Zorn has drilled him to do.[/quote]

Yeah I dunno, I've seen that thread too and it's awfully easy to take some screen caps and say hey, that guy is open, or this guy is. What the pics don't tell you is who was open when JC made the decision to throw, what the pressure on him was like, where he was in his progression, etc.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SBXVII;600887]One bloggers interesting take:

[URL="http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=301745"]The failure of Jason Campbell in pictures (Lions game) - EXTREMESKINS.com[/URL][/quote]The ones where Jason is forcing the ball deep, he's glaringly missing open receivers.

The other one's, he's using still frames to suggest that receivers will be open, but you can really do that. You need to have moving video to see how the play progresses. No matter how good you are with MS paint and red circles.

Clearly there's something to be learned from that, and it's perhaps that Campbell is being too aggressive. If it isn't there, it isn't there.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Mattyk72;600895]Yeah I dunno, I've seen that thread too and it's awfully easy to take some screen caps and say hey, that guy is open, or this guy is. What the pics don't tell you is who was open when JC made the decision to throw, what the pressure on him was like, where he was in his progression, etc.[/quote]

Perfect example is on his first photo where it looks like Campbell overlooked a wide open man on the sideline to throw into double coverage down the middle, it was a busted play (pressure from the backside caused him to step up, then pressure was coming from the right) and at the time of the throw there was no angle to make that throw based on JC's body position and the 3 defenders in the area. I am watching the Short Cut right now and this is a clear indication of the video telling a story that the facts don't back up.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;600898]Perfect example is on his first photo where it looks like Campbell overlooked a wide open man on the sideline to throw into double coverage down the middle, it was a busted play (pressure from the backside caused him to step up, then pressure was coming from the right) and at the time of the throw there was no angle to make that throw based on JC's body position and the 3 defenders in the area. I am watching the Short Cut right now and this is a clear indication of the video telling a story that the facts don't back up.[/quote]

Perfect example. Nice work.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;600896]The ones where Jason is forcing the ball deep, he's glaringly missing open receivers.

The other one's, he's using still frames to suggest that receivers will be open, but you can really do that. You need to have moving video to see how the play progresses. No matter how good you are with MS paint and red circles.

Clearly there's something to be learned from that, and[B] it's perhaps that Campbell is being too aggressive.[/B] If it isn't there, it isn't there.[/quote]

Which would be ironic since most complainers call him too conservative and too much of a dink/dunk checkdown guy.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;600900]Which would be ironic since most complainers call him too conservative and too much of a dink/dunk checkdown guy.[/quote]

Yeah I mean how many times have we screamed for him to take some chances even to draw a PI?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;600900]Which would be ironic since most complainers call him too conservative and too much of a dink/dunk checkdown guy.[/quote]

He said in the offseason that they'd been working on some of those deep throws into coverage. Each time w/one exception when he's gone mid to deep to Kelly, he's just not open. Even double covered.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I wouldn't be shocked to see Campbell starting in Arizona next year (assuming he's not starting here and KW has retired).

And if Mike Shanahan is our head coach I can almost guarantee you we will talk to the Cardinals about Matt Leinart. Shanahan really likes Leinart.

(If Gruden is the coach it's a more remote possibility)

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I know that I complain about his play. My reasoning is that IMO he does nothing to elevate the play of those around him. Even 2nd year receivers that are supposed to make him better. Or to force that 8th man out of the box giving your running back more room to work with. He alerts no one about the blitzes that are coming, or should I say very rarely. When he does throw the ball deep, it looks good because it arcs up high and its going far but he doesn't hit his guy with much regularity. The fade routes that end up out of bounds. The fact that you rarely see that throw that beats a DB, by throwing it before the receiver breaks. You have to play the chess match with the MLB and I cannot take that this is the one guy in the league that is told what to do everytime. That he is the guy that caoches say hey, don't throw the ball to this guy or that guy. I'm sorry, I just can't.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;600896]The ones where Jason is forcing the ball deep, he's glaringly missing open receivers.

The other one's, he's using still frames to suggest that receivers will be open, but you can really do that. You need to have moving video to see how the play progresses. No matter how good you are with MS paint and red circles.

Clearly there's something to be learned from that, and it's perhaps that Campbell is being too aggressive. If it isn't there, it isn't there.[/quote]

But how many posters have said you need to take the shot and maybe you get a PI off it, or if he had dumped it off, they would have screamed that his completion percentage is high because he dumped it off. Sometimes, a lot of times, JC is in a no win situation with his critics.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;600919]But how many posters have said you need to take the shot and maybe you get a PI off it, or if he had dumped it off, they would have screamed that his completion percentage is high because he dumped it off. Sometimes, a lot of times, JC is in a no win situation with his critics.[/quote]Well, exactly.

I'm through every offensive play in the first half now (review comes tonight. Expect the offense prior to 9 pm) and every mistake Jason has made in this half is of the "pass was never, ever there" variety.

One sort of exception to the rule was the Anthony Henry near pick-six, which was because the Lions disguised their cover two coverage well, and Campbell just had no idea that Henry would do anything except follow Devin Thomas up the field. It's [U]completely[/U] on Campbell, but then again, when you go up against Blache schemes in practice every day, you don't see that ever.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;600908]I wouldn't be shocked to see Campbell starting in Arizona next year (assuming he's not starting here and KW has retired).

And if Mike Shanahan is our head coach I can almost guarantee you we will talk to the Cardinals about Matt Leinart. Shanahan really likes Leinart.

(If Gruden is the coach it's a more remote possibility)[/quote]Campbell would be a perfect scheme fit in the Whisenhunt system.

And I like him in the WCO, but whereas Leinart is sort of a square peg there, Campbell's the prototype.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Also in a game that the Lions actually won, isn't it fitting that DeAngelo Hall is having the first half of his life, and London Fletcher looks horrendous (to the point of getting benched for the remainder of the Lions third drive)?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;600894]And if you select 2-3 plays from any NFL QB's game you will see open receivers, missed reads and points left on the field. Not to call the poster a cherry picker, but he had an overall point he wanted to make and found some isolated video to support him. Also, without seeing the coaches tape it's impossible to accurately assess plays. From a TV camera angle you can't see what's happening in the pocket at the same time as seeing down the field accurately.[/quote]

I agree with you and Matty. I'm not trying to say "Look I can prove JC sucks." I just know there has been comments for and against. This was a blog with pictures. I'll agree that it's hard to take 3-4 seperate plays and call him a bust, I'm not doing that. Teams are not going to show us their coach's film which I'm sure we all would love to see in order to make a fair judgement. But even if he did miss a WR down field open we are possibly left with out the finer details of what Zorn wants him to do or where to go with the ball and even if JC was able to see the whole field due to the battling on the lines in front of him.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;600923]Campbell would be a perfect scheme fit in the Whisenhunt system.

And I like him in the WCO, but whereas Leinart is sort of a square peg there, Campbell's the prototype.[/quote]

The Whisenhunt system developed under Cowher and derived of course from...the Gibbs system.

Thoughts on Leinart here? It truly could happen

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Mattyk72;600895]Yeah I dunno, I've seen that thread too and it's awfully easy to take some screen caps and say hey, that guy is open, or this guy is. What the pics don't tell you is who was open when JC made the decision to throw, what the pressure on him was like, where he was in his progression, etc.[/quote]

I've seen the thread too and shook my head. You can point out 3-4 bad plays. But take notice he is not showing the complete picture. As far as if Jason was being pressured and other factors. To pick out a few plays seems very suspect to say the most. I am sure people could do the same thing for Brett Favre but does than mean he is a bad QB? JC may have made some bad plays. But I think you probably could do the sme thing with most QBs in the NFL if you want to be selectively picking out bad plays or plays that can be made to look like bad plays. If he showed everything from JC to the receivers in one complete picture it would have had a greater impact. But still as I said this is only 3 or 4 plays. No QB makes perfect decisions 100% of the time.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=dgack;600888]Just for shits and giggles, I just spent 15 minutes googling and found threads on Bucs, Bills, Raiders, Browns, Rams, and Panthers forums discussing the possibility of getting Campbell next year. Unsurprisingly, most of the people in the discussion think Soup is a solid if unspectacular QB who works his ass off, isn't a diva, and doesn't make a ton of mistakes.

Perhaps more importantly, they almost all believe he's a steal who is undervalued because of where he plays and the constant chaos here.[/quote]

I pointed it out in a earlier post. What team in the NFL is harder on their QB than we are? Pressure is pressure. But imagine having a whole team on your shoulders and hardly getting support from your fans. Even when you are improving game by game. I see JC putting up big numbers and a couple of TDs the next game. But I will guarantee someone will find something negative. Someone said JC wouldn't be the starter for another team if we let him go. I find that hard to believe because he is better than the bottom half of Qbs in this league and isn't a diva like Cutler and is coachable and has been very level headed and has worked his ass off. But that means nothing to some people.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;600926]The Whisenhunt system developed under Cowher and derived of course from...the Gibbs system.

Thoughts on Leinart here? It truly could happen[/quote]

I don't think he is a Charlie Casserly type guy!

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;600926]The Whisenhunt system developed under Cowher and derived of course from...the Gibbs system.

Thoughts on Leinart here? It truly could happen[/quote]Probably among the best things a Campbell-exit could end up being. If you're going to give away a guy who as done as much as Jason while his value is low, it makes sense to pick up another guy with low stock.

Leinart makes a lot more sense than either Cutler or Sanchez did from a cost perspective.

If you're talking about a one for one trade, while the only thing negative I could say (that I haven't already) is, why do I have to root for Mike Shanahan?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Plus, it would be the best thing to happen to Fred Davis' career.

I don't know what to think of pass protection schemes that have Davis blocking the LDE with no help in a non-blitz situation.

1) What the heck are Zorn/Bugel doing?

or

2) Todd Yoder would have been called for holding here.

Either way, he could play RT on this team. At 260 lbs.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;600930]Probably among the best things a Campbell-exit could end up being. If you're going to give away a guy who as done as much as Jason while his value is low, it makes sense to pick up another guy with low stock.

Leinart makes a lot more sense than either Cutler or Sanchez did from a cost perspective.

If you're talking about a one for one trade, while the only thing negative I could say (that I haven't already) is, why do I have to root for Mike Shanahan?[/quote]

Well your guy Jon Gruden likes Leinart as well (liked him at least). But have we met a QB Gruden hasn't liked at some point?

Seriously though, I've had too many reputable sources tell me if Shanahan comes here two things he is very interested in are bringing his son Kyle here and making a play for Matt Leinart to think otherwise. The first step is, of course, Shanahan coming here. Which I don't have a problem with as long as he leaves that GM title behind

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

There was a thread on whether Romo as overrated and people said that he was good and they got a lot of production out of him compared to where he was drafted or not drated. Compare JC to other QBs and other players that were selected in the year he was drafted.

[URL="http://football.about.com/od/nfldrafthistory/a/2005draftresult.htm"]NFL Draft - 2005 NFL Draft Results - Round 1[/URL]

1. Alex Smith 49ers (sucks)
21. Matt Jones Jags (not even a QB anymore)
24. Aaron Rodger (Good QB - got to learn from one of the best)
25. Jason Campbell (drafted after he wont [B]National Championship[/B])
69. Andrew Walter, QB (mediocre)
85. David Greene, QB
106 Kyle Orton, QB Purdue (doing ok in Denver's system but not spectacular)
230. Matt Cassel, QB (did well in [B]NE's system[/B] but not so good with KC - Learned from one of the best)

I can go on..but you get the point.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;600919]But how many posters have said you need to take the shot and maybe you get a PI off it, or if he had dumped it off, they would have screamed that his completion percentage is high because he dumped it off. Sometimes, a lot of times, JC is in a no win situation with his critics.[/quote]

I think it's hard to blame JC for everything and say he's the whole problem when none of us have all the facts on every play of every down during any of the games. None of us know if Zorn is not giving him specific instructions as to what to do with the ball, or is he given leeway as to what he can do. I truly wonder if Zorn is trying to micro manage? I don't know. Could it be Zorn's scheme? We keep hearing how on some plays JC can change the play, and some plays they do not have a secondary play to change into which forces JC to run the play given even though he knows the play most likely won't work.

I know I have been negative about JC in the past, but my negativity is not a complete JC must go he sucks attitude cause I'm not privy to the issues I stated above. Kinda hard to blame the QB when his play caller sends in crappy plays, O-line breaks down, or WR's can't get seperation.

I just know I see other teams spreading out the opponents defense better, passes look too easy, WR's get seperation sometimes with 10 yrds or more, WR's on other teams coming back to the ball or making a play on a jump ball in double coverage and it appears our WR's are waiting for the ball to come to them (obviously not JC's fault).

I wonder if the plays that are working between the 20's are basically due to defenses having so much field to cover, but when we get down inside the 20's whatever plays were working between the 20's don't cause there's less room to work with. Zorn's duty is to find a way to spread the defense out better inside the 20's and he's not doing that.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;600932]Well your guy Jon Gruden likes Leinart as well (liked him at least). But have we met a QB Gruden hasn't liked at some point?

Seriously though, I've had too many reputable sources tell me if Shanahan comes here two things he is very interested in are bringing his son Kyle here and making a play for Matt Leinart to think otherwise. The first step is, of course, Shanahan coming here. Which I don't have a problem with as long as he leaves that GM title behind[/quote]I'll admit that I think Shanahan is a good (great?) coach (share your fears about him as a GM).

I just think he's a dick. After having Gibbs here only 2 years ago, I'm not sure I could stomach his crap.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;600926]The Whisenhunt system developed under Cowher and derived of course from...the Gibbs system.

Thoughts on Leinart here? It truly could happen[/quote]

To my uneducated eyes Leinart might be one of those qb's who wakes up with serious seasoning and has a much better second half of his career than the first half. He sure has the physical skills to bring it. Then again, maybe he won't wake up, and he'll always be, well, Leinart.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;600898]Perfect example is on his first photo where it looks like Campbell overlooked a wide open man on the sideline to throw into double coverage down the middle, it was a busted play (pressure from the backside caused him to step up, then pressure was coming from the right) and at the time of the throw there was no angle to make that throw based on JC's body position and the 3 defenders in the area. I am watching the Short Cut right now and this is a clear indication of the video telling a story that the facts don't back up.[/quote]Just got to this play. You're exactly right. Devin DID clear all the linebackers and came open. Had Campbell taken the time to set his feet, maybe he would have seen him in behind the coverage. But the play was pretty much set up to go to Kelly with Devin as the third read, and I'm not shocked that Campbell never saw him. The progression definately broke down when Samuels got beat.

For one thing, he wasn't supposed to be open (and it would never have looked differently until he actually did). Detroit's SLB simply blew the coverage and turned him loose to no one.

For another thing, this isn't a play Jason typically misses. He missed this one, but still frames don't really do him justice.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

what do the numbers say today?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=htownskinfan;602126]what do the numbers say today?[/quote]They are about on par with the guy making his first start.

And yeah, he was pretty inaccurate. 54.5% completion percentage isn't getting it done.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=htownskinfan;602126]what do the numbers say today?[/quote]

Campbell played a terrible game, but threw two TDs to win the game.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Ruhskins;602187]Campbell played a terrible game, but threw two TDs to win the game.[/quote]

you are rightpeople won't see it that way tho

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Ruhskins;602187]Campbell played a terrible game, but threw two TDs to win the game.[/quote]


I knew sooner or later Jason would have a game like this. It was ugly, he took chances and made a bunch of mistakes, but the team won.

Mostly I'm pissed I forgot to drop Horton and pick up Doughty in my IDP league :P

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Redskin Warrior;602203]you are rightpeople won't see it that way tho[/quote]

Well at least Campbell haters will have a reason to bitch him out instead of stretching the truth and making shit up.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Ruhskins;602212]Well at least Campbell haters will have a reason to bitch him out instead of stretching the truth and making shit up.[/quote]

yeah but they won't overlook the 3 ints to see if he doesn't make that throw we don't win either. he did look bad in the first half.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I honestly just want to see what Todd Collins can bring to the table, but I'll admit we should stick with JC for now.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;602239]I honestly just want to see what Todd Collins can bring to the table, but I'll admit we should stick with JC for now.[/quote]

I was ready to call for Collins in the second half, but JC made some plays. Honestly, I don't think Collins brings much though.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Campbell did not see the field at all today. He was a complete mess. The throw to Moss was fine and all, but it was a one-on-one, double move. He did not have to make any reads on that play. That was as bad a game as you will see from an NFL QB not named Jamarcus Russell (or maybe Josh Johnson). Point being, that is not a game that you get from a QB that is in his 5th season and is playing a horrible pass defense. The guy is a complete mess, mentally, physically, everything is bad. You are watching the end of Jason Campbell in Washington, D.C. Jimmy Clausen in 2010.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

it's still Zorn talking about needing to get in a rythm, just call the game and let the players play. he talks like he needs a half just to figure out what the defense is going to do.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;602247]Campbell did not see the field at all today. He was a complete mess. The throw to Moss was fine and all, but it was a one-on-one, double move. He did not have to make any reads on that play. That was as bad a game as you will see from an NFL QB not named Jamarcus Russell (or maybe Josh Johnson). Point being, that is not a game that you get from a QB that is in his 5th season and is playing a horrible pass defense. The guy is a complete mess, mentally, physically, everything is bad. You are watching the end of Jason Campbell in Washington, D.C. Jimmy Clausen in 2010.[/quote]

Has he beaten any ranked team this year? I actually saw a report on him when he was in high school. Very impressive kid. He might be our best bet with the injury to Bradford who I thought was the most NFl eady QB. But having a injury to your throwing shoulder is not a good thing. i.e., Chad Pennington

Tebow and McCoy are good because of their athleticsm. But they wont be able to run like they do in college. So that will take away some of their affectiveness.

So Clausen might be the best bet. But lets see how he does against USC. They have lost only one game and still aren't ranked int he BCS top 25. Says a lot. Need to see him in a big game.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;602239]I honestly just want to see what Todd Collins can bring to the table, but I'll admit we should stick with JC for now.[/quote]

Campbell played pretty terribly today, no question. What do you think a 39 year old career backup brings to the table? There's a reason he's been a backup for 10+ years. Campbell gives us the best chance to win. Period.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;602250]it's still Zorn talking about needing to get in a rythm, just call the game and let the players play. he talks like he needs a half just to figure out what the defense is going to do.[/quote]

I also think he needs to be the coach instead of trying to play through the QB. That might be the problem. Let the plays develop naturally. Dont tell him to look for a receiver. Tell him to make his progressions and create some type of progression drill or something. Where the are liek one mississippi next receiver two mississippi..something..LMAO (maybe not as long as a mississippi) But some type of timing mechanism. I don tknow I am not a coach. But he is a QB coach so he needs to come up with that. Don't tell him to go to anyone or this play is for this person or that person. Its for the person who is open.

Like D Hall said. "Coaches can't be players and players can't be coaches".

Which makes total sense.