Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=warriorzpath;599431]A great qb is the start of a great team, a bad qb is the start of a bad team, and an average qb is the start of an average team. The redskins team is a bad team and it starts with campbell as a player.

And I am pretty sure with better qb play - the redskins would be 3-0 instead of 1-2.[/quote]

I completely disagree. Teams are built on the offensive and defensive lines. A great offensive line can make an average to below average quarterback look amazing(Rypien, Doug Williams, Matt Hasselbeck, etc.), and bad offensive lines can make even elite quarterbacks look average or worse.

Plenty of teams have had elite quarterback play and have still been average to bad. The Saints of 2007 were 7-9 with Drew Brees. The Packers went 6-10 last season with Aaron Rogers.

I agree that if you put Peyton Manning on this team, it may be worth a few extra wins, but the biggest problem with Washington is absolutely not the quarterback.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Southpaw;599454]I completely disagree. Teams are built on the offensive and defensive lines. A great offensive line can make an average to below average quarterback look amazing(Rypien, Doug Williams, Matt Hasselbeck, etc.), and bad offensive lines can make even elite quarterbacks look average or worse.

Plenty of teams have had elite quarterback play and have still been average to bad. The Saints of 2007 were 7-9 with Drew Brees. The Packers went 6-10 last season with Aaron Rogers.

I agree that if you put Peyton Manning on this team, it may be worth a few extra wins, but the biggest problem with Washington is absolutely not the quarterback.[/quote]

Hasselbeck is legit and Brees and Rodgers were victims of poor Defenses, but I don't necessarily disagree with your point that a great Offensive line can make an average QB look good and a good QB look great, etc. And a QB who has all day to throw can make average Receivers look good, etc. Even more evidence that picking 3 Receivers in the 2nd round was stupid. Who was Brady throwing to again when he won 3 Super Bowls? Branch and Gaffney? Skill positions don't mean jack.

I've said time and time again that I think Campbell could take a team like the Titans of last year deep into the playoffs. I just don't think he's good enough to overcome deficiencies in other parts of the Offense. If everything else is perfect (Elite O line, Elite Defense, Dominant Running Game), I don't see any reason Campbell couldn't win a Super Bowl like Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer did. Of course, both went on to become back-ups, but at least they got their ring.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Southpaw;599454]I completely disagree. Teams are built on the offensive and defensive lines. A great offensive line can make an average to below average quarterback look amazing(Rypien, Doug Williams, Matt Hasselbeck, etc.), and bad offensive lines can make even elite quarterbacks look average or worse.

Plenty of teams have had elite quarterback play and have still been average to bad. The Saints of 2007 were 7-9 with Drew Brees. The Packers went 6-10 last season with Aaron Rogers.

I agree that if you put Peyton Manning on this team, it may be worth a few extra wins, but the biggest problem with Washington is absolutely not the quarterback.[/quote]

The offensive line can't be attributed to his mistakes or his lack of playmaking. The issue with the quarterbacks you listed is that they proved themselves with good and great teams, and it all started with the quartebacks. They made the big plays. It can't be overstated the impact that the quarterback makes on any team.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;599380]I'd argue that he's already keeping us in every game.[/quote]

I'd say he's not losing games for us. Not winning them either though.

And regardless of the final scores of the Lions and Giants games, I wouldn't say we were really "in" those games. We were down 13-0 and 19-7 against the Lions and down 13 points with a couple of minutes to go against the Giants. But whatever. I'm probably splitting hairs at this point.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Maybe Campbell should be given more opportunities to make plays...or was he supposed to get the lateral from Betts on the final play of the game and take it to the house?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=44Deezel;599462]Hasselbeck is legit and Brees and Rodgers were victims of poor Defenses[/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I consider Hasselbeck average because he has had five "good" seasons out of eleven, and most of his career was spent on a team with a dominant run game and above average defense. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]And my point for adding Brees and Rodgers was to illustrate the fact that even they could not overcome deficiencies on their respective teams. Right now, I think the only quarterback that you could add to a below average team and possibly make the playoffs is Peyton Manning.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;599466]Maybe Campbell should be given more opportunities to make plays...or was he supposed to get the lateral from Betts on the final play of the game and take it to the house?[/quote]

That's very true too, but campbell did some opportunities right before that to win the game.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Southpaw;599454]I completely disagree. Teams are built on the offensive and defensive lines. A great offensive line can make an average to below average quarterback look amazing(Rypien, Doug Williams, Matt Hasselbeck, etc.), and bad offensive lines can make even elite quarterbacks look average or worse.

Plenty of teams have had elite quarterback play and have still been average to bad. The Saints of 2007 were 7-9 with Drew Brees. The Packers went 6-10 last season with Aaron Rogers.

I agree that if you put Peyton Manning on this team, it may be worth a few extra wins, but the biggest problem with Washington is absolutely not the quarterback.[/quote]

Agreed, agreed, agreed. Good post.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;598899]Yes, you are mistaken. And not in spite of your refusal to go to the passing numbers.

The fumbles are a major issue. A MAJOR issue. And I'll credit you for going to that (a statistic) to defend your case. But without Campbell's passing efficiency, this team would have NO wins, and a good half of football from the defense against St. Louis away from being the worst team in football.

Campbell is more or less the difference between us and the Browns right now. And remember that I'm a pretty big Quinn fan.[/quote]

I think we are about to get to the point where we are going to agree to disagree...but saying I am mistaken makes me scratch my head, so please inform me how exactly Campbell has been proficient in the redzone? What have I missed?

There are certain stats that don't lie like fumbles...you can blame no one but yourself with fumbles. Of course you could try to blame the line, but bottom line is when you fumble, it's on you, you need to protect the ball!

So let me get this straight, you are saying the reason we beat the Rams is cause Campbell had a good completion percentage?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=warriorzpath;599464]The offensive line can't be attributed to his mistakes or his lack of playmaking. The issue with the quarterbacks you listed is that they proved themselves with good and great teams, and it all started with the quartebacks. They made the big plays. It can't be overstated the impact that the quarterback makes on any team.[/quote]

Not advocating starting Collins, but I will say that the same O line looked much better when Collins was behind center than it did when Campbell was the QB. The backs had bigger holes to run through (maybe because Defenses had more respect for the passing game) and pass protection was not a problem (maybe because Collins got the ball out quicker). The Receivers and Defense played better as well. But I will acknowledge that Campbell is better now than he was then and Collins is probably worse now than he was then (playing in Saunder's system)

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Southpaw;599469][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I consider Hasselbeck average because he has had five "good" seasons out of eleven, and most of his career was spent on a team with a dominant run game and above average defense. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]And my point for adding Brees and Rodgers was to illustrate the fact that even they could not overcome deficiencies on their respective teams. Right now, I think the only quarterback that you could add to a below average team and possibly make the playoffs is Peyton Manning.[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]

He doesn't need to overcome anything. I hate to be redundant, but all he needs to do as quarterback is to make big plays. And I know it's better said than done, but without the qb making plays then you can't be a considered a superbowl contender- unless you have an all-time great defense. 2 losses that easily could have been won by campbell if he makes the plays - this is the difference between 10-6 and 8-8 of last season.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=warriorzpath;599464]The offensive line can't be attributed to his mistakes or his lack of playmaking. [/quote]

Does that mean that Tom Brady's mistakes and lack of playmaking in the Super Bowl against the Giants was entirely his fault, or do you think it had something to do with the Giants front four manhandling the Pats offensive line?

Basically, my point is the quarterback is the top brick of the pyramid that is the 53 man roster, and you don't build a pyramid by trying to place the top brick, first.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Southpaw;599454]I completely disagree. Teams are built on the offensive and defensive lines. A great offensive line can make an average to below average quarterback look amazing(Rypien, Doug Williams, Matt Hasselbeck, etc.), and bad offensive lines can make even elite quarterbacks look average or worse.

Plenty of teams have had elite quarterback play and have still been average to bad. The Saints of 2007 were 7-9 with Drew Brees. The Packers went 6-10 last season with Aaron Rogers.

I agree that if you put Peyton Manning on this team, it may be worth a few extra wins, but the biggest problem with Washington is absolutely not the quarterback.[/quote]

You are absolutely right.
You are right on saying that the biggest problem isn't Campbell too. But that doesn't mean he isn't a problem at all. Definitely agree he's not the biggest problem though.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;599466]Maybe Campbell should be given more opportunities to make plays...or was he supposed to get the lateral from Betts on the final play of the game and take it to the house?[/quote]

Or maybe when he's given a chance to make a play, he should make it. Then maybe he'll be given more chances. I wouldn't let him throw another fade route in the end zone, since he can't seem to keep the ball in bounds. The sideline route is probably out too, since he underthrew Kelly on the first play of the Rams game and cost us a TD and then later threw the same pass 5 yards out of bounds to Devin Thomas. I'd still dial up the bombs though, since even though they've been nowhere near the receiver, they're not getting picked off. Plus, I wouldn't want to be dead last again in pass interference calls.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=44Deezel;599482]Or maybe when he's given a chance to make a play, he should make it. Then maybe he'll be given more chances. [/quote]

Absolutely! He's been given ample opportunity...when does "potential" become realized?