Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Chase Daniels is a FA

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;607793]Chase Daniels is a FA[/quote]

Never heard of anyone named Chase Daniels.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Ruhskins;607739]Collins would be a sitting duck right now with our o-line...at least JC is a running duck.[/quote]

Exactly. People calling for Collins are also conveniently forgetting that he played in the Saunders system for a decade and knew the plays inside and out. He could have thrown those balls with his eyes closed.

We no longer run that offense.

His arm looked incredibly weak in the preseason too.

TC could never duplicate that stretch of games again.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Jason sucks, it's been like that for past years!

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

UPDATED stats/assessment...yep, I said I'd keep doing it! :laughing2

Cutler:
WK 6 - 24/43 (62.8%), 300 yds, 2 TD, 2 INT, 79.6 rating, 34 rush yds
TOTAL: 110/172 (64.0%), 1,201 yds, 10 TD, 7 INT, 86.9 rating, 56 rush yds

Sanchez:
WK 6 - [B]10/29[/B] ([B]34.5%[/B]), 119 yds, 0 TD, [B]5 INT[/B], [B]8.3 rating[/B], 6 rush yds
TOTAL: 85/163 (52.1%), 1,035 yds, [B]5 TD, 10 INT[/B], [B]56.7 rating[/B], 50 rush yds

Campbell:
WK 6 (half) - 9/16 (56.3%), 89 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT, 46.1 rating, 6 rush yds
TOTAL: 107/163 (65.6%), 1,197 yds, 6 TD, 6 INT, 84.3 rating, 95 rush yds


Ranks:
Comp. % = Campbell, Cutler, Sanchez
Yds = Cutler (1,201) Campbell (1,197), Sanchez (1,035)
TDs = Cutler (10), Campbell (6), Sanchez (5)
INTs (fewest) = Campbell (6), Cutler (7), [B]Sanchez (10)[/B]
QB rating = Cutler (86.9), Campbell (84.3), [B]Sanchez (56.7)[/B]
Rush yds = Campbell (95), Cutler (56), Sanchez(50)






Anyone still want Sanchez? :rofl:

Cutler is beginning to look slightly better than Campbell in yards and TDs, but really, statistically there is not much of a difference and Jason still leads in a few categories. Of course, Cutler has played 2 more quarters than Campbell, but the separation is not drastic in those few categories. Also, Campbell still proves to be the most efficient (completion %), least turnover-prone and still the best runner when in trouble by far.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Those of you who called for Todd Collins do you really think he played better that JC vs the chiefs?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Green1;611786]Those of you who called for Todd Collins do you really think he played better that JC vs the chiefs?[/quote]

Yeah, those people are being proven to be looney too...like the Sanchez lovers. :doh:

Cutler's numbers are so minimally-better than Campbell's that it's obvious that even if he were on the Redskins this season, he's be no better or worse than Campbell.

With Vinny in charge of building our O-line and Zorn calling plays (up until now)...Campbell was our best-bet for this season.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

That image of Campbell sitting on the bench doesn't lie either.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;611816]That image of Campbell sitting on the bench doesn't lie either.[/quote]

lol that doesnt really mean he should've been benched. It was a desperate move by Zorn to try to salvage his job. Zorn failed with the move, as TC sucks.

I dont think most coaches would have made that move as it is obvious JC is epically better than all other options the SKins have (TC).

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;611816]That image of Campbell sitting on the bench doesn't lie either.[/quote]

So you support Zorn's decisions? Good for you. :D

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I just think it's funny that's all. Gallows humor is still humor.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Buster;611793]Yeah, those people are being proven to be looney too...like the Sanchez lovers. :doh:

Cutler's numbers are so minimally-better than Campbell's that it's obvious that even if he were on the Redskins this season, he's be no better or worse than Campbell.

With Vinny in charge of building our O-line and Zorn calling plays (up until now)...Campbell was our best-bet for this season.[/quote]

I know, I cant believe I am agreeing with you lol. Well I usually disagree when it comes to the off topic realm.

But I continue to be surprised by the JC haters. They were soo happy JC was benched and started getting excited after ONE TC pass! ONE PASS lol. I cant believe that allowed them to overlook TC complete lack of mobility and arm strengh. Sure JC makes errors, but with our terrible pocket pro he is definitely the best option.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

At this point I would rather give TC the starting nod. Give him a full week of taking all the snaps and let's see what he can do. It's obvious we're going nowhere fast with JC.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Mattyk72;611832]At this point I would rather give TC the starting nod. Give him a full week of taking all the snaps and let's see what he can do. It's obvious we're going nowhere fast with JC.[/quote]

But neither QB is the future right? Why play an old-QB who has zero mobility and arm strength? Dont you think blitzing teams like Eagles will be more success against TC, especially with my line?

I am just wondering, bc IMO I dont really see it any other way. Plus you are the only one who isnt a JC hater supporting TC.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I just think it's worth giving TC a real shot. Give him a full week of snaps and prep and let's see if he can get things going. The season is sinking fast. Time to try something, anything to get the offense going. It's simply not working with JC.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Mattyk72;611846]I just think it's worth giving TC a real shot. Give him a full week of snaps and prep and let's see if he can get things going. The season is sinking fast. Time to try something, anything to get the offense going. It's simply not working with JC.[/quote]

I agree. Collins didnt look great but he hadnt taken a snap in a game in a long time and he hadnt prepared as a starter. Without that prep he played about the same as JC who has been the starter since JZ arrived. I dont see how playing him can hurt. He's not any kind of long term solution beyond this year but maybe with some prep he can provide some kind of spark.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I have never been a big fan of looking at stats to determine a player's worth. Stats tell only part of the story and at the end of ther day the only stats that matter in the NFL are W's and L's.
I personally think JC is an NFL caliber qb capable of playing winning football. But he is a qb, which means when the team wins he will get more credit than he deserves, and when they lose he will take more blame than he deserves. Right now the only stat that matters is 2-4. Its not all his fault though.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Mattyk72;611846]I just think it's worth giving TC a real shot. Give him a full week of snaps and prep and let's see if he can get things going. The season is sinking fast. Time to try something, anything to get the offense going. It's simply not working with JC.[/quote]

It really doesn't matter. No QB has a chance with our piss poor O-line. No way to sugarcoat it. The O-Line is garbage. Not one quality player. Campbell or Collins, they don't have time to do anything.

How would Brett Favre be doing behind our line?

It all starts up front.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Mattyk72;611846]I just think it's worth giving TC a real shot. Give him a full week of snaps and prep and let's see if he can get things going. The season is sinking fast. Time to try something, anything to get the offense going. It's simply not working with JC.[/quote]

I'd like to see JC play a couple of games with someone other than Zorn calling the plays. That will give us a pretty clear indication of the impact that Zorn's play calling had on Campbell. I don't really see the point in playing Collins. We know exactly who he is. He's an old, career backup. If Brennan were healthy, I'd be more inclined to give him some time (I can't believe I just typed that) but there's zero point in starting Collins now or anytime this season.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;611886]I'd like to see JC play a couple of games with someone other than Zorn calling the plays. That will give us a pretty clear indication of the impact that Zorn's play calling had on Campbell. I don't really see the point in playing Collins. We know exactly who he is. He's an old, career backup. If Brennan were healthy, I'd be more inclined to give him some time (I can't believe I just typed that) but there's zero point in starting Collins now or anytime this season.[/quote]

I wonder if Lewis will make the call of who starts.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Ruhskins;611892]I wonder if Lewis will make the call of who starts.[/quote]

No Zorn just said in his press conf. that he will make that decision.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I just ran some numbers on the team's average passer rating over the past two decades, and I think some of you may be surprised how it shakes out.

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/32798-myth-its-all-insert-qbs-name.html[/url]

Yes, I know many will say that stats don't tell the whole story, and they aren't intended to. That said, there is no reason we shouldn't be a 9-7 ball club or better with Jason Campbell and the numbers he is putting up.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Campbell's most important number is 4-10 over his past 14 starts. Time to try something different.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Why are all the former Campbell-supporters suddenly against him now? His play now isn't any worse as it was last year or the year before when we were saying he wasn't the right QB for this team. His completion percentage has actually IMPROVED a little every year. So what's changed your minds about Campbell? Or is it just a case of not seeing the improvement you were hoping for?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=dgack;611909]I just ran some numbers on the team's average passer rating over the past two decades, and I think some of you may be surprised how it shakes out.

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/32798-myth-its-all-insert-qbs-name.html[/url]

Yes, I know many will say that stats don't tell the whole story, and they aren't intended to. That said, there is no reason we shouldn't be a 9-7 ball club or better with Jason Campbell and the numbers he is putting up.[/quote]

But what numbers is he putting up? His rating is good but he completes passes for very little yardage which means he throws a bunch of dink passes that skews his rating for the better.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;611913]Why are all the former Campbell-supporters suddenly against him now? His play now isn't any worse as it was last year or the year before when we were saying he wasn't the right QB for this team. His completion percentage has actually IMPROVED a little every year. So what's changed your minds about Campbell? Or is it just a case of not seeing the improvement you were hoping for?[/quote]

I'm a Campbell supporter that hasn't turned on him but I am disappointed in what I've seen from him this year. I expected him to be much, much more productive when given the opportunities. I'm really starting to fear he's been Ramsey-fied. He's not playing QB, he's playing the role of a robot QB trying to be perfect and please his coach. He needs a major dose of 'f**k it' and just go out and play.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=irish;611919]But what numbers is he putting up? His rating is good but he completes passes for very little yardage which means he throws a bunch of dink passes that skews his rating for the better.[/quote]

As I pointed out last week, he's got a higher YPA than Brady, McNabb, Cutler, Warner & Palmer. Seriously, it's sad how misinformed his detractors are.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;611931]As I pointed out last week, he's got a higher YPA than Brady, McNabb, Cutler, Warner & Palmer. Seriously, it's sad how misinformed his detractors are.[/quote]

Those players you mention throw down the field and miss more often than a 2 yard dink passer. Those misses are zeros in calculating the average and those zeros bring down the average. Like others have said, the numbers dont tell the whole story because to insinuate that JC is even close to those QBs you mentioned is insane.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;611923]I'm a Campbell supporter that hasn't turned on him but I am disappointed in what I've seen from him this year. I expected him to be much, much more productive when given the opportunities. I'm really starting to fear he's been Ramsey-fied. He's not playing QB, he's playing the role of a robot QB trying to be perfect and please his coach. He needs a major dose of 'f**k it' and just go out and play.[/quote]

I think, if we had stuck with the offense Gibbs drafted Campbell for, and we had given a top 10 offensive line, he could have become a really good QB in the NFL, perhaps even a franchise QB (although not an elite guy like Brady or Manning). However, those weren't the cards he was dealt. At the point Cerrato decided to hire Jim Zorn as head coach, it ruined Campbells chances of having becoming a franchise QB. Campbell was a square peg. the WCO is his round hole. It NEVER had a good chance of working. I don't know why so many people put faith in it.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=irish;611938]Those players you mention throw down the field and miss more often than a 2 yard dink passer. Those misses are zeros in calculating the average and those zeros bring down the average. Like others have said, the numbers dont tell the whole story because to insinuate that JC is even close to those QBs you mentioned is insane.[/quote]

So the deep passes Campbell missed on the past few weeks didn't count in his average? Completion percentage would be highly driven by 2 yard dink passes, yards per attempt would be adversely affected by a majority of those.

I didn't compare him to any of those QB, simply pointed out the gaping flaw in your simplistic and inaccurate criticism.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I really feel for JC, but I would rather have another QB that can make decisions faster. A start is to go with Collins like the second half of yesterday's game. It didn't work out because we lost the game and Zorn lost his play-calling duties. Talk about a fall from grace...

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;611941]I think, if we had stuck with the offense Gibbs drafted Campbell for, and we had given a top 10 offensive line, he could have become a really good QB in the NFL, perhaps even a franchise QB (although not an elite guy like Brady or Manning). However, those weren't the cards he was dealt. At the point Cerrato decided to hire Jim Zorn as head coach, it ruined Campbells chances of having becoming a franchise QB. Campbell was a square peg. the WCO is his round hole. It NEVER had a good chance of working. I don't know why so many people put faith in it.[/quote]

Well, that's what makes us fans I guess. I really think that Gibbs over-coached him to the point where he's so terrified of turnovers he is still overcoming that over protective nature that was instilled in him.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Sounds like we're back to the old Ramsey debate, that Gibbs somehow ruined him too. Sorry not buying it. JC has had the same issues he's had since day 1. His decision making has always been a step slow and nothing has changed in that area. He's admitted as much. He is what he is. He's probably got a good career ahead of him as a #2 in this league. I'm officially off his wagon.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;611948]So the deep passes Campbell missed on the past few weeks didn't count in his average? Completion percentage would be highly driven by 2 yard dink passes, yards per attempt would be adversely affected by a majority of those.

I didn't compare him to any of those QB, simply pointed out the gaping flaw in your simplistic and inaccurate criticism.[/quote]

Sure it counts, he throws maybe 2 passes longer than a few yards per game so he doesnt have many zeros. The other QBs throw a lot more longers passes.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Mattyk72;611957]Sounds like we're back to the old Ramsey debate, that Gibbs somehow ruined him too. Sorry not buying it. JC has had the same issues he's had since day 1. His decision making has always been a step slow and nothing has changed in that area. He's admitted as much. He is what he is. He's probably got a good career ahead of him as a #2 in this league. I'm officially off his wagon.[/quote]

Fair enough, I'll stop sort of saying that Gibbs 'ruined him' but while he may have been a good 'fit' for Gibbs system, I don't think he was a good fit with Gibbs.

Enough about that though, his lack of development and production this season has been disappointing to me-but I don't know that anyone else will do anything better behind this line.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;611953]Well, that's what makes us fans I guess. I really think that Gibbs over-coached him to the point where he's so terrified of turnovers he is still overcoming that over protective nature that was instilled in him.[/quote]I don't know. Campbell's forcing a lot of throws and committing a lot of errors.

We knew coming in that his low turnover rate wasn't sustainable, and he'd have to throw for more yards and TDs to cover for it. So far, he's done that, but thanks to the makeup of the rest of the offense, it hasn't helped translate to points. The additional points added by extending drives have been completely offset by the increase in turnovers. The run game has been spotty at best, which hasn't helped things.

I don't think the WCO is the issue, I just think that this is what we've built. Last year (first five games), we had five good or great players on offense: Kendall, Samuels, Portis, Campbell, and Cooley. As the year went on, Samuels and Portis became ineffective players for one reason or another, and that left us with three. Kendall walked in the offseason (he was probably having a career year anyway), and we replaced him, shrewedly, but with a mediocre Dockery.

With Samuels on the mend, Campbell and Cooley are the only things this offense has besides deception. If we bench Campbell, then it's just Cooley. There's probably no way to score points with just a QB and TE, and certainly no way to score with just a TE.

Thing is, we're getting better contribution on the marginal players this year than last year. Which is one of the things that led me to project an above average offense, and 11 wins. But there's just been no breakout on offense from either Campbell or anyone else.

Of course, in hindsight, Campbell did breakout last year. This is simply the limit of his value in an offense like the Redskins. Sadly, it's not good enough, and will never be.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

The other thing is the career year factor: not one player on our offense is having a career year (jury is still out on Heyer, though), which is just a bit disappointing. Last year, Portis and Kendall had career years. In 2005, it was Moss. In 2006, Cooley, Dockery, and Betts. In 2007, Todd Collins. This year, it's remarkably been no one so far, which is why we're so far underneath any projection for our offense.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=irish;611938]Those players you mention throw down the field and miss more often than a 2 yard dink passer. Those misses are zeros in calculating the average and those zeros bring down the average. Like others have said, the numbers dont tell the whole story because to insinuate that JC is even close to those QBs you mentioned is insane.[/quote]I don't think you understand what YPA is. It's also one of the four components in QB rating, so by extension, you don't really know what that is either.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Campbell is having a much better season than McNabb is this year, and we're talking about a guy who was benched in the second half of a game last year. So, I mean, take that at face value.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;611985]The other thing is the career year factor: not one player on our offense is having a career year (jury is still out on Heyer, though), which is just a bit disappointing. Last year, Portis and Kendall had career years. In 2005, it was Moss. In 2006, Cooley, Dockery, and Betts. This year, it's remarkably been no one so far, which is why we're so far underneath any projection for our offense.[/quote]

Shaun Suisham wants to know why you're a hater