Re: My apologies to JC.
 

so who thinks he'll be back ... this is a big week if you can have won at 3-6 .. sure would be nice to snag a win in bid D with JC leading the show .

Hail Betts !!

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;626499]OK I have been a little harsh to say the least on Jason Campbell, during the past offseason when we were "Secretly" shopping around for Jay Cutler or Mark Sanchez, I was all for it. In fact I was down and out when we didn't get either one of those guys. I dogged JC all Preseason and Everygame this season.. But now that half of this season is over I have looked back at all 3 QB's STATS, Jason has a better Passer rating than both and has way less INT's than both. Jason has only 4 less td passes than Cutler and has 1 more than Sanchez. Even with a HORRIBLE and INJURED Oline, and a young recieveing core, (outside of Moss.) So I must Give props to JC because god know's I have trashed him so much this season, I know he won't be here next yr and I don't think he's a Legit starter in this league anyway, but still he has earned my props..[/quote]

I still dont see how ppl are comparing a 3 yr starter to a rookie. I think its funny that the main excuse we hear for JC is thrown out the window in regards to comparing him to Cutler. -new offense- hell not only is cutler in a new offense but he is on a new team so its alot to get used to. Lets bring this up again next season with the same 3 and see how they match up with the situation being more comparable.

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

I have been too hard on Jason myself. I have no complaints about his character or overall demeanor, however i hoped that this season he would finally put it all together.

I think the environment has damaged him, similar to David Carr or Patrick Ramsey. He doesn't play scared, but he seems overly cautious. At nearly 4 full seasons with him as our starter, i think we know what we have in him.

However, i still think that he is gone next season regardless. He is in the last year of his rookie deal, and i really can't see him being re-signed. I just can't. I think he, along with a few others, are gone in the roster purge this off-season.

Good luck to Jason though if he plays for another team. One guy wrote an article just a few days ago (it may have been jason whitlock), but he said that there is a 25% chance that Jason goes unsigned at the beginning of next season. I could believe it when nobody wanted to offer any good picks for him during the Cutler deal....

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

Bye JC...mediocre QB at best, stats prove that. Bye Bye JC!

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626538]I still dont see how ppl are comparing a 3 yr starter to a rookie. I think its funny that the main excuse we hear for JC is thrown out the window in regards to comparing him to Cutler. -new offense- hell not only is cutler in a new offense but he is on a new team so its alot to get used to. Lets bring this up again next season with the same 3 and see how they match up with the situation being more comparable.[/quote]

Its no comparision, to say we expected JC to play better that a rookie, god I hope so. I guess when you set the bar so low....3-6 record with a QB with a rating of middle of the pack is excellent some how???...please give me a break with these pointless arguements of how JC is an average QB and how we have horrible corners at this moment of a team hitting bottom....ITS A TEAM

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

I would give JC more leeway if he were a 3rd round pick or so and he was a project QB but thats not the case, he is a 1st round pick who we gave up a 2nd round pick to jump up and select so for me i expect this guy to be the leader of the team and to take over games. Not a middle of the pack 50/50 guy who makes plays here and there. I know in the draft there are hits and misses at every position but if you take a guy in the 1st and you dont get a 1st round production from him its time to try again. I cant name another 1st round QB who has been on a team as long as JC and has yet to make the playoffs or a probowl.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;626449]Anyone who wants to criticize Campbell should use the Carson Palmer comparison, since Palmer has played with great offenses and crappy offenses since taking over as the Bengals starter in 2004. Palmer didn't always play well as the offense of that 2005 season began to fall apart, and frankly, after he missed 2008 with injury, people started to doubt his franchise quarterback-ness.

This year, he's back to being one of the ten most valuable quarterbacks in football.

The other part of the comparison is that if the Bengals were the Redskins, they might have cut or traded him after last season.[/quote]

The logic is quickly slipping from your posts. When not playing well, Palmer still had 4,000 yard/25 td seasons. Those who buried him after last year are the same mindless pundits who predict that the same teams will reach the playoffs as made it the year before (i.e. those with a very shallow historical memory). I realize that you are not necessarily comparing Campbell to Palmer, but just watch the tape. Watch Palmer's footwork, release, and willingness to make stick throws (he made one to Ochocinco on Sunday that was particularly impressive ... he is a "wow" thrower). You are just grasping now, you're better than that. Campbell played well at times on Sunday, but continues to frustrate by leaving so many plays on the field (Moss and Yoder plays the most obvious on Sunday, but emblematic of Campbell's struggles). We now know who he is as a player. I would not be against bringing him back if he is restricted, but I think that is probably unlikely.

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

Don't we already have an 80 page thread on this topic?

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;626551]Don't we already have an 80 page thread on this topic?[/quote]

You and me...we're on the same page here.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;626449]Anyone who wants to criticize Campbell should use the Carson Palmer comparison, since Palmer has played with great offenses and crappy offenses since taking over as the Bengals starter in 2004. Palmer didn't always play well as the offense of that 2005 season began to fall apart, and frankly, after he missed 2008 with injury, people started to doubt his franchise quarterback-ness.

This year, he's back to being one of the ten most valuable quarterbacks in football.

The other part of the comparison is that if the Bengals were the Redskins, they might have cut or traded him after last season.[/quote]

Carson Palmer is a very good QB and no offense to JC, but JC is not in his league. You can't compare the two.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;626550]The logic is quickly slipping from your posts. When not playing well, Palmer still had 4,000 yard/25 td seasons. Those who buried him after last year are the same mindless pundits who predict that the same teams will reach the playoffs as made it the year before (i.e. those with a very shallow historical memory). I realize that you are not necessarily comparing Campbell to Palmer, but just watch the tape. Watch Palmer's footwork, release, and willingness to make stick throws (he made one to Ochocinco on Sunday that was particularly impressive ... he is a "wow" thrower). You are just grasping now, you're better than that. Campbell played well at times on Sunday, but continues to frustrate by leaving so many plays on the field (Moss and Yoder plays the most obvious on Sunday, but emblematic of Campbell's struggles). We now know who he is as a player. I would not be against bringing him back if he is restricted, but I think that is probably unlikely.[/quote]

Thank you, JC is not on the same planet as Carson P.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;626364]So I guess it comes to this, if you plugged ANY of those QB on our current roster, system and organizational structure in a one for one trade, would they automatically make us a SB contender and would JC automatically make them an also ran?[/quote]

No not at all. We've got some major issues. One QB is not going to make us a SB contender. We've got RB, OL, WR issues...major issues.

But i'd guarantee one of those QB's would make us a better team immediately.

We've endured average QB's under Gibbs 2 right? If we would have had a Carson Palmer for our two playoff runs under Gibbs how far could we have gone? We lived w/ an average QB and a great defense and didn't make it to the Championship game. IMO, we could have gone that 2005 season, w/ a better QB. Gibbs had options, he just took the wrong option in MB.

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626548]I would give JC more leeway if he were a 3rd round pick or so and he was a project QB but thats not the case, he is a 1st round pick who we gave up a 2nd round pick to jump up and select so for me i expect this guy to be the leader of the team and to take over games. Not a middle of the pack 50/50 guy who makes plays here and there. I know in the draft there are hits and misses at every position but if you take a guy in the 1st and you dont get a 1st round production from him its time to try again. I cant name another 1st round QB who has been on a team as long as JC and has yet to make the playoffs or a probowl.[/quote]

I think you have it backwards. I would give JC less leeway if he was a 3rd round pick because he wouldnt have cost the team so much to draft and moving on would be less costly.

I think because JC was a 1st rounder who the team gave up picks to get has to make you give him more leeway because he cost the organization so much to get. As a result of how much he cost to get you have to make extra sure he cant do it before you cut him loose.

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

[quote=DCtoAZ;626512]so who thinks he'll be back ... this is a big week if you can have won at 3-6 .. sure would be nice to snag a win in bid D with JC leading the show .

Hail Betts !![/quote]

If the CBA gets signed, I don't think he'll be back. They'll either draft a new QB or sign a veteran like Garcia. However, if it's an uncapped year, JC will be an RFA and only able to negotiate with the Skins. Then I wouldn't be too surprised to see a 1-2 year deal so the team could focus on Oline in the draft.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Stats are deceiving and they can be twisted to tell whatever story you want.
For instance lets take 2 QB's numbers and see how it goes.
QB "A" has 506 att 315 comp with a 62.3% and has 3,245yds / 6 ints
QB "B" has 474 att 288 comp with a 60.8% and has 3,692yds / 14 ints
Now by looking at this you will see that QB "B" had less att but he had more ints and about 25 more yds a game.It looks like QB "A" turned the ball over less therefore putting his team in a better position to win and had a higher comp% so he would seem to be more accurate if you go by the comp%. The only difference is that QB "B" had 28 TD's and QB "A" had 13 TD's and QB "B" went 14-2 and won the SB while QB "A" went 8-8 and missed the playoffs.
These are the numbers of 2004 brady and the 2008 JC. So again stats dont tell the whole story. There are many variables that are either added or taken away that will prove or disprove whatever the provider is trying to accomplish. So lets just stick with the W's and the L's which in the end are all that really matter.

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

[QUOTE=irish;626586]I think you have it backwards. I would give JC less leeway if he was a 3rd round pick because he wouldnt have cost the team so much to draft and moving on would be less costly.

I think because JC was a 1st rounder who the team gave up picks to get has to make you give him more leeway because he cost the organization so much to get. [B]As a result of how much he cost to get you have to make extra sure he cant do it before you cut him loose.[/[/B]QUOTE]

5 yrs isnt long enough?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626591]Stats are deceiving and they can be twisted to tell whatever story you want.
For instance lets take 2 QB's numbers and see how it goes.
QB "A" has 506 att 315 comp with a 62.3% and has 3,245yds / 6 ints
QB "B" has 474 att 288 comp with a 60.8% and has 3,692yds / 14 ints
Now by looking at this you will see that QB "B" had less att but he had more ints and about 25 more yds a game.It looks like QB "A" turned the ball over less therefore putting his team in a better position to win and had a higher comp% so he would seem to be more accurate if you go by the comp%. The only difference is that QB "B" had 28 TD's and QB "A" had 13 TD's and QB "B" went 14-2 and won the SB while QB "A" went 8-8 and missed the playoffs.
These are the numbers of 2004 brady and the 2008 JC. So again stats dont tell the whole story. There are many variables that are either added or taken away that will prove or disprove whatever the provider is trying to accomplish. So lets just stick with the W's and the L's which in the end are all that really matter.[/quote]

You do know that Jason Campbell won't be the starter next year right? True the stats don't tell the whole story, but unfortunately for you we have a mediocre QB with decent stats. I don't understand why you (and others) insist in having this argument.

Criticizing Jason Campbell right now is truly beating a dead horse...we know he's not starting caliber and he won't be here next year. He still has good stats, which I guess is better than having a terrible QB with horrible stats (JaMarcus, Derek Anderson, etc., etc.). So just let it go, you won. Ok?

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626593][QUOTE=irish;626586]I think you have it backwards. I would give JC less leeway if he was a 3rd round pick because he wouldnt have cost the team so much to draft and moving on would be less costly.

I think because JC was a 1st rounder who the team gave up picks to get has to make you give him more leeway because he cost the organization so much to get. [B]As a result of how much he cost to get you have to make extra sure he cant do it before you cut him loose[/B][/quote]

5 yrs isnt long enough?[/QUOTE]

Well we can keep him as a back up QB, there's nothing wrong with that.

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626593][QUOTE=irish;626586]I think you have it backwards. I would give JC less leeway if he was a 3rd round pick because he wouldnt have cost the team so much to draft and moving on would be less costly.

I think because JC was a 1st rounder who the team gave up picks to get has to make you give him more leeway because he cost the organization so much to get. [B]As a result of how much he cost to get you have to make extra sure he cant do it before you cut him loose.[/[/B]QUOTE]

5 yrs isnt long enough?[/quote]

It sure is. JC doesnt have it and its time to move on.

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

[quote=irish;626600][quote=DBUCHANON101;626593]

It sure is. JC doesnt have it and its time to move on.[/quote]

I'm sure some Colts fans were saying this after their QB's 28 INTs in 1998 and 100 INTs in the first 5 years of his career.

Most sucessful QBs have developed over a 5+ year period. We've been throwing away QBs far too frequently since Mark Rypien left town. It's clear that the offensive line is a giant gaping hole in our team and I still think Campbell can excel with some help. He should be given the opportunity at least and if he can't play well with a line (he's already shown he can, see last season's first half), then we should move on to the next project. We'll never find a franchise QB by keeping every one of them on such a short leash and not giving them the tools and protection to succeed. With the current line (play played well vs. Denver though), we're lucky that our QB has good mobility, or we could be suffering through far worse than a 3-6 record.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626591]Stats are deceiving and they can be twisted to tell whatever story you want.
For instance lets take 2 QB's numbers and see how it goes.
QB "A" has 506 att 315 comp with a 62.3% and has 3,245yds / 6 ints
QB "B" has 474 att 288 comp with a 60.8% and has 3,692yds / 14 ints
Now by looking at this you will see that QB "B" had less att but he had more ints and about 25 more yds a game.It looks like QB "A" turned the ball over less therefore putting his team in a better position to win and had a higher comp% so he would seem to be more accurate if you go by the comp%. The only difference is that QB "B" had 28 TD's and QB "A" had 13 TD's and QB "B" went 14-2 and won the SB while QB "A" went 8-8 and missed the playoffs.
These are the numbers of 2004 brady and the 2008 JC. So again stats dont tell the whole story. There are many variables that are either added or taken away that will prove or disprove whatever the provider is trying to accomplish. So lets just stick with the W's and the L's which in the end are all that really matter.[/quote]
You do realize, that if you had left the TD line in the initial stats, that qb B would have been seen as the better choice for the qb right. Comparable TD/INT rate(about 50%), but more production, higher yards/attempt. Stats don't tell the whole story but deceptive use, or less than full disclosure, often is why they don't.

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

[quote=Buster;626618][quote=irish;626600]

[B]I'm sure some Colts fans were saying this after their QB's 28 INTs in 1998 and 100 INTs in the first 5 years of his career.[/B]
Most sucessful QBs have developed over a 5+ year period. We've been throwing away QBs far too frequently since Mark Rypien left town. It's clear that the offensive line is a giant gaping hole in our team and I still think Campbell can excel with some help. He should be given the opportunity at least and if he can't play well with a line (he's already shown he can, see last season's first half), then we should move on to the next project. We'll never find a franchise QB by keeping every one of them on such a short leash and not giving them the tools and protection to succeed. With the current line (play played well vs. Denver though), we're lucky that our QB has good mobility, or we could be suffering through far worse than a 3-6 record.[/quote]

Yeah Peyton had alot of picks in his first yr but he also never threw less than 26 TD's in a season. There is promise there, especially when he went from 28 ints to 15 the next yr with the same number of td's.Plus they went 3-13 in the first season and 13-3 the next so why would you doubt your QB in that situation???

Re: My apologies to JC.
 

[quote=Buster;626618][quote=irish;626600]

I'm sure some Colts fans were saying this after their QB's 28 INTs in 1998 and 100 INTs in the first 5 years of his career.

Most sucessful QBs have developed over a 5+ year period. We've been throwing away QBs far too frequently since Mark Rypien left town. It's clear that the offensive line is a giant gaping hole in our team and I still think Campbell can excel with some help. He should be given the opportunity at least and if he can't play well with a line (he's already shown he can, see last season's first half), then we should move on to the next project. We'll never find a franchise QB by keeping every one of them on such a short leash and not giving them the tools and protection to succeed. With the current line (play played well vs. Denver though), we're lucky that our QB has good mobility, or we could be suffering through far worse than a 3-6 record.[/quote]


I suspect they werent saying much since Manning had 138 TDs and over 20000 yards passing in his first 5 years.

Heck, Manning had almost ad many TD passes in his 3rd year alone (33) than JC has in his entire career (45).

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;626622][B]You do realize, that if you had left the TD line in the initial stats,[/B] that qb B would have been seen as the better choice for the qb right. Comparable TD/INT rate(about 50%), but more production, higher yards/attempt. Stats don't tell the whole story but deceptive use, or less than full disclosure, often is why they don't.[/quote]

That was the point for the ppl who put up Brady's stats and say that JC is in the same ballpark due to their similiar Comp% and yards.They leave out the TD's and W's so the stats that they provided would make the 2 seem even when like we both said can make whatever point the provider wants to make.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Y'all need to learn how to use the quote feature, because this is confusing as heck to follow.

Anyhow, the best thing for the Redskins is for Campbell to take control of the QB position and lead this team because then it's one less position for us to worry about. And we can focus on OL and RB.

But after 5 years, I expect more from Campbell at this point. He's a first round draft pick that we gave up a lot for. Is it his fault we did that? No, but we did and because of that he has to live up to certain expectations. Fair or not.

At some point, you have to stop looking at gradual progressions in various stat lines and just ask yourself "Do you trust Jason Campbell to carry the team on his back and lead them to victories?" I'm not there yet, and I think by now I should be.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626591]Stats are deceiving and they can be twisted to tell whatever story you want...So lets just stick with the W's and the L's which in the end are all that really matter.[/quote]

You do realize you are totally contradicting yourself right? Wins and losses is just another stat line.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626650]That was the point for the ppl who put up Brady's stats and say that JC is in the same ballpark due to their similiar Comp% and yards.They leave out the TD's and W's so the stats that they provided would make the 2 seem even when like we both said can make whatever point the provider wants to make.[/quote]Don't blame the tool being used, blame the person who is doing the twisting.

If you use statistics irresponsibly to try to support a poor point rather than using them as evidence to arrive at the proper conclusion, they are worthless.

The difference between Brady, 03 and Brady, 04 can be seen in the conventional stats at PFR, but is only really, really obvious once you look deeper.

This is the Football Outsiders' QB chart for [URL="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb2003"]2003[/URL], and this is it for [URL="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb2004"]2004[/URL]. On the 2003 list, Brady shows up around names like Kitna, McNabb, Brad Johnson, and Testeverde, and below the luminary trancendental passer Aaron Brooks. But in 2004, in the same offense with the same quality of weaponry, he reached levels near Manning, Trent Green, Culpepper, and Favre.

The bottom line is that in 2003, Tom Brady won a super bowl without outperforming Jason Campbell (2008 version) in any meaningful way. If you had cut off the analysis right there, you couldn't make an argument that Brady was better based on anything but a hunch that he would improve.

Once you extend Brady's career past three years as a starter, you can see he turned into one of the best passers of all time. You can see it in the meticulous study he puts into every game he plays, the thing that separates him from the Jay Cutlers and Daunte Culpeppers of the world. Brady has since become a great player.

I don't know anyone who thinks that if you kept Jason Campbell in the same offense he's in now another year, he'd wind up being a top five quarterback next year. No one, myself included, has the balls to predict that. It's happened before, but players who have a fifth year swoon the way Campbell has usually end up as journeymen. For those who aren't forced out the door, you usually end up with a whole bunch of seasons that look like Campbell's 08. And you can win with that, but again, you'll have to actually put some real talent on the offense, and not expect Campbell to eventually figure out how to turn water into wine. That's not happening anytime soon.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;626652]At some point, you have to stop looking at gradual progressions in various stat lines and just ask yourself "Do you trust Jason Campbell to carry the team on his back and lead them to victories?" I'm not there yet, and I think by now I should be.[/quote]Inevitably though, the answer to this question is somewhere between "yes" and "could anyone?"

It's a poor phrasing of a larger question we are no closer to answering than we were a year ago. I have all the trust in the world that if theres a game that can be won by a single quality drive at the end of the game, Jason Campbell can get us there, but it's not like our games ever come down to one offensive drive in the final four minutes.

And it's a big reason that people are so (relatively) inconclusive on Campbell. He's gone a long time here without ever having a signature moment, but all of our games seem to be decided by turnover margin, offensive line play, and whether the defense shows up. We're never in a situation where the quarterback needs to score and punting is not an option. Carolina ran out the final five minutes on us in our close game, Collins was inexplicably floundering around the next week, and every other opponent has been up comfortably in the fourth quarter on us. Including Detroit, somehow.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;626652]Y'all need to learn how to use the quote feature, because this is confusing as heck to follow.

Anyhow, the best thing for the Redskins is for Campbell to take control of the QB position and lead this team because then it's one less position for us to worry about. And we can focus on OL and RB.

But after 5 years, I expect more from Campbell at this point. He's a first round draft pick that we gave up a lot for. Is it his fault we did that? No, but we did and because of that he has to live up to certain expectations. Fair or not.

[B]At some point, you have to stop looking at gradual progressions in various stat lines and just ask yourself "Do you trust Jason Campbell to carry the team on his back and lead them to victories?" I'm not there yet, and I think by now I should be.[/quote][/B]

Thats basically what it all comes down to and when you watch games like the one vs Denver and he is either missing or over throwing open wr's it makes you wonder if he can turn it on in a must score situation. This is the NFL, you arent going to have many blown coverages by the defense or 5yds of separation between your wr and the db on every play but when those scenerios do present themselves you must make those plays and from what we have seen i cant say id feel too confident in a 2 minute situation with JC under Center.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=redsk1;626568]Carson Palmer is a very good QB and no offense to JC, but JC is not in his league. You can't compare the two.[/quote]

Anyone who knows anything about football knows this. Stats are just like politicians.....they never tell the truth.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626864][/b]

Thats basically what it all comes down to and when you watch games like the one vs Denver and he is either missing or over throwing open wr's it makes you wonder if he can turn it on in a must score situation. This is the NFL, you arent going to have many blown coverages by the defense or 5yds of separation between your wr and the db on every play but when those scenerios do present themselves you must make those plays and from what we have seen i cant say id feel too confident in a 2 minute situation with JC under Center.[/quote]Campbell's accuracy has been spotty since the beginning of October, and I agree that NFL passers have to be accurate. When the accuracy numbers come in at the end of the year, it wouldn't shock me to see Campbell in the 16-20 range, below a lot of passers he was more accurate than last season.

I'd say that's the single biggest reason that our offense is not converting in situations that it did last year: Campbell's missing open receivers too often.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=skinsfan69;626868]Anyone who knows anything about football knows this. Stats are just like politicians.....they never tell the truth.[/quote]Unless they do. Also like politicians.

Basically, you're saying, "if they disagree with what I think, then it's the evidence that's wrong, not me". Not surprising.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;626652]Y'all need to learn how to use the quote feature, because this is confusing as heck to follow.

Anyhow, the best thing for the Redskins is for Campbell to take control of the QB position and lead this team because then it's one less position for us to worry about. And we can focus on OL and RB.

But after 5 years, I expect more from Campbell at this point. He's a first round draft pick that we gave up a lot for. Is it his fault we did that? No, but we did and because of that he has to live up to certain expectations. Fair or not.

[B]At some point, you have to stop looking at gradual progressions in various stat lines and just ask yourself "Do you trust Jason Campbell to carry the team on his back and lead them to victories?" I'm not there yet, and I think by now I should be.[/quote][/B]

[B]That's pretty easy. No. He can't carry us on his back cause he's not good enough. [/B]

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;626877]Unless they do. Also like politicians.

Basically, you're saying, "if they disagree with what I think, then it's the evidence that's wrong, not me". Not surprising.[/quote]

I like them too...but they lie. lol.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Sidney Rice is leading the league in recieving yards. Who the hell is he. I have said for years that a quarterback is the most important factor in recieving yards. Where ever Bret Farve goes he makes superstar recievers. Just check out this year as opposed to last year.
[url=http://www.nfl.com/players/sidneyrice/profile?id=RIC161100]Sidney Rice[/url]

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=T.O.Killa;627012]Sidney Rice is leading the league in recieving yards. Who the hell is he. I have said for years that a quarterback is the most important factor in recieving yards. Where ever Bret Farve goes he makes superstar recievers. Just check out this year as opposed to last year.
[url=http://www.nfl.com/players/sidneyrice/profile?id=RIC161100]Sidney Rice[/url][/quote]

Yeah....their (Vikings) running back is very mediocre.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Defensewins;627019]Yeah....their (Vikings) running back is very mediocre.[/quote]
Not sure I understand this response.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=T.O.Killa;627022]Not sure I understand this response.[/quote]

Probably that Peterson has something to do with reciever getting more space. thought he was there last year and Rice had nobody to throw to him. Farve definately is the factore here.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Check out the third section of this article: [url=http://www.redskins.com/gen/articles/News___Notes__Moss_Renews_Rivalry_With_Dallas_79462.jsp]News & Notes: Moss Renews Rivalry With Dallas[/url]

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;626876]I'd say that's the single biggest reason that our offense is not converting in situations that it did last year: Campbell's missing open receivers too often.[/quote]

I often agree with Tripp.

But i don't know about this one.

I would put the onus on the OL and the suspect playcalling.
I don't think JC misses any more then other QBs, but the other QBs have a greater margin for error because the have better overall teams.

I've watched too many NFC east football games to say that JC misses more open receivers then Eli, Romo or McNabb.

HTTR!

I think we're gonna get a chance to make a good assessment of JC now that it appears the OL is coming together and there is competent playcalling (except when Zorn steals a call here and there).