Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Buster;626094]
This nonstop hatred for him is what keeps me up for tracking this all year long. He could throw 4 TDs and people would still manufacture excuses as to why he's not to be given credit
[/quote]

By the same token he could have misleadingly high stats for reasons that are painfully obvious and people would still manufacture Pro-Campbell arguments based on those stats and ignoring what is clearly visible during the games.

Facing 6 of the worst teams in the league in the first 7 games, taking 3 or 4 sacks per game without throwing the ball away when he could have, and his suddenly elevated 2nd half "too little too late" performances when the game was out of hand.

If you watch JC's fundamentals all the stats in the world wont convince you that he's the franchise QB the skins need... Not even the fantasy of 4 TD's would.

The only thing being manufactured in this thread is a pro Campbell argument based on a very ludicrous interpretation of stats in a vacuum. That is to say stats with no context such as Wins and losses, situations, or for strength of the competition they were compiled against.

JC has had one good game this season, in which he looked like an above average NFL QB, and that was in a game where the run took all the preasure off him. It could be argued that Jason Cambell has faced 3 good defenses all season, and two of those defenses are currently highly suspect and have serious issues that have lead to them being badly gouged lately (Denver's run and the Giants Pass defenses).

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]

Actually Sidney Rice is 4th in receiving yards, and he was a first round draft pick I believe, so it's not shocking that he's producing in his third year. But yeah, having Favre certainly helps.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

in qbs there are the "win" factor. The ability to be just arrogant enough to believe that you can take your team down the field despite double coverage, being behind, bad weather or blocking, amd just win it. I just dont see that in JC

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=doughtydoubter;627444]in qbs there are the "win" factor. The ability to be just arrogant enough to believe that you can take your team down the field despite double coverage, being behind, bad weather or blocking, amd just win it. I just dont see that in JC[/quote]


There's also the accuracy issue. You don't see those types of QB's throwing the ball behind their receiver's very often, you don't see them over throwing them very often like JC does. I like JC and think he might be better with a better O-line but facts are facts. Watch the games, he simply throws too high and the receivers have to try and go up and get it. He throws constantly behind receivers and it's blatently obvious with Cooley.

The Favre's, Brees's, River's, Mannings (both) don't throw behind their receivers very often they usually lead them with a pass.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GMScud;627414]Actually Sidney Rice is 4th in receiving yards, and he was a first round draft pick I believe, so it's not shocking that he's producing in his third year. But yeah, having Favre certainly helps.[/quote]
he was a second

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Say what you want about brett favre being a great quarterback...how many int's has he thrown, i actually don't think he should get into the hal of fame because as many touchdowns hes thrown and games hes won, the worst mistake of a quarterback is to throw an inerception and favre has made more worst mistakes than anyone else who has ever played in the NFL...

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=rbanerjee23;627596]Say what you want about brett favre being a great quarterback...how many int's has he thrown, i actually don't think he should get into the hal of fame because as many touchdowns hes thrown and games hes won, the worst mistake of a quarterback is to throw an inerception and favre has made more worst mistakes than anyone else who has ever played in the NFL...[/quote]

He is a 3 time mvp...

plus the benefit of throwing a td far outweighs the loss of throwing an int. A td is a definate score, an int just makes it possible for the other team to score quicker

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=skinster;627614]He is a 3 time mvp...

[B]plus the benefit of throwing a td far outweighs the loss of throwing an int.[/B] A td is a definate score, an int just makes it possible for the other team to score quicker[/quote]This isn't at all true. It's actually quite the opposite. A lot of really smart people think the absolute value of an INT is somewhere between two and three times the absolute value of a TD pass.

I'm not agreeing with the poster that suggests that Brett Favre should not be in the hall of fame because he has a strong interception tendency. That's not right either. Brett Favre can make up for an interception tendency by being a high-efficiency passer. Lots of completions, lots of touchdowns, few sacks and fumbles. This efficiency seperates Favre from the Donovan McNabb's, Kerry Collins', Daunte Culpeppers of the world, lower-efficiency players who absolutely need to be throwing three times as many TDs as INTs to be worth a roster spot.

Favre's unquestionably a first-ballot hall of famer, but I think he's come to be overrated in recent seasons because people see a player exceeding his relative expectations and then jump to the level of, "he hasn't lost anything". Favre hasn't been a truly MVP-type player since 2001 or 2002 though. The fact that he's had pro-bowl type seasons in recent years has kind of skewed the public opinion of him.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;627639]This isn't at all true. It's actually quite the opposite. A lot of really smart people think the absolute value of an INT is somewhere between two and three times the absolute value of a TD pass.

... [/quote]

Can you explain this proposition to us less then smart people. I get that it ends a drive but, unless it is run back for a TD, it seems to me that an absolute value of a TD pass = 6, the most an INT can equal is 6 but often times it is 3 or even 0. So in my basic understanding, the absolute value of a TD pass= 6, and the absolute value of an INT <6.
Another way I could say it, is if you took the avg points awarded for all the TD passes ever thrown in the history of football, it would be 6 points to the scoring team. However, if you took the points awarded off of all the interceptions ever thrown in the history of football, it could not even be close to 6 points to the scoring team, I could even see it being close to 2, because of all the times 0 points are scored off of an INT.

Not being a smart alec, just don't see how an INT is worth 2 or 3 times a TD pass.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;627648]Can you explain this proposition to us less then smart people. I get that it ends a drive but, unless it is run back for a TD, it seems to me that an absolute value of a TD pass = 6, the most an INT can equal is 6 but often times it is 3 or even 0. So in my basic understanding, the absolute value of a TD pass= 6, and the absolute value of an INT <6.
Another way I could say it, is if you took the avg points awarded for all the TD passes ever thrown in the history of football, it would be 6 points to the scoring team. However, if you took the points awarded off of all the interceptions ever thrown in the history of football, it could not even be close to 6 points to the scoring team, I could even see it being close to 2, because of all the times 0 points are scored off of an INT.

Not being a smart alec, just don't see how an INT is worth 2 or 3 times a TD pass.[/quote]

Well said. I was about ot ask the same thing. Perhaps QBs who throw alot of INTs typically have significantly lower completion rates than other QBs, but thats a different point. Or maybe it has something to do with "momentum" shifting and changing the way the teams perform. However, I look at it the same way you do: A TD is a garaunteed 6 points. An Int isnt. I'd much rather have a QB that threw 3 INTs and 3 TDs per game than one who didn't throw either.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SBXVII;627462][B]There's also the accuracy issue. You don't see those types of QB's throwing the ball behind their receiver's very often, you don't see them over throwing them very often like JC does.[/B] I like JC and think he might be better with a better O-line but facts are facts. Watch the games, he simply throws too high and the receivers have to try and go up and get it. He throws constantly behind receivers and it's blatently obvious with Cooley.

The Favre's, Brees's, River's, Mannings (both) don't throw behind their receivers very often they usually lead them with a pass.[/quote]

You are right JC's accuracy is not very good. I watched "Playbook" on NFL network the other night. They did a great job of piecing together the highlights of the QB's in last weeks games. What really jumped out at me is the confidence and accuracy of the other QBs'. The top qb's complete passes in to tight or double coverage, no problem. Campbell plays scared to make plays like that.
Say what you want about JC having to change offensive systems/offensive coordinators every year and that his O-line sucks, but he is still not accurate. Either you have it or you don't. I am beginning to think he does not have it.
One other observation: most really good Qb's get really tight with one or two of his receivers. You know the story, they spend all off season together and they know exactly where they are going to be on the field. They can do it with their eyes closed.
Manning and Wayne, Brady and Moss/Welker, even rookie Sanchez is tight with Cotchery. I do not see that with Campbell and any of our receivers.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;627648]Can you explain this proposition to us less then smart people. I get that it ends a drive but, unless it is run back for a TD, it seems to me that an absolute value of a TD pass = 6, the most an INT can equal is 6 but often times it is 3 or even 0. So in my basic understanding, the absolute value of a TD pass= 6, and the absolute value of an INT <6.
Another way I could say it, is if you took the avg points awarded for all the TD passes ever thrown in the history of football, it would be 6 points to the scoring team. However, if you took the points awarded off of all the interceptions ever thrown in the history of football, it could not even be close to 6 points to the scoring team, I could even see it being close to 2, because of all the times 0 points are scored off of an INT.

Not being a smart alec, just don't see how an INT is worth 2 or 3 times a TD pass.[/quote]By really smart people, I was referring to people much smarter than myself.

Now, I've seen versions of this analysis in multiple places, but I'm going to link to research done by pro football reference, because, well, it's easy to find. I think the original groundwork for this was done by economists Palmer, Thorn, and Carroll (also way smarter than me) in the Hidden Game of Football way back in 1988 (so their research predates me...as in me the person, not just my research).

[URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=404"]Pro-football-reference.com blog » Why a touchdown is worth ten yards[/URL]

[URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=365"]Pro-football-reference.com blog » Rearview Adjusted Yards per Attempt[/URL]

[URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=139"]Pro-football-reference.com blog » The Best QB of all time?[/URL]

PFR has always done a 45 yd penalty for INTs and a 10 yd bonus for TDs. They've recently upped their stats to included a 20 yard bonus for TDs because there's a lot of debate about how valuable a TD pass is compared to a pass down to the one yard line, and it's probably really context heavy no matter what, so the estimate could be way off. But not so way off where an INT and a TD would be of equal value.

If they were of equal value, you'd want a quarterback who threw INTs and TDs at a 1:1 rate to pass on pretty much every down, despite the fact that a guy who throws 20 TDs and 20 INTs in the same year is probably not a great quarterback.

A lot of this is conjecture anyway, and your points are completely valid. That's why I'm linking and not disputing.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Right now Farve is playing some of the best ball I've ever seen him play. Mistake free, take what the defense gives you....but he's still making plays w/ his arm at the age of 40. Simply amazing.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

GTripp,

I looked at those, and it seems less clear. If you say a TD pass is +10 yds, your basically saying that a TD is equal to one Firstdown. That's not a fair value. I think the -45 for an int is probably a good number, to say an INT costs 4 first downs, or half a possession on a sustained drive. But a TD really has to be considered as valuable as a full possession, because the other team would now be one possession behind your team.

Not sure how all the numbers mish mash, but in this case, I think they are doing it more for historical ranks than actual game time value. I might agree in that regards

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

And i think Brett is finally in an offense that is good enough that he doesnt have to throw the ball 40 times a game...and yeah, after the beginning of this season, no way anybody can question Favre's arm at this point....

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;627679]GTripp,

I looked at those, and it seems less clear. If you say a TD pass is +10 yds, your basically saying that a TD is equal to one Firstdown. That's not a fair value. I think the -45 for an int is probably a good number, to say an INT costs 4 first downs, or half a possession on a sustained drive. But a TD really has to be considered as valuable as a full possession, because the other team would now be one possession behind your team.

Not sure how all the numbers mish mash, but in this case, I think they are doing it more for historical ranks than actual game time value. I might agree in that regards[/quote]I think the implied is this:

You can already judge a quarterback by his YPA figure. If Brett Favre has a career YPA of 7.0 (which he does), and 9565 attempts (which he does), then you can already predict his TD total using a simple regression with that information.

Now, it turns out that Favre has a career TD rate of 5.0 which is better than roughly 64% of quarterbacks who played over the exact same timeframe as Brett Favre. So, unsurprisingly, Favre is a more valuable player than a hypothetical player who played over the exact same timeframe and threw the same # of passes for the same number of yards. We can all agree that Vinny Testaverde is not the same as Brett Favre, even though he played over the same timeframe, and had similar attempt and YPA numbers up through 2002.

The 10 marginal yards comes from the assumption that you can already account for passing yards by looking at passing yards, but you're trying to determine how valuable that one yard between the one yard line and the goal line is relative to the rest of the field. I think PFR's analysis falls apart a bit because a TD pass off of play action from the one might actually only be worth ten yards of field position (of course, the same pass on third down might be worth three times as much as a one-yard TD pass on first down), while a TD strike from the 25 yard line might be a passing play that would have gone for 40 or 45 yards if the endzone hadn't truncated the play.

I happen to think the 20 yard estimate is a lot closer to the true value of the average TD. But, admittedly, that's based on "feel" and not a lot of evidence. If we establish the value of the average INT = 45 yards, it's tough to say that the last yard between the one yard line and the end zone should be considered equivelent. We know that it's greater than one yard...it's the toughest yard to get. The major key is to seperate "passing touchdown" from "offensive touchdown".

I'm going to add on to this post later, but right now, I'm changing locations.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

this is over analysis to the nth degree. gtripp, right now, do YOU bring Campbell back?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

all i know is jc doesn't throw very many int's he is actually very good about that over the years, but at the same time his td totals are pedestrian, while an int is never good i'd take an int a game if he could throw two td's, because i feel with thoose odds we would win.

if you throw more deeper passes and take chances you have more of a chance of throwing a int, but if you have a good qb you also have a better chance of throw a td

and as far as saying farve doesn't deserve to be in the hall because of his int's thats insane, if you average out his totals he averages 18 a season and he has had some bad seasons but he has also had some great seasons.

as a qb you have to take risks, you just have to know when and where, jc never does

not to moention he is in accurate as hell, he could serve a great role as a back up here and i hope he stays here for that purpose

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=dmek25;627699]this is over analysis to the nth degree. gtripp, right now, do YOU bring Campbell back?[/quote]Can't answer that question until we know who gets cut and what our offensive philosophy will be next year.

Given, however, the sorry state of our QB situation independent of Campbell, I'd say you'd have to. Thing is, if things fall in such a way so that Campbell is an unrestricted free agent, he's almost certainly worth less to us than he is to a team that needs a quarterback but has other offensive pieces in place. Seattle, St. Louis, Arizona, Minnesota, Oakland, etc.

And if he doesn't hit the open market, the only reason you wouldn't bring him back is pure spite. Since a good organization doesn't make decisions based on emotion, it would be an obvious yes, and then the new coaching staff gets to determine who holds the clipboard.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I take it the "JC has good stats" people aren't very interested in discussing the strength of the opponents he compiled the stats against, or the simple observations of JC's poor fundamentals...

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=44 70 chip;627714]I take it the "JC has good stats" people aren't very interested in discussing the strength of the opponents he compiled the stats against, or the simple observations of JC's poor fundamentals...[/quote]
His stats over the last 3 years have been progressively improving. Your comment is much like, the "JC Haters not wanting to recognize his obvious strengths".

With JC you have a qb who has inherent flaws, but enough positives to have given him a shot. For the question, is he the qb next year. I say put a 2nd round tender on him - which is an acknowledgment he did not live up to expectations or potential - and if no one takes it bring him back for training camp, cut Collins and have an open competition in camp. Let someone else take the job from him.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

i really don't understand how anyone can say he is a great qb, or anyone that can say he is a terrible qb, imo there is no way to justify either of those comments.

bottom line he is a great game managing qb, he can come in and not lose you a game, and as of right now he is the best option we have and i think he will most likly be the best option next year, atleast in the begining

but like you said it needs to be an open competition where no ones job is safe

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;627679]I looked at those, and it seems less clear. If you say a TD pass is +10 yds, your basically saying that a TD is equal to one Firstdown. That's not a fair value. [/quote]Instead of thinking of it as 1 TD = 1 FD, I think it's more important to think of it from a standpoint of the difference in value between a huge play that doesn't go for a TD, and one that does.

Let's look at Portis' 79 yard run from the Chiefs game. He got tackled 10 yards short of the end zone. The difference in value between that 79 yard run and an 89 yd TD run is more than "ten yards", as we ended up not scoring on the drive. But let's assume for a minute that we establish that 1 TD = 1 INT = 45 yards. Applied to the Portis run, the difference between the 79 yard run and a 89 yard TD run would be the same as the difference between the 79 yard run and a 24 yard run (=79-10-45) out to the WAS 34.

While I firmly believe that Portis really should have been able to run that in for a touchdown, I would not trade in the the play that occured for a 50% probability of a score combined with a 50% that Brandon Carr gets off the Randle El block and tackles Portis for a 24 yard gain.

I would however, certainly trade in that 79 yard run if that 50% probability that Portis gets dragged down at the 30 or 35 of KC (70-10-10 or 15).

That's all I think the valuation game really is. A whole lot of trial and error, and what "feels" right. If the PFR analysis falls short, it's because they are only trying to value first down situations, when they need to be looking at all downs. A TD bonus on 3rd and goal from the 15 yard line probably is worth close to 45 yards. I would definately trade 45 yards of field position for the four additional points.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I would have much rather seen Campbell go deep into the end zone and possibly get intercepted at the end of the Lions game than the little flare to Betts (or whoever) that we saw. If that makes Campbell a bad QB so what.

But anyway, not even all INTs are the same. An INT returned for a TD is significantly more important than a INT with a 14 point lead and no time left on the clock. Intercepting the ball on 4th and 4 is probably worth less than just letting the ball drop and so on.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

My argument is that his statistics so far this season shouldn't be used to support a pro-campbell argument that flies in the face of reality (i.e. that he's played great football because his QB rating is good despite looking awful in games against bad teams).

I won't disagree with anyone that wants to backtrack into a "hey there are worse QB's than JC" stance. I'm interested in debating the merits of those stats that supposedly "don't lie" that are repeatedly being used in this thread to "put down" people who are unhappy with JC's play.

Are you really going to stand by the idea that he has improved from last year to this year based on statistics that were compiled against the weakest half of a season schedule in the history of the NFL?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Green1;598742]Every thread someone is calling for campbell to be benched but his numbers are great.
1. Rating: 92.5 Higher than Brady, Big Ben, C. Palmer, Cutler, and Rivers
2. 9th in passing yards: More that Rodgers, Ryan, Palmer, E. Manning, & Cutler
3. 5th in the Comp. Percent. 67.6%: Higher than everyone in the league except P. Manning, Brees, Big Ben, and Chad Penn.

So what else does he have to do to be considered a good QB. The Skins have a good QB, just bad playcalling, no running game, and no O-line. Get off campbell's back. He is doing more with less better than anyone in the NFL. Check the stats the STATS don't lie![/quote]


Me personally I'm not a stats person, but I'm a results person. I could care less about good stats or bad stats. My question is did you get a W.

When we look at overall results and we determine they're not good then we need to look at stats and try to determine if the stats reinforce the outcome of the bad results. In other words does JC's stats indicate that he holds a major responsibility in the bad 3-6 results we have.

If you do an honest assesment the answer is NO! JC is a good QB and will be a good QB in the future. JC is not the single reason the Skins are loosing games. JC is not the best QB in the league, but he's deffinitely not the worst.

The fans that claim he sucks won't realize what we have until he's gone. These are the same fans that think Cutler the other JC was the answer. Talk about a guy with no leadership, he never won anything in his football career. At least JC lead his high school and college teams to championships, but you all want Cultler.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=dgw090767;627839]Me personally I'm not a stats person, but I'm a results person.
[/quote]

I think either way is wrong :^) I'm an "actual play" person his actual play has been timid overall, full of fundamental mistakes in techinque, with inconsistent, flashes of elevated play (some of which uncannilly seem to happen late in games that are already out of hand). While still exhibiting mistakes that we all know he's been coached repeatedly on. So it appears he may very well carry these bad fundamentals through his whole career.

The key thing is not for the Skins to pull JC because he's not 'mediocre' enough on a consistent basis, it's to start planing on who to replace him with because he's not 'franchise' enough. There are plenty of middling game managers who can play consistently unspectacular football. Hell one of them is backing up JC every game, and at times has looked better than Campbell. We didn't trade up to draft a mediocre game manager in the first round, and at this point he's not even at that level (consistently). Fair or not JC will be judged on that basis, as a top draft pick who needs to be a franchise QB to be considered successful here... Holding him to a whole other (lower) standard and then saying his stats don't lie, seems to be the product of fans who are maybe too emotionally invested in Campbell and can't see the reality, or perhaps don't have access to the games to actually see his play.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Best game Campbell has played this year by far. Numbers might not say that, but he played well today, especially considering the pressure.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

After today I say he stay another year. Question is do we bring in someone else or do we keep Brennan close by to be a possibility to be a starter. But man do we need to improve or O line.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;629087]Best game Campbell has played this year by far. Numbers might not say that, but he played well today, especially considering the pressure.[/quote]

yes sir i agree

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

He played well but when it really counted and when it was clutch time he throws across his body what into what looked like double coverage instead of tucking it down and running. As Gibbs said...." it comes down to whether or not a guy can drive you down the field when the game is one the line and win it for you". I just knew that we were not going to get into FG position...I knew it.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Wow talk about lowered expectations...

I guess by the generous yardstick being used here yes, he didn't take as many unecessary sacks, he didn't fumble any center exchanges, he didn't get the ball stripped running around with it at his hip in one hand, he only threw 1 int versus no TD's and he actually made a play with his feet that was impressive rather than scary or disapointing...

So if we're all okay with a nearly decent not quite mediocre QB performance then yes he's obviously the QB of the future.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I have not been a JC supporter as of late,I was sure I wanted him gone next season.But I have to say I think hes played well the past 3 games.His descisions and plays he made with his feet have impressed me.I'm torn,I was so sure I wanted him gone,now im thinking well maybe hes not that bad.Oh well,6 more games to evaluate him.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Thank goodness he's not a lefty. Becuase Heyer protecting his blind side would be hellacious. Heyer was getting blown up all day long.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

This organization is going to have a very tough time letting Jason Campbell go next year and they had better have a really good option if they do.

I really think this team has held him back. I could see him, dare I say it, thrive somewhere like Oakland. I'm serious. They don't have the team that we do, but I think Campbell stats would go through the roof if we ever put the game in his hands.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I thought JC made some good quick throws with ppl in his face for the most part. I cant really point out a play where i caught myself second guessing what he did under the circumstances. We didnt get the ball in the endzone but i was feeling good about how we got the youngsters involved in the game. MK had a good play and DT is showing signs of "getting it" while Davis has done a good job filling in for Cooley. I hate to see us lose in a game where our defense played their butts off, but there where plays that were there to be made that could have turned the outcome. We have to make those to get off of this slide we are on. lets hope we can turn it around these next few games and at least have some positives as we look to the future of our team.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

news flash campbell is not an accurate passer!!!!!!!!!!!

he is a game manager nothing more nothing less

and did i mention he's not accurate, cause he isn't, not even close, not at all

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=mlmdub130;629329]news flash campbell is not an accurate passer!!!!!!!!!!!

he is a game manager nothing more nothing less

and did i mention he's not accurate, cause he isn't, not even close, not at all[/quote]

I know you have your mind made up about Campbell, but Romo missed a ton of throws today. He was far worse than Campbell. And as we speak, I'm watching Cutler miss two wide open guys in the end zone. So much for the Cutler v Campbell debate.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

ok i know cutler is/was a decent qb in denver, but wtf is the deal with (almost)EVERYONE thinking he is a great qb? granted he has put up some good numbers but wtf everyone makes excuses for this guy i don't get it, i just watched sports center and they claim that 3 of the int's in the san fran game were not his fault(he threw 5), i'm sorry i guess i really don't see what everyone else does, i see this guy as a mediocre qb and nothing more seriously wtf has he done to get so much praise

my thoughts on cutler from the cutler thread

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;629313]Thank goodness he's not a lefty. Becuase Heyer protecting his blind side would be hellacious. Heyer was getting blown up all day long.[/quote]

Yeah he was either getting tossed around like a rag doll or he was committing false starts. Talk about a guy I'm fed up with. All I know is he sure as hell better not be back as a starter next year.