Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

You know being one of Jason's biggest critics here I must say first as I did in the game thread yesterday that he played on hell of a game. During Regulation I saw some other guy playing because that wasn't the Jason Campbell I knew. Didn't get rattled at the sight of a blitzing defender. Made quick sound decisions with the football and by god the man found his deep ball. DID YOU HEAR ME PEOPLE? HE FOUND HIS DEEP BALL !!!!

It was simply a beautiful performance by him and I agree that since Sherm Lewis/Smith have been the main playcallers that his team as well as the teams performance has improved greatly.

A game like this is tough for me to judge him on because while he had a great game when the money was on the line he reverted to the guy that I bash. His footwork was off, he rushed his throw, and the result was a pick. Not all his fault; but had he drove them to a score I wouldn't have given credit to anyone else but him. I still think he should go because he's had his chance IMO and I think that it has been a fair one at that. We can scream on the line and not having receivers that are proven but I call Bullshit on that one because he has had enough to entrench himself as "The Guy" here. Also, if he had shown himself to be the guy to anyone else in the league then we would've been raped for this baller QB for a discounted price. He's still here so I guess we pretty much know what the deal is. His numbers didn't lie when it comes to the game yesterday because if I'm going to place blame on anyone for that loss it would be Carlos' stop and go parter Laron.

Is he playing like this because there is no pressure on him ? Don't know, had I never read him saying that the pressure is off and now we can go play then I wouldn't feel that's the case. He did play a good game though, actually I'd say hella good !

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;636155]As one of Campbell's strongest critics on the site tell me, has Campbell fallen below, met or exceeded your preseason expectations of him?

An argument can be made that all any one player can do is put his team in position to win games, no one player can do it alone. He did that in each of the last 3 games, would you not agree?[/quote]

He hasn't met my expectations. He's been in position to take us down the field in the Dallas game and this past game. Both games he's turned the ball over when we need him the most. Now with that being said he's certainly playing better and I want us to bring him back next year.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=skinsfan69;636357]He hasn't met my expectations. He's been in position to take us down the field in the Dallas game and this past game. Both games he's turned the ball over when we need him the most. Now with that being said he's certainly playing better and I want us to bring him back next year.[/quote]

Why do you want to bring him back?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=MonkFan4Life;636187]Is he playing like this because there is no pressure on him ? Don't know, had I never read him saying that the pressure is off and now we can go play then I wouldn't feel that's the case. He did play a good game though, actually I'd say hella good ![/quote]

What a difference pass protection makes.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;636155]As one of Campbell's strongest critics on the site tell me, has Campbell fallen below, met or exceeded your preseason expectations of him?

An argument can be made that all any one player can do is put his team in position to win games, no one player can do it alone. He did that in each of the last 3 games, would you not agree?[/quote]
Not sure if scoring 6 points is considered putting a team in position to win as a QB.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=firstdown;636373]Not sure if scoring 6 points is considered putting a team in position to win as a QB.[/quote]

If your team has the lead late in the 4th quarter=putting your team in a position to win.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=30gut;636371]What a difference pass protection makes.[/quote]

I'm not talking about defensive pressure. I'm talking about the pressure of winning every game. Because once you're out of the playoff hunt there's no pressure to perform.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;636377]If your team has the lead late in the 4th quarter=putting your team in a position to win.[/quote]

Especially when your kicker misses an easy one that would have put you up by ten inside of the 2 minute warning.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=MonkFan4Life;636381]I'm not talking about defensive pressure. I'm talking about the pressure of winning every game. Because once you're out of the playoff hunt there's no pressure to perform.[/quote]

You don't think the actual on the field pass protection has anything to do with JC performance? Even more then some perceived pressure to perform?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Even Patrick Ramsey had 300 yard games every now and then. I'd like to see some consistency from him before jumping on the Campbell bandwagon. If a new CBA isnt reached before the march deadline, slapping a RFA tag on him and keeping him another year is a no-brainer - no matter who our HC is or what offense we're running. On the flip side, if a new CBA is reached, and campbell becomes a FA, its probably worth tagging him. he'll be the top FA QB available in a very weak QB market - someone will trade a 2nd rounder for him.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

As much as I like Campbell's personality and the way he has played in the last few games, but it hasn't effected the bottom line... WINS.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;636612]Even Patrick Ramsey had 300 yard games every now and then. I'd like to see some consistency from him before jumping on the Campbell bandwagon. If a new CBA isnt reached before the march deadline, slapping a RFA tag on him and keeping him another year is a no-brainer - no matter who our HC is or what offense we're running. On the flip side, if a new CBA is reached, and campbell becomes a FA, its probably worth tagging him. he'll be the top FA QB available in a very weak QB market - someone will trade a 2nd rounder for him.[/quote]

yeah, we still have 4 games to go and id like to see how things play out and if JC's improved play is something real that can built upon or if hes just getting hot for a few games.

he played great against the saints, all things considered, but we lost and when we had a chance to take it down the field to win the game JC threw an int.

against the boys we lost 7-6, again we had a chance to go down field and win the game but we didnt.

i would def put a tender on JC thoo, no mater what happens for the rest of the season. that way we can draft a top end OT (not a qb), kept JC and worry about finding a franchise QB next year or so when (hopefully) we can afford and be in position to use resources to draft/acquire that missing franchise piece.

go skins!!

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

his recent play has definitely been significantly better, certainly more so than the goofy stats based "view point" this thread was originally based on.

I think the major concern should be the timing of his improved performance, and the fact that he's still failing and looking like his old hesitant self. Especially late in games; where a sustained drive for a TD wins either or both of the last few games.

He seems to play better when the game is either out of reach or there's less pressure (like now that the season is out of reach...) Once the game is on the line though.... Well lets put it this way did anyone feel like it would be Campbell and not Romo throwing a late game winning touchdown? I mean before Romo was the one who threw it? It was even more obvious when it was Brees or Campbell who had to win the game... EVERYONE saw that coming. Even before the missed kick, there was already a rank odor of "ut oh, here we go again" after that interception Campbell threw.

In a game where a last minute TD drive to go ahead is the holy grail of QB play Jason Campbell is not even living up to his mediocre stats by doing it a mediocre amount of the time...

I know there are fans who like him and want him to succeed because he's a nice guy but If a kicker makes the vast majority of his field goals but misses the ones that matter most, he's gone... How is this any different from a QB who looks okay most of the time but never puts together drives when it matters most?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=44 70 chip;636725]his recent play has definitely been significantly better, certainly more so than the goofy stats based "view point" this thread was originally based on.

I think the major concern should be the timing of his improved performance, and the fact that he's still failing and looking like his old hesitant self. Especially late in games; where a sustained drive for a TD wins either or both of the last few games.

He seems to play better when the game is either out of reach or there's less pressure (like now that the season is out of reach...) Once the game is on the line though.... Well lets put it this way did anyone feel like it would be Campbell and not Romo throwing a late game winning touchdown? I mean before Romo was the one who threw it? It was even more obvious when it was Brees or Campbell who had to win the game... EVERYONE saw that coming. Even before the missed kick, there was already a rank odor of "ut oh, here we go again" after that interception Campbell threw.

In a game where a last minute TD drive to go ahead is the holy grail of QB play Jason Campbell is not even living up to his mediocre stats by doing it a mediocre amount of the time...
[B]
I know there are fans who like him and want him to succeed because he's a nice guy but If a kicker makes the vast majority of his field goals but misses the ones that matter most, he's gone... How is this any different from a QB who looks okay most of the time but never puts together drives when it matters most[/B]?[/quote]

because there were seemingly better options that shushi, what's better than jc? i can definitly name you a few worse than him in the league

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;636612] On the flip side, if a new CBA is reached, and campbell becomes a FA, its probably worth tagging him. he'll be the top FA QB available in a very weak QB market - someone will trade a 2nd rounder for him.[/quote]

I don't know about that... The draft has some very good QB's and even ignoring the draft I look around and I don't see many teams where JC would be welcomed aboard as a starting QB.... So IMO a 2nd round pick is not going to happen.

Do you sit Josh Freeman for JC? No, Gerrard? Don't think so, Maybe Buffalo is interested, but surely that would be an "open to competition" situation right? Raiders? No chance, Gradkowski already looks better than Campbell. San fran Alex Smith looks very good so no chance... Does Denver sit Orton for Campbell? No way... Quinn? Nope Quinn has way more upside, Detroit? Not Stafford No. . Henne looks better and has upside... Cassels... of course not not with the big contract. Seriously I don't think JC is a CLEAR upgrade for any team in the league besides POSSILBY Buffalo and that's a situation where they ALREADY have a young QB they invested in and would at best be an open competition with Campbell being the underdog... Hesselback? No, Vince Young? LOL yeah right... Delhomme maybe competition there with the incumbent having the advantage and a big contract... Cutler... maybe if they hadn't paid so much for him they're pretty stuck with him. Maybe I'm missing someone obvious but I don't see a team that FOR SURE even offers Campbell a fair shot at the starting position based on camp and preseason... Except the Redskins... Even his BEST prospect is competing with a high draft pick.

The Skins need to draft a potential franchise QB with the understanding that he wont play the first season at least. and offer Campbell a fair shot to compete for starting QB next season... With an open competition between Bartel, Campbell and Brennan... I can't be the only one who wants to See Bartel... Parcells finds better undrafted and late round QB's than most teams do with high draft picks. Unfortunately unless someone steps up next season, or the draft pick pulls a Rothlesberger and beats the other three out in spectacular fasion, then next season is a throw away year.

Speculating Mike Vick may be (for some teams) a more exciting possibility than Campbell... I think with Snyders facination with big names the Skins might even be interested. I like Vick's prospects to be a featured wildcat QB, for a team willing to try to run the cat 40 or 50% of the downs... No ones going to bring Vick in to be a conventional QB, but a GM/Coach with some creativity could build an unconventional offense around Vick...

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=mlmdub130;636733]because there were seemingly better options that shushi, what's better than jc? i can definitly name you a few worse than him in the league[/quote]

What a ringing endorsement... :) Jason Campbell because if we try to improve we might end up with someone worse...

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Wow....^^^ you really think Gradkowsky is better than Campbell? he's got a raiders jersey on, automatically one of the worst players in the league lol

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=44 70 chip;636784]I don't know about that... [I][B]The draft has some very good QB's [/B][/I]and even ignoring the draft I look around and I don't see many teams where JC would be welcomed aboard as a starting QB.... So IMO a 2nd round pick is not going to happen.

[/quote]

The draft has plenty of developmental QBs, but there's not a single one of them that can start in week 1 of 2010 and, in my opinion, you don't spend a first round pick (especially a high one) on a player who cannot make an immediate impact. You also have to look at how many teams will be looking for new coaches in 2010. And what is one thing that almost every new coach wants? A veteran quarterback. If Cowher ends up in Carolina, he's going to want a veteran QB and Campbell's the cream of the available crop. Campbell is improving his stock every week. He's showing what he can do when his line protects him and his receivers make plays. If we don't want to retain Campbell, there's certainly going to be a team out there who'd trade a 2nd for him.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;636793]The draft has plenty of developmental QBs, but there's not a single one of them that can start in week 1 of 2010 and, in my opinion, you don't spend a first round pick (especially a high one) on a player who cannot make an immediate impact. You also have to look at how many teams will be looking for new coaches in 2010. [B]And what is one thing that almost every new coach wants? A veteran quarterback. [/B] If Cowher ends up in Carolina, he's going to want a veteran QB and Campbell's the cream of the available crop. Campbell is improving his stock every week. He's showing what he can do when his line protects him and his receivers make plays. If we don't want to retain Campbell, there's certainly going to be a team out there who'd trade a 2nd for him.[/quote]

You sure about that?

Mike Smith-rookie Matt Ryan
John Harbaugh-rookie Joe Flacco
Jim Schwartz-rookie Matt Stafford
Rex Ryan-rookie Mark Sanchez

I think there will be a market for Campbell (Arizona, Carolina, Seattle, Oakland, Cleveland, Jacksonville, St. Louis are all possibilities) but I think it will be a 3rd rounder at best

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

No I think Jason Campbell is not CLEARLY a better QB than Gradkowski, and it's unlikely that the Raiders would view Campbell as clearly better and worth sending a 2nd round draft pick to the skins for. JC is a known commodity at this point (a middling QB)... Young guys and guys who haven't played much like Gradkowski, Vince Young, Alex Smith and Brady Quinn MIGHT turn out worse, or they MIGHT turn out much better, they have upside that Campbell doesn't... If you read what I wrote you'll see I'm saying None of those guys will be benched for Campbell as a sure thing, at BEST those teams hypothetically bring in Campbell to compete for the starting job... I don't think they spend 2nd round picks to bring in "competition".

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

More than anything a coach wants "his guy" at QB. Not sure it matters if he's a rook or a vet.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;636794]You sure about that?

Mike Smith-rookie Matt Ryan
John Harbaugh-rookie Joe Flacco
Jim Schwartz-rookie Matt Stafford
Rex Ryan-rookie Mark Sanchez

I think there will be a market for Campbell (Arizona, Carolina, Seattle, Oakland, Cleveland, Jacksonville, St. Louis are all possibilities) but I think it will be a 3rd rounder at best[/quote]

i guess i should have clarified - when i made that statement, i was thinking more of the former HCs who will be looking for jobs in 2010. all the guys you mentioned were rookie HCs on teams that were, for all intents and purposes, rebuilding their teams from the ground up. However, its worth noting that, Matt Ryan aside, none of those teams drafted a rookie QB and expected to start him in 2010. Flacco won the job due to injuries to the guys above him and Sanchez and Stafford competed with veterans all through camp to earn starting jobs. In the case of Detroit, Culpepper was acquired to be the starter. In 2010, i see alot of "premier" franchises pursuing experienced HCs. Before the past 3 games, i'd have said Campbell wouldnt get more than a 3rd or 4th rounder. But if he continues playing like he has, he'd garner a 2nd and possibly another later round pick as well. The market for veteran QBs will be strong and the supply will be slim.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

A few points that guy from Notre Dame is repeatedly mentioned as able to start his first year right out of the draft.

Ah the Rams I missed them, so the Rams and Buffalo are JC's best prospects and in both cases he would be viewed as competition, and might not even be viewed as desirable depending on who the Rams draft.

Cardinals? Um Matt Leinart? Sorry at best JC is viewed as a backup and probably does not have a real shot at the starting role unless Leinart Struggles.

Carolina Delhomme has a huge contract but you never know... Campbell is certainly not a sexy QB compared to what they have had in the past.

Seattle, their backup already looks better than Campbell

Browns... seriously I know most fans don't maybe watch that much of other teams, but if Brady Quinn isn't the Browns future Jason Campbell sure as hell isn't...

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I think you're exposing your basic biases against Campbell

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=44 70 chip;636808]A few points that guy from Notre Dame is repeatedly mentioned as able to start his first year right out of the draft.

Ah the Rams I missed them, so the Rams and Buffalo are JC's best prospects and in both cases he would be viewed as competition, and might not even be viewed as desirable depending on who the Rams draft.

Cardinals? Um Matt Leinart? Sorry at best JC is viewed as a backup and probably does not have a real shot at the starting role unless Leinart Struggles.

Carolina Delhomme has a huge contract but you never know... Campbell is certainly not a sexy QB compared to what they have had in the past.

[B]Seattle, their backup already looks better than Campbell[/B]

Browns... seriously I know most fans don't maybe watch that much of other teams, but if Brady Quinn isn't the Browns future Jason Campbell sure as hell isn't...[/quote]
im really torn on Campbell, but he is wayyy better then Seneca Wallace

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

44 70, a month ago, i would have agreed with you argument about Campbell. Have you been watching the past few games? I can't be sure exactly what has caused it, but Campbell is looking like a true, starting-caliber, QB. I'm not 100% sold on him yet, but i'm getting close. We'll see how he plays out the next 4 games, but if he keeps it up, I think he's made a good case for himself to start SOMEWHERE in 2010. Will he be a top 10 NFL QB? No. Top 15? Sure looks like it the past few weeks. Top 20? I think he's already proven that.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I think these last 4 games have been the best in Campbells career and guess what. The line is blocking, only proves my point about him.

Line does their job, he does well as do the RB's, line doesn't the RB's don't.

If Snyder gets rid of Campbell to get some BS big name College kid, I will have lost all confidence in this franchise.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

The redskins offense not only is playing well right now, but seems to be getting better from week to week. It actually wouldn't surprise me if they win in 2 weeks agains the giants, who in the last few years have had the redskins' number.

Campbell's been playing well and the entire offense has played well. I don't know what came first, but I do know that you need to keep this version of the redskins offense together for next year. With all of the unorthodox methods like the 4x4 relay of play/bingo calling and with the perceived underachievers and never-beens -- I am still having fun watching the redskins offense. Something that I haven't said for a long time now.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;636815]I think you're exposing your basic biases against Campbell[/quote]

that would assume I'm hiding it in the first place. Still there's more than one kind of bias, There's unfair Bias that has not been earned, and perfectly reasonable bias that has sprung from patent realistic appraisal, The latter lets you make decisions that might otherwise be overly clouded with emotion.

While looking decent for 2 or 3 quarter of most games JC has failed to deliver in multiple games where he had the game in his hands near the end. That's an objective observation. It's unequivocal evidence that Campbell isn't the QB the skins need him to be. All the stats in the world don't compare to the question: does he perform when it matters most? The answer is no, and after well over 40 games as a starter it is perfectly reasonable to say that we've seen what we've got... We saw in his first two seasons, but most of us afforded him excuses.

Now unfair "bias" on the other hand, would be using statistics compiled against 6 of the worst teams in the league to try and portray Campbell as a better QB than he really is, due to an emotional investment in the person. Disregarding what the eyes tell you on a game by game basis.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I think Campbell is playing as well as any qb out there in the last 3 weeks. My only knock on him is - he should have been playing like this at the start of the season.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Unfair bias is thinking Jason Campbell wouldn't be a better option at QB for the Seahawks than a 5'10" 30 year-old QB...never mind that Campbell's former QB coach Bill Lazor now has the same role in Seattle.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Okay has Hasselbeck announced his retirement? If he has I'll give you the point that Seattle may be interested in Campbell... but I suspect they may be interested in drafting a QB as well. I admit Campbell is better than Wallace I shouldn't have gone that far, but I don't see Seattle thinking JC is so much better that they're willing to give up a 2nd rounder for him.

As I said earlier JC's best bet is to stay here, IMO at best he's fighting for a temporary starting spot in front of a high draft pick no matter where he goes, here at least he's got the upper hand out of camp... Anywhere else and he's either fighting an incumbent Vet QB or a young guy with upside who will get more slack and more benefit of the doubt due to upside.....

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

IMO JC's biggest thing is being consistent, in the past he would have a good game and then he would disappear for the nest few. These last few weeks he has done well, if he could do this on more of a regular basis then ppl would change their opinions on him. Well I WOULD.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=warriorzpath;636859]I think Campbell is playing as well as any qb out there in the last 3 weeks. My only knock on him is - he should have been playing like this at the start of the season.[/quote]

6 weeks actually...he started really performing well in the first game vs. Philly before the bye.

You're right, he's been one of the top in the NFL over the last 3 weeks.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=44 70 chip;636808]A few points that guy from Notre Dame is repeatedly mentioned as able to start his first year right out of the draft.

Ah the Rams I missed them, so the Rams and Buffalo are JC's best prospects and in both cases he would be viewed as competition, and might not even be viewed as desirable depending on who the Rams draft.

Cardinals? Um Matt Leinart? Sorry at best JC is viewed as a backup and probably does not have a real shot at the starting role unless Leinart Struggles.

Carolina Delhomme has a huge contract but you never know... Campbell is certainly not a sexy QB compared to what they have had in the past.

Seattle, their backup already looks better than Campbell

Browns... seriously I know most fans don't maybe watch that much of other teams, but if Brady Quinn isn't the Browns future Jason Campbell sure as hell isn't...[/quote]


:Flush:

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;636909]IMO JC's biggest thing is being consistent, in the past he would have a good game and then he would disappear for the nest few. These last few weeks he has done well, if he could do this on more of a regular basis then ppl would change their opinions on him. Well I WOULD.[/quote]

You're on the money there. Even in the first half of 2008, when Campbell was getting so much praise, he really wasnt all that consistent, and he certainly wasn't playing at the level he is now, which is understandable - we're comparing the first few games in a new offensive system to the last few as he's nearing 2 years of experience in the WCO. I honestly beleive that Snyder wants to see Campbell succeed. If he had shown them more in 2008, he wouldnt have gone after Cutler and Sanchez. As we've all noted over and over, Campbells future here largely depends on who our next head coach is and who he wants at the QB position. However, if Campbell keeps his level of play up the rest of the season, i'm fairly certain he'll be our starting QB next year - no matter who the coach is. Campbell has been in so many offensive systems, whatever offense we run in 2010 likely won't be "new" to him. He'll probably be the most attractive option available for whatever coach we have.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

don't know how accurate this is but steinburg just tweeted it about an hour ago

Jason Campbell's history, less than 6 minutes left, tied or down by one score: 44-82, 584 yards, 2 TD, 4 INT, 64.3 rating, 4-12 record.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;637117]You're on the money there. Even in the first half of 2008, when Campbell was getting so much praise, he really wasnt all that consistent, and he certainly wasn't playing at the level he is now, which is understandable - we're comparing the first few games in a new offensive system to the last few as he's nearing 2 years of experience in the WCO. I honestly beleive that Snyder wants to see Campbell succeed. If he had shown them more in 2008, he wouldnt have gone after Cutler and Sanchez. [B]As we've all noted over and over, Campbells future here largely depends on who our next head coach is and who he wants at the QB position. However, if Campbell keeps his level of play up the rest of the season, i'm fairly certain he'll be our starting QB next year - no matter who the coach is.[/B] Campbell has been in so many offensive systems, whatever offense we run in 2010 likely won't be "new" to him. He'll probably be the most attractive option available for whatever coach we have.[/quote] The more Campbell continues to play well, the more I start thinking the same way. If he continues to build rapport with Thomas, Daivs & Kelly it would be smart to keep that consistency, even if the coach is different. I really wonder if there would be such an uproar at that position if Cutler wasn't available last offseason. If we didn't shop so publicly last season would most fans still be frustrated with the results but encouraged by the progress at QB rather than spending so much time on 'what if'? That being said, I love this thread for showing that of the 3 QB, we've clearly got the best one this season.

Looking at a comparison of Campbell to Matt Hasselbeck at similar stages of their careers (1st 28 games) in the WCO the similarities are striking..

-Hasselbeck: 28 TD, 19 INT, 56.6% completions, 5,666 yards, 14-14 record
-Campbell: 28 TD, 18 INT, 64.1% completions, 5,969 yards, 11-17 record

Now obviously the record is the biggest disparity but there are numerous non QB factors that can come into consideration there but the question is worth asking, would Redskins fans be satisfied with Hasselbeck-like production over the next 5 years? He's been consistent, been a winner, led his team to a Super Bowl with the help of a strong running game and an excellent offensive line. If we believe a QB's development in the WCO can be a 3 year maturation process should critics have a different view of Campbell as the Redskins QB of the near future?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Buster;637021]6 weeks actually...he started really performing well in the first game vs. Philly before the bye.

You're right, he's been one of the top in the NFL over the last 3 weeks.[/quote]

If your standard is fantasy football points sure... Personally I think the two drives where he could have won the last two games were far more telling, and important than his stats, or how well he played when the game was not hanging in the balance.

I'll interpret that insulting smiley as the internet equivalent to a dog rolling over and submitting his belly to another dog while still managing a sad little growl of half hearted protest.

So Campbell has looked good the last couple weeks when the playoffs are out of reach... I'd go so far to say he's looked better than any time in his carreer. He has elevated his play during garbage time in many games earlier in the season as well. why should the "garbage time" of the season be any different?

While I would be quick to say that I think he's a nice guy and his elevated play is more about relaxing and playing more instinctive with less pressure on his shoulders, and not because of any bad character or the fact that he's "playing for a contract"... It is still a major problem. Especially when people see better play during garbage time, as a sign of better play to come when it matters again next season.

Then again, good guy or not, it's also possible that it's fully hit home that he is now playing for his career, his next contract, and maybe the prospects of selling used cars for Easterns doesn't look all that attractive... I don't really think that's his primary motivation, but it sure wouldn't be the first such case.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

It's been covered in other threads but i really don't get the feeling that Jason is going to be re-signed.

#1 there isn't a big market out there for him. (We saw what other people were willing to trade for him during the Cutler saga)

#2 his play isn't consistant but i will say his last 4 games have been the best in his career. Unfortunatley it may be too little too late