Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=Mattyk72;507000]Maybe I'm missing something, but I honestly don't see JC's delivery as being an issue anymore. I look at other QBs and see much more quirky deliveries. Kerry Collins has always had a big hitch. Leftwich has to have the longest windup in the history of the game. Phillip Rivers seems to almost push the ball. Our own Colt Brennan has a pretty unconventional delivery.

JC's delivery has been cleaned up to the point where I don't even see it as being an issue. One thing to consider that I've brought up in the past is he's pretty lanky so I think the illusion is there that he has a longer delivery.[/quote]
Because people who don't actually understand football use crutches they've heard in the past as support for their argument.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=Paintrain;507044]Because people who don't actually understand football use crutches they've heard in the past as support for their argument.[/quote]
Everything on here is opinions, no one here is an expert on football or we would all be coaches

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=charlielyons;507021]this offense has stuggled for years, hence the reason i said when we are mathimatically eliminated why not see what others can do.
QB-brennan for campbell,OL-rinehart and heyer,TE-davis for yoder,WR-thomas and kelly for ARE and thrash[/quote]

You do that with a 3-13 team, not a team that is a legitimate shot at the playoffs going into the last month of the season.

It's really hard to take anything you say seriously because it seems that you have an axe to grind and are ignoring logic and common sense. Let's break it down to basic elements for you, Brennan is not seeing the field at all this year, Davis will likely remain inactive for the rest of the year. Absent an injury Rinehart and Heyer will remain backups, Thomas and Kelly are being worked in as they can be.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=Paintrain;507047]You do that with a 3-13 team, not a team that is a legitimate shot at the playoffs going into the last month of the season.

It's really hard to take anything you say seriously because it seems that you have an axe to grind and are ignoring logic and common sense. Let's break it down to basic elements for you, Brennan is not seeing the field at all this year, Davis will likely remain inactive for the rest of the year. Absent an injury Rinehart and Heyer will remain backups, Thomas and Kelly are being worked in as they can be.[/quote]
no axe to grind....just thinking once we are out of the playoff hunt....look at the backups for the future.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=charlielyons;507048]no axe to grind....just thinking once we are out of the playoff hunt....look at the backups for the future.[/quote]

Sorry dude, but that doesn't happen in the NFL for teams competing for playoff spots late in the season.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=charlielyons;507021]this offense has stuggled for years, hence the reason i said when we are mathimatically eliminated why not see what others can do.
QB-brennan for campbell,OL-rinehart and heyer,TE-davis for yoder,WR-thomas and kelly for ARE and thrash[/quote]

Since you seem to be hung up on the topic of deliveries, what do you think about Colt's sidearm sling?

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=charlielyons;507048]no axe to grind....just thinking once we are out of the playoff hunt....look at the backups for the future.[/quote]

While you are entitled to your opinion of course, it's pretty annoying to see someone get thoroughly beat down by reasoned argumentation and repeatedly come back with the same take: whatever dude, put in Brennan :Smoker:

If you aren't going to come with more than "why not see what the backups can do" (as if benching the franchise quarterback is something to be done on a lark), why not just move onto a new thread? I mean, we get it.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=Mattyk72;507058]Since you seem to be hung up on the topic of deliveries, what do you think about Colt's sidearm sling?[/quote]
needs to be brought up, but his delievery is quick(potienally alot of batted balls)

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=djnemo65;507059]While you are entitled to your opinion of course, it's pretty annoying to see someone get thoroughly beat down by reasoned argumentation and repeatedly come back with the same take: whatever dude, put in Brennan :Smoker:

If you aren't going to come with more than "why not see what the backups can do" (as if benching the franchise quarterback is something to be done on a lark), why not just move onto a new thread? I mean, we get it.[/quote]
all i was saying if the season is dead, with 2 games left, see how the bench looks in regular season action.....to help prepare for the draft and free agency.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=charlielyons;507062]all i was saying if the season is dead, with 2 games left, see how the bench looks in regular season action.....to help prepare for the draft and free agency.[/quote]

The point he is trying to make is we understand what you are trying to say - you've said it about 100 times in this thread.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=JLW428;507067]The point he is trying to make is we understand what you are trying to say - you've said it about 100 times in this thread.[/quote]
well then get off my nuts about it. my opinion and its not gonna happen

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=charlielyons;507068]well then get off my nuts about it. my opinion and its not gonna happen[/quote]

You know, if you make outlandish statements, expect outlandish answers. And I'm going to guess that the biggest problem people are having is not so much what you're saying but the fact you're stating it 10 different ways.

You don't like JC as the QB. Okay. We get it. Moving on...

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

Honestly I do not think Campbell has been the issue this year so IMHO there is no QB controversy but I guess you have to have everyone in DC.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

Jason seems like a very good person & I hope he can become a great QB but when things go bad the 1st two to take the blame will be him & Zorn. I just hope both can help the Skins make a run the next five weeks.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=Mattyk72;507000]Maybe I'm missing something, but I honestly don't see JC's delivery as being an issue anymore. I look at other QBs and see much more quirky deliveries. Kerry Collins has always had a big hitch. Leftwich has to have the longest windup in the history of the game. Phillip Rivers seems to almost push the ball. Our own Colt Brennan has a pretty unconventional delivery.

JC's delivery has been cleaned up to the point where I don't even see it as being an issue. One thing to consider that I've brought up in the past is [B]he's pretty lanky so I think the illusion is there that he has a longer delivery.[/B][/quote]

Lanky doesn't quite go far enough - sometimes he makes me think we have a giant "gummy man" at QB the way his arm contorts... does make for a pretty long ball though :)

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=Mattyk72;507019]The entire offense is struggling, not just him. Thinking he's the one to blame is a pretty narrow minded view. There's 11 guys on offense.[/quote]

yeah, in fact i think one could argue JC performs better (at his position, respectively) than say 6 or 7 of the other guys on offense most of the time. Obviously CP, Sellers, and Cooley perform at a high level quite consistently. And while Moss can be spectacular he can also catch the dropsies overnight and somehow fail to get open for long stretches. i say JC is consistently our 4 best player on offense (again respective of position), so yeah we could do a lot to improve elsewhere.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=The Goat;507077]Lanky doesn't quite go far enough - sometimes he makes me think we have a giant [B]"gummy man" [/B]at QB the way his arm contorts... does make for a pretty long ball though :)[/quote]

So now JC is kind of like Gumby? :laughing2

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;507079]So now JC is kind of like Gumby? :laughing2[/quote]

Yeah, Gumby is exactly what I was going for but my memory doesn't work for shit anymore!

Wonder if this nickname will stick... nah :)

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=The Goat;507078]yeah, in fact i think one could argue JC performs better (at his position, respectively) than say 6 or 7 of the other guys on offense most of the time. Obviously CP, Sellers, and Cooley perform at a high level quite consistently. And while Moss can be spectacular he can also catch the dropsies overnight and somehow fail to get open for long stretches. i say JC is consistently our 4 best player on offense (again respective of position), so yeah we could do a lot to improve elsewhere.[/quote]

Maybe you throw Samuels into that too and earlier I would say ARE, but he dropping oh so many passes.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=hooskins;507084]Maybe you throw Samuels into that too and earlier I would say ARE, but he dropping oh so many passes.[/quote]

good points. def before this year samuels would be ahead of JC. ARE is so damn hard to analyze IMO. As, I believe, GTripp explained in a game-review thread El's numbers seem to jive w/ a decent 2nd receiver. But his presence just isn't inspiring out there. Too streaky? Not enough yards after catch? Hard to say...

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=The Goat;507086]good points. def before this year samuels would be ahead of JC. ARE is so damn hard to analyze IMO. As, I believe, GTripp explained in a game-review thread El's numbers seem to jive w/ a decent 2nd receiver. But his presence just isn't inspiring out there. Too streaky? Not enough yards after catch? Hard to say...[/quote]I would say that while no WR is dependable 100% of the time, Randle El is pretty much the standard for dependability. The fact that he can pass as well as most QBs on the run, and make people miss in the (very) open field is an added bonus.

His big weakness is that he absolutely is useless in jump ball situations and plays where he is asked to make a reception 20+ yards down the field. And since he's not a big play threat, you can't run an offense through him.


But he compliments Moss very well, for what we like to do anyway.

The problem with the Redskins pass offense is this: if you can't run your passing offense through Moss because he's got unreliable hands and injury issues, and you can't run it through Randle El because he's not going to stretch a defense, and you can't run it through Cooley because Davis is not yet ready to handle an every down TE role, you really have nothing that can be relied on in the passing game. You pretty much have to play it play by play. We're pretty good on a play by play basis, but the sum of the parts is not creating a great passing offense.

Credit Campbell for not turning the ball over, because if he did, our offense would be a disaster.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

good point. I just wish some of the numskulls on this site understood that...

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;507093]I would say that while no WR is dependable 100% of the time, Randle El is pretty much the standard for dependability. The fact that he can pass as well as most QBs on the run, and make people miss in the (very) open field is an added bonus.

His big weakness is that he absolutely is useless in jump ball situations and plays where he is asked to make a reception 20+ yards down the field. And since he's not a big play threat, you can't run an offense through him.


But he compliments Moss very well, for what we like to do anyway.

The problem with the Redskins pass offense is this: if you can't run your passing offense through Moss because he's got unreliable hands and injury issues, and you can't run it through Randle El because he's not going to stretch a defense, and you can't run it through Cooley because Davis is not yet ready to handle an every down TE role, you really have nothing that can be relied on in the passing game. You pretty much have to play it play by play. We're pretty good on a play by play basis, but the sum of the parts is not creating a great passing offense.

Credit Campbell for not turning the ball over, because if he did, our offense would be a disaster.[/quote]
Well said. I think next season our passing game will be vastly improved. Assuming all WR (other than Thrash hopefully) return, we're probably going to see Moss and Kelly starting, El and Thomas in the slot where they belong. El can be deadly lined up in the slot against LB, nickel CB and safeties. That was the vision when they drafted all of those WR. Remember Zorn said that ARE would be playing the Bobby Engram role from Seattle. Engram was primarily a slot receiver and caught over 90 balls in '07. I guess we're seeing the true impact of the lack of development from the rookies as the season progresses. That being said, I'm glad they didn't IR Kelly and bring someone else in so he gets some live action reps.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;507093]I would say that while no WR is dependable 100% of the time, Randle El is pretty much the standard for dependability. The fact that he can pass as well as most QBs on the run, and make people miss in the (very) open field is an added bonus.

His big weakness is that he absolutely is useless in jump ball situations and plays where he is asked to make a reception 20+ yards down the field. And since he's not a big play threat, you can't run an offense through him.


But he compliments Moss very well, for what we like to do anyway.

The problem with the Redskins pass offense is this: if you can't run your passing offense through Moss because he's got unreliable hands and injury issues, and you can't run it through Randle El because he's not going to stretch a defense, and you can't run it through Cooley because Davis is not yet ready to handle an every down TE role, you really have nothing that can be relied on in the passing game. You pretty much have to play it play by play. We're pretty good on a play by play basis, but the sum of the parts is not creating a great passing offense.

Credit Campbell for not turning the ball over, because if he did, our offense would be a disaster.[/quote]

I for one believe that part of our passing problems is that JC is afraid to make a mistake.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

ICE, ICE, BABY: Atlanta rookie quarterback Matt Ryan has been given the nickname "Matty Ice" because of how well he's played under pressure. He's helped the Falcons have an 8-4 record, and if the playoffs started today, they would earn a wild-card spot.

An example of Ryan's performance under pressure can be found in how many times he's been blitzed and how he's performed in those situations. According to STATS, opponents have blitzed Ryan 91 times, and he's completed 56 passes, or 61.5 percent against blitzes. He's thrown for 729 yards and three touchdowns. He's been intercepted three times and sacked twice. His rating is 84.0 when he's been blitzed.

I wonder what Jasons STATS are in this situation?

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

I wonder if JC has an OLINE in this situation....

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=htownskinfan;509284]ICE, ICE, BABY: Atlanta rookie quarterback Matt Ryan has been given the nickname "Matty Ice" because of how well he's played under pressure. He's helped the Falcons have an 8-4 record, and if the playoffs started today, they would earn a wild-card spot.

An example of Ryan's performance under pressure can be found in how many times he's been blitzed and how he's performed in those situations. According to STATS, opponents have blitzed Ryan 91 times, and he's completed 56 passes, or 61.5 percent against blitzes. He's thrown for 729 yards and three touchdowns. He's been intercepted three times and sacked twice. His rating is 84.0 when he's been blitzed.

[B]I wonder what Jasons STATS are in this situation?[/B][/quote]

Can't you get them from the same source you got Ryan's?
(Dallas would be #6 not Atlanta due to head to head tie-break)

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;509287]Can't you get them from the same source you got Ryan's?
(Dallas would be #6 not Atlanta due to head to head tie-break)[/quote]

i got it from an article,dont know where to get the stats

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

Campbell is 2-6 in December games. Late-season swoons are just par for the course for him. We better get used to it if he's our guy.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=Twilbert07;509295]Campbell is 2-6 in December games. Late-season swoons are just par for the course for him. We better get used to it if he's our guy.[/quote]

So, basically, 1.5 years equal a trend? Most of those losses came during the 2006 season when we were an awful team with the league's worst defense. Come on. :doh:

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;509310]So, basically, 1.5 years equal a trend? Most of those losses came during the 2006 season when we were an awful team with the league's worst defense. Come on. :doh:[/quote]

Maybe you're right. I think in this win-now league, 1.5 years does say something, though. Last year when JC went out, the Skins were 5-7. Living in Atlanta, I see a rookie kicking ass, and last night I saw someone from Blue Hen U outplay our guy. I'm frustrated and not happy about averaging 8 or 9 points/game against these playoff teams. Campbell might be good in the long run, but he seems to be taking steps backward right now.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

There is something to be said about an offensive line giving up zero sacks, and excellent play calling down the stretch. Landry snuck up to the line on Flacco's TD pass to Mason (which was underthrown) and Rogers got burned worst than toast on the uber-dark setting. Other than that throw and his first throw to Mason that set up McClain's TD run, Flacco didn't do much last night. Their run offense (which went nowhere until their last drive of the game, when they gave the ball to McClain to pound) and their defense carried them once again.

Guys like Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco...their coordinators do not expect much from them, so they keep a simple offense installed to minimize any risks that these guys have to take. Their successes can be linked to their team's run offense (Atlanta #2 run offense, Baltimore #4). Matt Ryan also has several veterans he's throwing to, which helps in his development.

During this last 5 games, Portis has 316 yards rushing (averaging 63/game, which is inflated because of the success he had against Seattle) and no TDs. Defenses have lined up to stop Portis, but at the same time, the Skins pass blocking has been atrocious (18 sacks in 5 games, 16 on the previous 8), giving Campbell virtually no time to execute the offense.

I think Campbell's steps "backward" lie in the fact that he can't trust his offensive line or his receivers right now. Both have continued to let him down over the last 5 weeks. Campbell showed that he is a quality QB who can effectively run this offense, he needs his support personnel to step up and help him out.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

The Bengals D is nothing like the tough defenses we've played recently, so this will be Jason Campbell's chance to shine. It will be a big boost if he can throw a couple TD passes and lead us to more than 20 points.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=htownskinfan;509289]i got it from an article,dont know where to get the stats[/quote]

k i was just curious too

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=hooskins;507106]good point. I just wish some of the numskulls on this site understood that...[/quote]
hahaha. forget about that.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=Twilbert07;509346]The Bengals D is nothing like the tough defenses we've played recently, so this will be Jason Campbell's chance to shine. It will be a big boost if he can throw a couple TD passes and lead us to more than 20 points.[/quote]

True, but if I am the Bengals D-coordinator, I'm telling my guys to bring the heat off the edges. With Heyer and Fabini in as our tackles, Jason is going to get killed.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;509331]There is something to be said about an offensive line giving up zero sacks, and excellent play calling down the stretch. Landry snuck up to the line on Flacco's TD pass to Mason (which was underthrown) and Rogers got burned worst than toast on the uber-dark setting. Other than that throw and his first throw to Mason that set up McClain's TD run, Flacco didn't do much last night. Their run offense (which went nowhere until their last drive of the game, when they gave the ball to McClain to pound) and their defense carried them once again.

Guys like Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco...their coordinators do not expect much from them, so they keep a simple offense installed to minimize any risks that these guys have to take. Their successes can be linked to their team's run offense (Atlanta #2 run offense, Baltimore #4). Matt Ryan also has several veterans he's throwing to, which helps in his development.

During this last 5 games, Portis has 316 yards rushing (averaging 63/game, which is inflated because of the success he had against Seattle) and no TDs. Defenses have lined up to stop Portis, but at the same time, the Skins pass blocking has been atrocious (18 sacks in 5 games, 16 on the previous 8), giving Campbell virtually no time to execute the offense.

I think Campbell's steps "backward" lie in the fact that he can't trust his offensive line or his receivers right now. Both have continued to let him down over the last 5 weeks. Campbell showed that he is a quality QB who can effectively run this offense, he needs his support personnel to step up and help him out.[/quote]

I think the question should be is JC a playmaker or not? Or does JC need everything around him to be clicking in order to win games and play well?

I think he's shown that when the blocking and run game is working well he's a pretty decent qb.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=redsk1;509479]I think the question should be is JC a playmaker or not? Or does JC need everything around him to be clicking in order to win games and play well?

I think he's shown that when the blocking and run game is working well he's a pretty decent qb.[/quote]

Hell who couldn't be a decent Qb when theres blocking and good running? Its called Improvising. Take what you have and make it work. He doesn't and isn't capable of doing this. Next!

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=redsk1;509479]I think the question should be is JC a playmaker or not? Or does JC need everything around him to be clicking in order to win games and play well?

I think he's shown that when the blocking and run game is working well he's a pretty decent qb.[/quote]

after countless threads and posts about JC i think we have the question properly narrowed down (atleast in my mind): does JC need everything around him to be working for him to be successful?

most qbs can look good when the runningback runs for 130+ and the D makes the opposing offense earn their TDs.

Re: There's No Quarterback Controversy
 

[quote=prinzeofmoval;509500]Hell who couldn't be a decent Qb when theres blocking and good running? Its called Improvising. Take what you have and make it work. He doesn't and isn't capable of doing this. Next![/quote]
Then what do you call the first 8 games of this year?

Campbell is very capable, and has improvised successfully (again, I point to the first 8 games of the year). It's very hard to imagine any QB being successful with a injury-ridden offensive line that can't block a tic-tac-toe game and a run game that has been stopped by 4 of the best defenses in the league. When the protection is there, Campbell is moving the ball.