Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=over the mountain;599309]lol are you going to tell that JC having the 19th best qb rating last year = great qb? seeems about avg to me, even slightly below avg for mathematicians.

or that he ranked 19th last year in pass yds and he played every game/snap versus other qbs who didnt even play every game.

look man, i like JC but i find it annoying that JC lovers trot out his stats after he looked good against the lions and rams and ignore everything else stat related. i can clearly see where the JC bashers are coming from and why they think that way. to question or attack skins fans who dont believe in JC is just being ignorant to a fault by JC lovers.

i say this alot, JC does enough things well and poorly to give both sides ammunition to fire at each other.

go skins!!

ps those 19th ranked qb stats are Jcs best year too, just imagine where he would rank if he totaled up his career stats and compared them.[/quote]

Please show me ANYWHERE that I have claimed JC is great. I'm begging you to find it. You won't because I (nor anyone I've seen) has claimed he is great. You will find 3 common themes among 'JC lovers' as you call them.

1. Campbell can be productive and a winner with the right support around him (solid OL, WR, running game).
2. Campbell has continually improved over his career despite all of the changes.
3. Campbell gives us the best chance to win of any QB on the roster.

You'll be hard pressed to find any 'JC lovers' claim much more than that but the 'JC bashers' come across as if he's the worst QB to step onto the field.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Mattyk72;599266]I'd love to see some stats picked apart from other QBs so we can see who else is not really "elite".

By the way I never said he was elite or even great, just good, and better than some are willing to give him credit for, that's all.

And again, ultimately my argument on all of this is our problems run much deeper than JC.[/quote]Exact same argument against Campbell can be applied to Tom Brady prior to 2007, as well as this year. You could basically point out that the guy has just been a one year wonder.

I mean, these people absolutely could do that, with the conviction they've showed.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Angry;599326]That was an absoluty brilliant post. I like your objective observations on the whole QB controversy.[/quote]It was a brilliant strawman when he accused a whole half of the fourm of claiming that Campbell was oozing greatness.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GreekSkin;599313]I fully understand your point that stats arent everything but lets not go too far. There is no such thing as one of the best qb's with the worst stats. These things go hand in hand. During the Gibbs 1.0 years no one can argue that those teams werent more talented, better coached, and had a greater sense of motivation than the current team or any team JC has been on. It's much easier to play QB and be succesful when everyone around you is succesful.[/quote]

If I'm not mistaken Theisman usually had a 60% or 70% rating during the season. Compared to some of the others he always looked bad. But he got the job done, and yes they did have good coaching....which I think they are lacking.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

lol maybe thats the problem with this whole JC debate. it seems most of us (me included) think JC is a good qb, not great but good. somehow we are dividing ourselves by exagerating what other posters are saying.

could he become great? im not sure as i fall into the category of fans who think he doesnt read D schemes well pre-snap which i think is a necessary requirement to be a great qb like manning or brady. imo JC looks best when his first option is open. if zorn doesnt call the perfect play and JCs first option is covered, our best bet is to have JC check down to cooley. while i like JC i would like to have a qb that can know where to go with the ball if his 1st option is covered, a lil better anticipation of how the play is going to unfold.

lol half this board accuses the other side of saying JC oozes greatness, the other half accuses the other side of saying JC is the worst qb of all time. but in reality, most of us think JC is good and he is our best option this year.

go skins!!

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;599333]Please show me ANYWHERE that I have claimed JC is great. I'm begging you to find it. You won't because I (nor anyone I've seen) has claimed he is great. You will find 3 common themes among 'JC lovers' as you call them.

1. Campbell can be productive and a winner with the right support around him (solid OL, WR, running game).
2. Campbell has continually improved over his career despite all of the changes.
3. Campbell gives us the best chance to win of any QB on the roster.

You'll be hard pressed to find any 'JC lovers' claim much more than that but the 'JC bashers' come across as if he's the worst QB to step onto the field.[/quote]

First of all, I'm not saying you are a "JC lover" or anything like that. Of those 3 points that JC defenders use, only 1 is true... #3

1) With a solid OL, WR corps, and running game, most QB's in the NFL are going to be "productive" and most likely "a winner" (esp with the type of defense we have)

2) The "all of the changes" argument is starting to get old. If these are professionals playing a professional (all year) sport, they need to be able to learn offenses. This is not a valid excuse anymore.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=over the mountain;599363]lol maybe thats the problem with this whole JC debate. it seems most of us (me included) think JC is a good qb, not great but good. somehow we are dividing ourselves by exagerating what other posters are saying.

could he become great? im not sure as i fall into the category of fans who think he doesnt read D schemes well pre-snap which i think is a necessary requirement to be a great qb like manning or brady. imo JC looks best when his first option is open. if zorn doesnt call the perfect play and JCs first option is covered, our best bet is to have JC check down to cooley. while i like JC i would like to have a qb that can know where to go with the ball if his 1st option is covered, a lil better anticipation of how the play is going to unfold.

lol half this board accuses the other side of saying JC oozes greatness, the other half accuses the other side of saying JC is the worst qb of all time. but in reality, most of us think JC is good and he is our best option this year.

go skins!![/quote]Well that was my point. I think he's done great, [I]under the circumstances[/I], but overall, I'd agree that he hasn't met expectations. Mine or anyone elses apparently. That's not his fault, but it's a reality.

If he continues to toss for near 8.0 YPA this year, that's in line with the best years that Ben Roethlisberger or Tom Brady have ever had. But his career stats say he won't keep up on this current pace. The season is plenty young.

But I mean, a lot of people are completely oblivious to what he ACTUALLY IS doing. And that's the reason the debate is even happening. Because he is performing, and people are commenting that [U]they don't even know how anyone could say Campbell is doing well[/U].

Efficiency wise, he's in the best three game stretch of his career. Nothing states that it has to continue, or that he won't throw up a stinker against Tampa, or that his fumbles won't cost the team another victory or two down the road. Being a quarterback is about more than just passing. But it's plain as day that the guy is an NFL caliber passer, and some people are running out the same stupid arguments.

You are not one of those people, but that doesn't mean that people should not be accountable for what they write, even on the internet. Those who write stupid crap here, are probably stupid in real life. I believe that's the truth. Not to jump on you for moderating on anything, but even the anti-JC crowd should be able to see a good passing game when one exists. If they can't...then don't comment at all.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

My rant above is not to be taken as, "if you don't like Jason Campbell, you must be a two bit moron." No, I actually think the jury is still out on him, and will be until the offense as a whole comes together around him.

But just take the facts for what they are. My god. Don't find 100 million reasons to dispute what can be just taken for granted.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Pain,

[B]Zorn has also stated he's gotten much better and faster with his release[/B]
I thought Zorn commented on this after the Rams game also. Yes the release is faster but I don't think it's where Zorn would like it. but I still think the WR issue's go hand in hand with JC's issues. Maybe bringing in a qualified WR coach would make JC look outstanding.

[B]Please define "can't read defenses". Typically someone who cannot read defenses throws a high number of interceptions (see Patrick Ramsey) because he's throwing into coverages. How do we know that he changes into the wrong play too many times? If anything, Zorn has praised him for checking into and out of plays when the defense calls for it. His major error was checking to the run on 3rd and 7 vs. NYG but that's one occurence, please cite some others.[/B]
Maybe I am an idiot. I don't know if he's changing into the wrong play too many time. You are correct. I'll retract my statement, but it's my feelings when after you see a change at the line and the play fails then the camera pans to Zorn fuming on the sideline....just my observation. As to reading defenses, again just my feelings/observations since he's been with the organization. He fails to pick up the rush or where it's coming from. Fails to change into a more productive play call perhaps a quick slant (like those other top QB's you named) or move to the shot gun to buy more time.

[B]WHAT?? So a player that was projected to be a low 1st or high 2nd round pick now wouldn't have been drafted AT ALL???[/B]
I didn't know he was projected so high. Hmm. I might have to change my way of thinking.

[B]Show me a QB that hasn't over or under thrown multiple over the span of a few games. Campbell has his flaws, mechanics and accuracy are among them, but you have to take the balance.[/B]
I agree with you here. Other have over thrown their receivers. I just wonder why after 5 yrs with Moss, 4 with ARE, 1 with Thomas and Kelly he can't be more on the money with his passes. Even Cooley, who is his favorite receiver has to grab the ball from behind or make finger tip grabbs all the time. Why can't the ball be placed so the receivers can continue with their flow of running their routes? It seems most of his passes that are connecting are passes where the receiver sat down into a zone and waited for the ball.

[B]Ok, who would you consider to be Campbell's peers in the league? He's not at the level of Manning, Brees, Brady, etc. nor is he at the depth of Russell, Quinn, Leftwich. So who would you compare him to on the same plane?[/B]
This is obviously where one must use stats. Go look for your self but I'm guessing Cutler would be one. I don't see Cutler as being anything special either. Since you brought up the other names though ...they were first round drafts...no different then JC. Yet you are saying he's not in their league.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;599333]Please show me ANYWHERE that I have claimed JC is great. I'm begging you to find it. You won't because I (nor anyone I've seen) has claimed he is great. You will find 3 common themes among 'JC lovers' as you call them.

1. Campbell can be productive and a winner with the right support around him (solid OL, WR, running game).
2. Campbell has continually improved over his career despite all of the changes.
3. Campbell gives us the best chance to win of any QB on the roster.

You'll be hard pressed to find any 'JC lovers' claim much more than that [B]but the 'JC bashers' come across as if he's the worst QB to step onto the field.[/quote][/B]

I'm not saying that. I too think he's the best athletic QB we have. He can make the long passes. He can scramble which Collins can't.

Like I said before part of our problem is our WR's coach Hixon who has failed misserably as a coach finding a way to get the WR's open for JC to throw the ball to. How come other teams make it look so easy to get the ball to their WR's? They don't have all day to throw. They have the same 3-5 seconds to get the ball out that we do. So I ask you whats the difference? I think the whole passing issue goes hand in hand, in other words I'm blaming JC and the WR's. I know the O-line has not been stellar but they have given JC enough time to get rid of the ball. Maybe our WR's need 10-15 seconds to get into position...I don't know. but it's hand in hand.

On a side note I see QB's like Delome throwing a ball out there like JC does and his WR's make the play on the ball. I think our WR's think the ball must simply fall into their hands with out any one getting in the way. I'd just like to see the WR's just battle for the ball once and a while.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SBXVII;599373][/b]

I'm not saying that. I too think he's the best athletic QB we have. He can make the long passes. He can scramble which Collins can't.

Like I said before part of our problem is our WR's coach Hixon who has failed misserably as a coach finding a way to get the WR's open for JC to throw the ball to. How come other teams make it look so easy to get the ball to their WR's? They don't have all day to throw. They have the same 3-5 seconds to get the ball out that we do. So I ask you whats the difference? I think the whole passing issue goes hand in hand, in other words I'm blaming JC and the WR's. I know the O-line has not been stellar but they have given JC enough time to get rid of the ball. Maybe our WR's need 10-15 seconds to get into position...I don't know. but it's hand in hand.

On a side note I see QB's like Delome throwing a ball out there like JC does and his WR's make the play on the ball. I think our WR's think the ball must simply fall into their hands with out any one getting in the way. I'd just like to see the WR's just battle for the ball once and a while.[/quote]All I think you need to realize is that: just because we're losing on the scoreboard and not putting up points, doesn't necessarily mean that the passing game isn't working for us. If the passing game truly isn't working, the numbers will support that. I promise.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Also keep in mind Eli Manning was considered to be an idiot by many until he led the team to the SB. ;) Now he seems like a genius.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=over the mountain;599363]lol maybe thats the problem with this whole JC debate. it seems most of us (me included) think JC is a good qb, not great but good. somehow we are dividing ourselves by exagerating what other posters are saying.

could he become great? im not sure as i fall into the category of fans who think he doesnt read D schemes well pre-snap which i think is a necessary requirement to be a great qb like manning or brady. imo JC looks best when his first option is open. if zorn doesnt call the perfect play and JCs first option is covered, our best bet is to have JC check down to cooley. while i like JC i would like to have a qb that can know where to go with the ball if his 1st option is covered, a lil better anticipation of how the play is going to unfold.

lol half this board accuses the other side of saying JC oozes greatness, the other half accuses the other side of saying JC is the worst qb of all time. but in reality, most of us think JC is good and he is our best option this year.

go skins!![/quote]

As a JC 'lover' I think his peak is a top 12-15 QB. I don't see him ever being a Manning, Brady, Brees. With a strong OL, good RB/WR and decent play calling that should be enough to keep us in every game.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SBXVII;599377]Also keep in mind Eli Manning was considered to be an idiot by many until he led the team to the SB. ;) Now he seems like a genius.[/quote]Yeah. The Giants were more competitive than us leading up to that super bowl season, but it's not unreasonable to think the talent this team has could carry the day in the playoffs.

If we're not in the playoffs at all, it's a good indication that the long-term aspects of the franchise just aren't working. Also a good indicator: losing to the Lions.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;599378]As a JC 'lover' I think his peak is a top 12-15 QB. I don't see him ever being a Manning, Brady, Brees. With a strong OL, good RB/WR and decent play calling that should be enough to keep us in every game.[/quote]I'd argue that he's already keeping us in every game.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;599375]All I think you need to realize is that: just because we're losing on the scoreboard and not putting up points, doesn't necessarily mean that the passing game isn't working for us. If the passing game truly isn't working, the numbers will support that. I promise.[/quote]

Ok, then I don't know what I'm talking about. I look at other teams...including Detroit Sun. and see teams making it look easy getting the ball off to their receivers. Why does it seem like we are fighting mother nature to get ours the ball? Other then Moss's catch Sun. It's looked like all dink and dunk. Yes the stats look good but that was the only time our WR's seemed to be wide open with no defender within 5 yrds ready to tackle them. Why?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SBXVII;599382]Ok, then I don't know what I'm talking about. I look at other teams...including Detroit Sun. and see teams making it look easy getting the ball off to their receivers. Why does it seem like we are fighting mother nature to get ours the ball? Other then Moss's catch Sun. It's looked like all dink and dunk. Yes the stats look good but that was the only time our WR's seemed to be wide open with no defender within 5 yrds ready to tackle them. Why?[/quote]Does it really seem like that to you? Even anecdotally, the intended receiver on more or less every Campbell pass seems to be wide open (about three forced throws not-withstanding). As for like, wide, wide open, if you can get that even once a game (which we did) you're doing well for yourself.

Part of the problem is that we don't have the ball very long because 1) we're not a quick strike offense, and 2) our defense takes 6 or 7 minutes to get off the field every time. So there's not a whole lot of passes we can waste on deep shots. We don't have the margin of error to not score touchdowns in the red zone. The solution is the same as the rest of the field: score on first or second down. Don't wait for third down when the receivers can be blanketed.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SBXVII;599370]Pain,

[B]Zorn has also stated he's gotten much better and faster with his release[/B]
I thought Zorn commented on this after the Rams game also. Yes the release is faster but I don't think it's where Zorn would like it. but I still think the WR issue's go hand in hand with JC's issues. Maybe bringing in a qualified WR coach would make JC look outstanding.

[B]Please define "can't read defenses". Typically someone who cannot read defenses throws a high number of interceptions (see Patrick Ramsey) because he's throwing into coverages. How do we know that he changes into the wrong play too many times? If anything, Zorn has praised him for checking into and out of plays when the defense calls for it. His major error was checking to the run on 3rd and 7 vs. NYG but that's one occurence, please cite some others.[/B]
Maybe I am an idiot. I don't know if he's changing into the wrong play too many time. You are correct. I'll retract my statement, but it's my feelings when after you see a change at the line and the play fails then the camera pans to Zorn fuming on the sideline....just my observation. As to reading defenses, again just my feelings/observations since he's been with the organization. He fails to pick up the rush or where it's coming from. Fails to change into a more productive play call perhaps a quick slant (like those other top QB's you named) or move to the shot gun to buy more time.

[B]WHAT?? So a player that was projected to be a low 1st or high 2nd round pick now wouldn't have been drafted AT ALL???[/B]
I didn't know he was projected so high. Hmm. I might have to change my way of thinking.

[B]Show me a QB that hasn't over or under thrown multiple over the span of a few games. Campbell has his flaws, mechanics and accuracy are among them, but you have to take the balance.[/B]
I agree with you here. Other have over thrown their receivers. I just wonder why after 5 yrs with Moss, 4 with ARE, 1 with Thomas and Kelly he can't be more on the money with his passes. Even Cooley, who is his favorite receiver has to grab the ball from behind or make finger tip grabbs all the time. Why can't the ball be placed so the receivers can continue with their flow of running their routes? It seems most of his passes that are connecting are passes where the receiver sat down into a zone and waited for the ball.

[B]Ok, who would you consider to be Campbell's peers in the league? He's not at the level of Manning, Brees, Brady, etc. nor is he at the depth of Russell, Quinn, Leftwich. So who would you compare him to on the same plane?[/B]
This is obviously where one must use stats. Go look for your self but I'm guessing Cutler would be one. I don't see Cutler as being anything special either. [B][U]Since you brought up the other names though ...they were first round drafts...no different then JC. Yet you are saying he's not in their league.[/U][/B][/quote]
Well actually only Manning (of the successful QB I noted) was a 1st round pick but Russell, Quinn and Leftwich were all 1st round picks and all picked higher than Campbell.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Buster;599251]You're obviously NOT watching the games very closely. He is playing very well...unlike most of the team.[/quote]

Campbell may be playing ok (and great based on stats alone), but he's sure not making any plays to win games - and he sure has made plays that have contributed to losses.

I try to be objective as possible but I know one opinion that I strongly believe in is- a great qb is the start of a great team, a bad qb is the start of a bad team, and an average qb is the start of an average team. The redskins team is a bad team and it starts with campbell as a player.

And I am pretty sure with better qb play - the redskins would be 3-0 instead of 1-2.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=warriorzpath;599431]Campbell may be playing ok (and great based on stats alone), but he's sure not making any plays to win games - and he sure has made plays that have contributed to losses.

I try to be objective as possible but I know one opinion that I strongly believe in is- a great qb is the start of a great team, a bad qb is the start of a bad team, and an average qb is the start of an average team. The redskins team is a bad team and it starts with campbell as a player.

And I am pretty sure with better qb play - the redskins would be 3-0 instead of 1-2.[/quote]

Sure, with Peyton Manning maybe.

You could also say with a better defense we could be 3-0 or 2-1.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

In order to win consistently in the NFL, the qb needs to be able to make plays to win the game, especially in close games. Campbell just doesn't make plays to win the game. If Campbell makes the plays in the Giants and Lions games instead of making mistakes, the redskins could easily be 3-0 and the attitude towards and of the team would be way different. That's the difference and impact that a few plays from the qb would make for a whole team and season.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

JC is the man. You got to have faith i refused to say the season is over, we will right the boat and alot of people will be eating crow. I'm a die hard fan and we will make the playoffs.

HTTR.

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] There is one nummber you didn't get 1-2 as a starter. That is the number that gets you more money and a ring!

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Mattyk72;599433]Sure, with Peyton Manning maybe.

You could also say with a better defense we could be 3-0 or 2-1.[/quote]

Sure it's not all on campbell, but redskins needs the qb to make plays to win the game.

He's not going to be Manning, but he needs to make plays to win games, not lose them. The stats don't matter if you don't make the plays and also make mistakes at crucial times.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Mattyk72;599433]Sure, with Peyton Manning maybe.

You could also say with a better defense we could be 3-0 or 2-1.[/quote]

ive been thinking alot lately about the best approach to building a winning franchise after reading some of the lions fans forums. they seem pretty split on the two major approaches:

1) try to get lucky and get yourself a franchise qb in the draft.

or

2) build thru the trenches and draft to have a solid deep team in which you only need a decent/good qb

i am not the right person nor knowledgeable enough to put together a thread worth discussing but i do find it real interesting. either way has pros - cons. a great qb makes his line, recievers and coaches look better and it only takes perfect draft pick. but (imo) its easier to evaluate O line and D players in the draft than it is to land that special qb who only comes around once every few years. i would argue matt ryan was the one last year with flacco looking great under cameron.

lol you see im already all over the place in my thoughts.

does anyone know any real informative, history based intensive sports article regarding the best philosophy to build a winning franchise? has bill parcells written a book yet lol?

i should probably just google.

go skins!!

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=warriorzpath;599431]A great qb is the start of a great team, a bad qb is the start of a bad team, and an average qb is the start of an average team. The redskins team is a bad team and it starts with campbell as a player.

And I am pretty sure with better qb play - the redskins would be 3-0 instead of 1-2.[/quote]

I completely disagree. Teams are built on the offensive and defensive lines. A great offensive line can make an average to below average quarterback look amazing(Rypien, Doug Williams, Matt Hasselbeck, etc.), and bad offensive lines can make even elite quarterbacks look average or worse.

Plenty of teams have had elite quarterback play and have still been average to bad. The Saints of 2007 were 7-9 with Drew Brees. The Packers went 6-10 last season with Aaron Rogers.

I agree that if you put Peyton Manning on this team, it may be worth a few extra wins, but the biggest problem with Washington is absolutely not the quarterback.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Southpaw;599454]I completely disagree. Teams are built on the offensive and defensive lines. A great offensive line can make an average to below average quarterback look amazing(Rypien, Doug Williams, Matt Hasselbeck, etc.), and bad offensive lines can make even elite quarterbacks look average or worse.

Plenty of teams have had elite quarterback play and have still been average to bad. The Saints of 2007 were 7-9 with Drew Brees. The Packers went 6-10 last season with Aaron Rogers.

I agree that if you put Peyton Manning on this team, it may be worth a few extra wins, but the biggest problem with Washington is absolutely not the quarterback.[/quote]

Hasselbeck is legit and Brees and Rodgers were victims of poor Defenses, but I don't necessarily disagree with your point that a great Offensive line can make an average QB look good and a good QB look great, etc. And a QB who has all day to throw can make average Receivers look good, etc. Even more evidence that picking 3 Receivers in the 2nd round was stupid. Who was Brady throwing to again when he won 3 Super Bowls? Branch and Gaffney? Skill positions don't mean jack.

I've said time and time again that I think Campbell could take a team like the Titans of last year deep into the playoffs. I just don't think he's good enough to overcome deficiencies in other parts of the Offense. If everything else is perfect (Elite O line, Elite Defense, Dominant Running Game), I don't see any reason Campbell couldn't win a Super Bowl like Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer did. Of course, both went on to become back-ups, but at least they got their ring.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Southpaw;599454]I completely disagree. Teams are built on the offensive and defensive lines. A great offensive line can make an average to below average quarterback look amazing(Rypien, Doug Williams, Matt Hasselbeck, etc.), and bad offensive lines can make even elite quarterbacks look average or worse.

Plenty of teams have had elite quarterback play and have still been average to bad. The Saints of 2007 were 7-9 with Drew Brees. The Packers went 6-10 last season with Aaron Rogers.

I agree that if you put Peyton Manning on this team, it may be worth a few extra wins, but the biggest problem with Washington is absolutely not the quarterback.[/quote]

The offensive line can't be attributed to his mistakes or his lack of playmaking. The issue with the quarterbacks you listed is that they proved themselves with good and great teams, and it all started with the quartebacks. They made the big plays. It can't be overstated the impact that the quarterback makes on any team.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;599380]I'd argue that he's already keeping us in every game.[/quote]

I'd say he's not losing games for us. Not winning them either though.

And regardless of the final scores of the Lions and Giants games, I wouldn't say we were really "in" those games. We were down 13-0 and 19-7 against the Lions and down 13 points with a couple of minutes to go against the Giants. But whatever. I'm probably splitting hairs at this point.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Maybe Campbell should be given more opportunities to make plays...or was he supposed to get the lateral from Betts on the final play of the game and take it to the house?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=44Deezel;599462]Hasselbeck is legit and Brees and Rodgers were victims of poor Defenses[/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I consider Hasselbeck average because he has had five "good" seasons out of eleven, and most of his career was spent on a team with a dominant run game and above average defense. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]And my point for adding Brees and Rodgers was to illustrate the fact that even they could not overcome deficiencies on their respective teams. Right now, I think the only quarterback that you could add to a below average team and possibly make the playoffs is Peyton Manning.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;599466]Maybe Campbell should be given more opportunities to make plays...or was he supposed to get the lateral from Betts on the final play of the game and take it to the house?[/quote]

That's very true too, but campbell did some opportunities right before that to win the game.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Southpaw;599454]I completely disagree. Teams are built on the offensive and defensive lines. A great offensive line can make an average to below average quarterback look amazing(Rypien, Doug Williams, Matt Hasselbeck, etc.), and bad offensive lines can make even elite quarterbacks look average or worse.

Plenty of teams have had elite quarterback play and have still been average to bad. The Saints of 2007 were 7-9 with Drew Brees. The Packers went 6-10 last season with Aaron Rogers.

I agree that if you put Peyton Manning on this team, it may be worth a few extra wins, but the biggest problem with Washington is absolutely not the quarterback.[/quote]

Agreed, agreed, agreed. Good post.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;598899]Yes, you are mistaken. And not in spite of your refusal to go to the passing numbers.

The fumbles are a major issue. A MAJOR issue. And I'll credit you for going to that (a statistic) to defend your case. But without Campbell's passing efficiency, this team would have NO wins, and a good half of football from the defense against St. Louis away from being the worst team in football.

Campbell is more or less the difference between us and the Browns right now. And remember that I'm a pretty big Quinn fan.[/quote]

I think we are about to get to the point where we are going to agree to disagree...but saying I am mistaken makes me scratch my head, so please inform me how exactly Campbell has been proficient in the redzone? What have I missed?

There are certain stats that don't lie like fumbles...you can blame no one but yourself with fumbles. Of course you could try to blame the line, but bottom line is when you fumble, it's on you, you need to protect the ball!

So let me get this straight, you are saying the reason we beat the Rams is cause Campbell had a good completion percentage?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=warriorzpath;599464]The offensive line can't be attributed to his mistakes or his lack of playmaking. The issue with the quarterbacks you listed is that they proved themselves with good and great teams, and it all started with the quartebacks. They made the big plays. It can't be overstated the impact that the quarterback makes on any team.[/quote]

Not advocating starting Collins, but I will say that the same O line looked much better when Collins was behind center than it did when Campbell was the QB. The backs had bigger holes to run through (maybe because Defenses had more respect for the passing game) and pass protection was not a problem (maybe because Collins got the ball out quicker). The Receivers and Defense played better as well. But I will acknowledge that Campbell is better now than he was then and Collins is probably worse now than he was then (playing in Saunder's system)

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Southpaw;599469][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I consider Hasselbeck average because he has had five "good" seasons out of eleven, and most of his career was spent on a team with a dominant run game and above average defense. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]And my point for adding Brees and Rodgers was to illustrate the fact that even they could not overcome deficiencies on their respective teams. Right now, I think the only quarterback that you could add to a below average team and possibly make the playoffs is Peyton Manning.[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]

He doesn't need to overcome anything. I hate to be redundant, but all he needs to do as quarterback is to make big plays. And I know it's better said than done, but without the qb making plays then you can't be a considered a superbowl contender- unless you have an all-time great defense. 2 losses that easily could have been won by campbell if he makes the plays - this is the difference between 10-6 and 8-8 of last season.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=warriorzpath;599464]The offensive line can't be attributed to his mistakes or his lack of playmaking. [/quote]

Does that mean that Tom Brady's mistakes and lack of playmaking in the Super Bowl against the Giants was entirely his fault, or do you think it had something to do with the Giants front four manhandling the Pats offensive line?

Basically, my point is the quarterback is the top brick of the pyramid that is the 53 man roster, and you don't build a pyramid by trying to place the top brick, first.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Southpaw;599454]I completely disagree. Teams are built on the offensive and defensive lines. A great offensive line can make an average to below average quarterback look amazing(Rypien, Doug Williams, Matt Hasselbeck, etc.), and bad offensive lines can make even elite quarterbacks look average or worse.

Plenty of teams have had elite quarterback play and have still been average to bad. The Saints of 2007 were 7-9 with Drew Brees. The Packers went 6-10 last season with Aaron Rogers.

I agree that if you put Peyton Manning on this team, it may be worth a few extra wins, but the biggest problem with Washington is absolutely not the quarterback.[/quote]

You are absolutely right.
You are right on saying that the biggest problem isn't Campbell too. But that doesn't mean he isn't a problem at all. Definitely agree he's not the biggest problem though.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=SmootSmack;599466]Maybe Campbell should be given more opportunities to make plays...or was he supposed to get the lateral from Betts on the final play of the game and take it to the house?[/quote]

Or maybe when he's given a chance to make a play, he should make it. Then maybe he'll be given more chances. I wouldn't let him throw another fade route in the end zone, since he can't seem to keep the ball in bounds. The sideline route is probably out too, since he underthrew Kelly on the first play of the Rams game and cost us a TD and then later threw the same pass 5 yards out of bounds to Devin Thomas. I'd still dial up the bombs though, since even though they've been nowhere near the receiver, they're not getting picked off. Plus, I wouldn't want to be dead last again in pass interference calls.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=44Deezel;599482]Or maybe when he's given a chance to make a play, he should make it. Then maybe he'll be given more chances. [/quote]

Absolutely! He's been given ample opportunity...when does "potential" become realized?