Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

It should be noted, there are no major, long-term free agent QBs in 2010.

[url=http://www.footballsfuture.com/freeagents.html]2010 NFL Free Agents[/url]

Kyle Orton (will be kept by Denver for sure)
Jason Campbell
Chad Pennington (old and busted)
Tavaris Jackson (far less capable than even Campbell, has failed to keep job several times)
Kellen Clemens (could not beat out Sanchez for starter, barely backup quality)
Charlie Batch (old, not leaving Pittsburgh)
Kyle Boller (no)
David Carr (MAYBE...but has he been beaten to death in his Houston years)
Daunte Culpepper (injury risk)
Rex Grossman (no way)
Joey Harrington (had chances)
Jon Kitna (ancient)
Matt Moore (who?)
Brett Ratliff (who?)
Troy Smith (great in college, good in an emergency, not starter quality)


As for college: Tebow I don't see being an NFL success. Bradford is an injury risk. McCoy looks good, I don't trust a Notre Dame QB, Pike from Cincinnati...undecided...

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;626188]I've been one of Campbell's more steadfast supporters around these parts. Recently I've said that I think he can still be an effective game manager and starting QB in the league, but it probably isn't going to happen for him here.

You can see by his numbers that he's an average NFL QB. He's not Jamarcus Russell or Derek Anderson and he's not Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. He's a guy who won't kill you with mistakes and also not dazzle you with amazing plays.

[B]If you've got a team that plays smart football, runs well, protects well and needs 2-3 plays from your QB per game, he can be your guy.[/B] If you've got a team that struggles to do the little things, can't always move the ball and needs the QB to create plays offensively, he's probably the wrong fit. Right now, we're that second type of team so he's not a good fit for us.[/quote]

Name one team like that these days,gone are the days where you could run the ball, play defense and win titles. Even Minn who has a good defense and a great back in AP needs a playmaker at the QB position to win games. The Titans last yr had a good defense and a great backfield and they lost their first playoff game. These days it takes a playmaking QB to win. :twocents:

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

Other vets may become availible after this season as other teams look to rebuild...Hasselbeck, Bulger, D. Anderson, etc. There not long term solutions either but could easily challenge JC at the QB spot.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Mattyk72;626160]Yes he did, remember the overthrow to Royal? That could have put the game out of reach.[/quote]

At the game yesterday, upper deck...a couple beers in...I thought that was Simms in.

Nevertheless, Orton, who may not be a top 20 Nfl qb, didn't miss as much as JC yesterday.

JC is just not a franchise QB to build around. I like the guy, he's a good teamate, he just doesn't have it. We can all argue about the line, WR's, RB's, etc but he doesn't have it.

As i've said though, that doesn't mean he might not be the best option next year.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Ruhskins;626183]Yes, but we're talking about right now...you Campbell criticizers act like we're saying that right now...and I have yet to see someone say that Campbell is an NFL caliber starter or that he's the QB of the future or anything we used to say before.

I actually find it interesting that Campbell statistically is not doing too bad, yet we know what his play looks on the field. That being said, I agree with Paintrain, [B]right now he gives us the best chance to win[/B] (which is a sad indictment of our situation at the QB position). This by no means is saying that he should come back next year...he won't (as I said at best a 2nd stringer).[/quote]

I think Ciollins would do better in there if the line can play at the level it did yesterday. Collins probably hits Moss, he hits Thomas and no way does he miss an uncoverd Yoder.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

I agree that Collins would probably give us a better chance to win now, but honestly, whats the point? The more campbell plays, the better chance we have that he'll improve enough to give him some trade value in the offseason.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=skinsfan69;626212]I think Ciollins would do better in there if the line can play at the level it did yesterday. Collins probably hits Moss, he hits Thomas and no way does he miss an uncoverd Yoder.[/quote]

Still neither is a long term solution, so we have to deal with these two evils until the end of the season. While he didn't play well, JC did enough to win the game...or to not lose it.

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;626213]I agree that Collins would probably give us a better chance to win now, but [B]honestly, whats the point? [/B] The more campbell plays, the better chance we have that he'll improve enough to give him some trade value in the offseason.[/quote]

Exactly, I don't understand why people get their panties in bunch.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Paintrain;626188]I've been one of Campbell's more steadfast supporters around these parts. Recently I've said that I think he can still be an effective game manager and starting QB in the league, but it probably isn't going to happen for him here.

You can see by his numbers that he's an average NFL QB. He's not Jamarcus Russell or Derek Anderson and he's not Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. He's a guy who won't kill you with mistakes and also not dazzle you with amazing plays.

[B]If you've got a team that plays smart football, runs well, protects well and needs 2-3 plays from your QB per game, he can be your guy.[/B] If you've got a team that struggles to do the little things, can't always move the ball and needs the QB to create plays offensively, he's probably the wrong fit. Right now, we're that second type of team so he's not a good fit for us.[/quote]

In other words, if everything around him is perfect, he can be a good quarterback. I don't think you can point to any stretch of Jason Campbell's career and pick out "2-3 plays" over multiple games that put us over the edge. The most recent one that stands out is the New Orleans game last year.

You might get 8, 9, maybe 10 wins that way, but the league's champions have QBs that can make big plays on a consistent basis. If you go up against a powerhouse team like the Colts, Pats, Saints, or Steelers, on their field or in the playoffs, you're going to need more than just a game managing QB who doesn't throw picks. In that sense, it's my contention that Jason Campbell won't be the quarterback of a championship team no matter where he plays.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626196]Name one team like that these days,gone are the days where you could run the ball, play defense and win titles. Even Minn who has a good defense and a great back in AP needs a playmaker at the QB position to win games. The Titans last yr had a good defense and a great backfield and they lost their first playoff game. These days it takes a playmaking QB to win. :twocents:[/quote]I'd say that every team that wins the championship can run and play good defense. A lot of them can pass as well.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=Beemnseven;626241]In other words, if everything around him is perfect, he can be a good quarterback. I don't think you can point to any stretch of Jason Campbell's career and pick out "2-3 plays" over multiple games that put us over the edge. The most recent one that stands out is the New Orleans game last year.

You might get 8, 9, maybe 10 wins that way, but the league's champions have QBs that can make big plays on a consistent basis. If you go up against a powerhouse team like the Colts, Pats, Saints, or Steelers, on their field or in the playoffs, you're going to need more than just a game managing QB who doesn't throw picks. In that sense, it's my contention that Jason Campbell won't be the quarterback of a championship team no matter where he plays.[/quote]I think there's a medium between having league worst protection and receiving, like we currently have, and having everything around him be perfect.

Right now, we have a non-descript figurehead QB. Under the current circumstance, you could replace Campbell with Garcia or Byron Leftwich, and he would just be known as "Washington QB" and the production would be exactly the same. If you improved the units around him to league average, you'd probably have the Campbell of the first half of last year. If you add a great defense to that, then you have a super bowl contender.

Jason Campbell is probably not the type of player who gets better by putting the ball in his hands 50 times a game like Brady or Brees. If he had better ball-securing fundamentals, then maybe. If you put a legitimately great receiver and OL in front of him, you'd probably have something that looks like Steve McNair. Otherwise, you're always going to have to take the good with the bad.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;626262]I'd say that every team that wins the championship can run and play good defense. A lot of them can pass as well.[/quote]

To win a title you have to have a playmaker at the QB spot,not a manager who can make a play here and there. When was the last time a team with a good running game and a avg QB won the SB? And even if you throw out the names Dilfer and Johnson you have to point out the fact that they had great defenses,the type of defenses that dont come along very often that can take over games. it may be another 4+ yrs before you see a defense like those that carry a team to the title but in that time you will see many teams win because of the man throwing the ball.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=GTripp0012;626268]I think there's a medium between having league worst protection and receiving, like we currently have, and having everything around him be perfect.

Right now, we have a non-descript figurehead QB. Under the current circumstance, you could replace Campbell with Garcia or Byron Leftwich, and he would just be known as "Washington QB" and the production would be exactly the same. [B]If you improved the units around him to league average, you'd probably have the Campbell of the first half of last year. If you add a great defense to that, then you have a super bowl contender[/B].

Jason Campbell is probably not the type of player who gets better by putting the ball in his hands 50 times a game like Brady or Brees. If he had better ball-securing fundamentals, then maybe. If you put a legitimately great receiver and OL in front of him, you'd probably have something that looks like Steve McNair. Otherwise, you're always going to have to take the good with the bad.[/quote]


Are you serious? He avg'd ONE TD pass a game during that stint. You think that will beat Manning,Brady,Brees,Favre or Warner?

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=skinsfan69;626165]I think the smart fans don't hate the guy. How can you? He's the type of guy you want to root for and do well. He's not a diva ass punk like CP or Hall. He's nothing but a high character stand up guy. But he's just not a legit NFL starter. He missed 3 TD's yesterday w/ inaccurate throws. I know even the best guys miss stuff but the best guys make more than they miss. [B]W/ JC it's the opposite, he misses more than he makes.[/B][/quote]This is what completion percentage grades a QB on, and Campbell's right dead at the league average.

So in a vacuum, Campbell misses just as often as he makes. Compared to all first round draft pick QBs since his draft year of 2005, the group of guys who "make plays" at a higher rate includes only Cutler, Rodgers, and Flacco.

I looked at first rounders only because if you were to consider using a 2010 first rounder on a QB, you'd expect 2/3 of potential draftees to post a lower career completion % than Campbell, and that's just not helping.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626279]Are you serious? He avg'd ONE TD pass a game during that stint. You think that will beat Manning,Brady,Brees,Favre or Warner?[/quote]I remember Portis scoring a lot in the red zone then, though I could be wrong.

Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626274]To win a title you have to have a playmaker at the QB spot,not a manager who can make a play here and there. When was the last time a team with a good running game and a avg QB won the SB? And even if you throw out the names Dilfer and Johnson you have to point out the fact that they had great defenses,the type of defenses that dont come along very often that can take over games. it may be another 4+ yrs before you see a defense like those that carry a team to the title but in that time you will see many teams win because of the man throwing the ball.[/quote]Brady prior to 2004 was a pretty mediocre QB, and he won two titles before his breakout. Roethlisberger in 2005. Eli in 2007.

How often does one of the top five QBs in the NFL at the time actually win the super bowl? Peyton in 2006, Brady in 2004, Warner in 1999, and like, Favre in 1996? Those teams had playmakers at the QB spot and won, I guess, but in 13 years a top five quarterback (in that year) has won the super bowl four times. That's 30%.

You're wasting your time on this argument. Having a great quarterback and having a great defense are both great weapons in terms of winning playoff games, but balance is way more important.