good news and bad news for Oakland
 

hey guys (and gals if you're out there...)

as some of you know, i write an NFL column for realfootball365.com. i mostly cover the Redskins and the Raiders (one out of interest, the other as assigned by the site), but i also do various league-wide stuff like my weekly "picks" column during the season.

anyway, for this week's Raiders column i thought we could give them some real insight on Jason Campbell. the talking head experts can give them the basics "he has a big arm, played under a zillion different systems/coordinators, had dysfunction in Washington, had a bad offensive line," etc....

but i thought if everyone wanted to chime in with a "good news bad news" sentence or so, i'd cull the best (or simply the ones i choose to use) and offer their fans a real portrait of Jason by the real redskins fans who actually watch all the games.

i'd prefer that it doesn't become an overly negative "campbell sucks" kinda thread, that's why i've framed as "good news bad news" so you can give one positive and one drawback. can be simple/obvious or complex and insightful.

mine might be "the good news is Jason Campbell has very similar rating and W-L record as Jay Cutler who's an alleged franchise QB and the bears gave up a LOT more for him. The bad news is Campbell has a similar rating and W-L as Jay Cutler."

or

The good news is Campbell is tough as nails and is a real pro's pro who never complains and just goes about his business. The bad news is his quiet demeanor leads some to speculate that he doesn't have the "IT" factor people like to see for leadership from the QB position.

anyway, have at it. post them all here...
if you dont want me to use/publish your comments then either specify that or dont post here. also, let me know if you'd like to be anonymous, identified by WP screen name, or perhaps your real name. (if you want to use your real name but dont list it here, just put "PM me for real name" after your post and i'll do so if i use your comment.)

hope to have some fun with this, and also might be a nice way to put a bow on the J-Soup era. if you're tired of discussing JC and think it's a dead horse, feel free to check out all the other threads.

thanks in advance!!

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Campbell is consistently inconsistent. He has great potential and at times he looks amazing, and at other times he looks completely rattled and misses wide open receivers.

Put a good bunch of players around him and Campbell can win, but I dont see him winning games by himself for a mediocre team.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

The good news is that Jason Campbell isn't going to lose you many footballs games. The bad news is that he won't win you very many either. If nothing else, the guy is a class act all the way.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

First of all, be prepared to hear from some fans who believe that JC is worst than JaMarcus Russell, an old Jake Delhomme, and this past season's Derek Anderson combined times infinity. That being said, I will try to give you a fair assessment from what I know.

Negatives:
- Campbell tends to hold on the ball too long
- Has problem reading some defenses
- Will throw a costly INT or fumble the ball at key situations
- Accuracy issues when throwing the deep ball
- Once again he will be learning a new offensive system
- May or may not have been shellshocked here in DC
- Can be too quiet at times

Positives
- Great character
- Tough as nails
- May have been in the wrong system here in DC
- Had his best statistical season last year with bad players around him
- Can make plays with his feet, pretty athletic
- Has a strong arm
- A good offensive line that he can trust may fix some of the problems mentioned above
- Oakland actually wants him there*

*I was listening to Mike & Mike, and I thought Greenberg had a point regarding Campbell. He thought JC was never in a good situation here in DC. He seemingly fell to the Redskins when they picked, I've heard rumors that the Skins wanted Rodgers and they settled for JC. Gibbs never wanted to develop a young QB, he had a preference of working with older veterans, and maybe he had a win-now attitude with all the pressures of being a Redskins coach (hence why he didn't bother with Ramsey). Also, once JC didn't immediately pan out, Snyder wanted a new QB. I just hope the team does a better job in the future with QBs; because I feel that starting with Ramsey, we didn't do a good job at either picking QBs or developing them.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

The good news is he can throw a mile. The bad news is he's rarely had time to.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

[quote=Ruhskins;697524]
- Oakland actually wants him there*

*I was listening to Mike & Mike, and I thought Greenberg had a point regarding Campbell. He thought JC was never in a good situation here in DC. He seemingly fell to the Redskins when they picked, I've heard rumors that the Skins wanted Rodgers and they settled for JC. Gibbs never wanted to develop a young QB, he had a preference of working with older veterans, and maybe he had a win-now attitude with all the pressures of being a Redskins coach (hence why he didn't bother with Ramsey). Also, once JC didn't immediately pan out, Snyder wanted a new QB. I just hope the team does a better job in the future with QBs; because I feel that starting with Ramsey, we didn't do a good job at either picking QBs or developing them.[/quote]


interesting. but didn't we spend a fairly big price to move up to grab JC?

and does oakland really want him there, or is it just a solid move to give up a future 4th rounder to please the fanbase by looking like you made a big move to bring in a new starter? i dont know.

anyway, everyone else can carry on, just wanted to jump in with Ruhskins on that side note.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

[quote=Ruhskins;697524]First of all, be prepared to hear from some fans who believe that JC is worst than JaMarcus Russell, an old Jake Delhomme, and this past season's Derek Anderson combined times infinity. That being said, I will try to give you a fair assessment from what I know.

Negatives:
- Campbell tends to hold on the ball too long
- Has problem reading some defenses
- Will throw a costly INT or fumble the ball at key situations
- Accuracy issues when throwing the deep ball
- Once again he will be learning a new offensive system
- May or may not have been shellshocked here in DC
- Can be too quiet at times

Positives
- Great character
- Tough as nails
- May have been in the wrong system here in DC
- Had his best statistical season last year with bad players around him
- Can make plays with his feet, pretty athletic
- Has a strong arm
- A good offensive line that he can trust may fix some of the problems mentioned above
- Oakland actually wants him there*

*I was listening to Mike & Mike, and I thought Greenberg had a point regarding Campbell. He thought JC was never in a good situation here in DC. He seemingly fell to the Redskins when they picked, I've heard rumors that the Skins wanted Rodgers and they settled for JC. [B]Gibbs never wanted to develop a young QB,[/B] he had a preference of working with older veterans, and maybe he had a win-now attitude with all the pressures of being a Redskins coach (hence why he didn't bother with Ramsey). Also, once JC didn't immediately pan out, Snyder wanted a new QB. I just hope the team does a better job in the future with QBs; because I feel that starting with Ramsey, we didn't do a good job at either picking QBs or developing them.[/quote]

Gibbes trade up just to get JC so that does not make one bit of sense. JC had plenty of good situations here over the years its just that he is what he is a very average QB. For the record I would not quote Greenberg as a source for football knowledge.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Jason's passing stats have improved every season since he became a starter, that's saying something considering what he's had to deal with in Washington. At this point, he's about an average starter and you can do better, but you can also do a whole hell of a lot worse that Jason Campbell.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Ruhskins, not to change the topic but the same could be said about the people J.Campbell had to throw to...the WR's. I'm refering to picking and developing.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Good news: He's not JaMarcus Russell.

Bad news: He's only Jason Campbell.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Good News: No one knows if Campbell is a bad QB
Bad News: No one knows if Campbell is a good QB

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

The good news is that he's a major upgrade over JaMarcus Russell and he still has some upside that is yet untapped. He should improve some simply due to maturity, if the system around him is stable and he has decent personel. He is a solid person and has shown he can lead by example, and understands how to act professionally off the field.

The bad news is that he has shown a tendency to fold under pressure, throwing crucial interceptions to end games, and he needs virtually all of the pieces in place in order to become a consistent, winning quarterback. In this regard, Joe Gibbs might've been thinking that since he won a SB w/Mark Rypien he could win w/Jason Campbell. Campbell is much better than Rypien, but Rypien had the hogs & the posse, Campbell didn't.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Good news: Improved every year
Bad news: Only as good as people around him.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

The good news is Campbell is a major upgrade over JaMarcus Russell and brings dignity and class to an organization that has none. The bad news is the Raiders owner, head coach, offensive coordinator, and quarterbacks coach are all morons, so, in the end, it won't make much of a difference.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

[quote=Ruhskins;697524]*I was listening to Mike & Mike, and I thought Greenberg had a point regarding Campbell. He thought JC was never in a good situation here in DC. He seemingly fell to the Redskins when they picked, I've heard rumors that the Skins wanted Rodgers and they settled for JC. Gibbs never wanted to develop a young QB, he had a preference of working with older veterans, and maybe he had a win-now attitude with all the pressures of being a Redskins coach (hence why he didn't bother with Ramsey). Also, once JC didn't immediately pan out, Snyder wanted a new QB. I just hope the team does a better job in the future with QBs; because I feel that starting with Ramsey, we didn't do a good job at either picking QBs or developing them.[/quote]

They said all this on Mike and Mike today?

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

[quote=SmootSmack;697601]They said all this on Mike and Mike today?[/quote]

It wasn't today, I think it was last week. I downloaded the podcast. Both Mikes were talking about that JC may or may not be a starting QB in the league, but they felt they had not seen JC in a situation where he was allowed to proof that. I don't know if I'd go this far though, but I do feel that he needed to go elsewhere to get a 2nd chance.

[quote=Rajmahal33;697572]Good News: No one knows if Campbell is a bad QB
Bad News: No one knows if Campbell is a good QB[/quote]

Rajmahal, your quote is similar to what the Mikes concluded. That they felt no one knows whether JC is a good or bad QB. The said the same of Brady Quinn.

I think folks here make a good point, Gibbs did trade up to get JC, so there must have been something about him that they like. But, I do also believe that Gibbs wasn't into developing a young QB. So it is curious to see where did that decision to get Campbell came from.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Good news: Great at intermediate passes.
Bad news: Inconsistent with the quick slant. Also has had miscommunications with his top WR(he throws the ball one way and the receiver goes another way).

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

[quote=Ruhskins;697619]It wasn't today, I think it was last week. I downloaded the podcast. Both Mikes were talking about that JC may or may not be a starting QB in the league, but they felt they had not seen JC in a situation where he was allowed to proof that.[/quote]

Did they say that stuff about Rodgers and Snyder though?

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

[quote=SmootSmack;697634]Did they say that stuff about Rodgers and Snyder though?[/quote]

No, the Rodgers thing was more of my speculation from rumors that I don't remember now where I heard them from. Although I believe they said something along the lines of Campbell falling to the Redskins.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Yeah I don't think they were ever targeting Rodgers, no one expected him to fall to just one pick above Campbell. Would have been very interesting if we had moved up to take him though

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

i agree. rogders also doesnt seem like the kind of QB Gibbs would have gone after, either, but who knows. I still am somewhat shocked that we traded for that pick so far in advance, as opposed to when Denver was on the clock. i mean, what if Rodgers and Cambpell had both been taken by 25? I wonder if Plan A was to trade both #1s to move up and select alex smith or braylon edwards.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Good news- Once he decides to run JC is an above average scrambler that can shrug off hard hits from NFL linebackers.

Bad news- His inability to breakdown NFL defenses means that this dangerous skillset is severely underutilized and underdeveloped. It's more of a last resort option for him.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Good news- JC throws a beautiful deep out.

Bad news- Inside the ten yard line you give up one major WR and one major TE route. JC is incapable of throwing the end zone fade and he will not target receivers on the back line of the endzone.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

The good news about Campbell is that he believes he's a starter in this league.

The bad news about Campbell is that very few teams agree with him.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

[quote=wilsowilso;697693]Good news- JC throws a beautiful deep out.

Bad news- Inside the ten yard line you give up one major WR and one major TE route. JC is incapable of throwing the end zone fade and he will not target receivers on the back line of the endzone.[/quote]

Wilso makes an excellent point here. While Gibbs was coach with JC as his quarterback, the skins were great moving the ball between 20s, however they would stall consistently thereafter. The overall stats at the end of the game would always make you wonder how the skins could lose dominating in almost ever catagory.

There were many excuses, one was made that we had no 2nd receiver to take the pressure off of Moss. Another was that Saunders offense was to complicated. Personally, I think wilso hit the nail right on the head.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Nice thread.

You make a good point about not being able to sort through all of the perceived attributes from the real ones. Skins fans will certainly have that insight from seeing all his games. You came to the right place.

The best insight I can give is that Campbell has a big arm, but lacks consistent deep accuracy, which pretty much neutralizes his big arm benefits. He is efficient and accurate in the intermediate pass game and is an asset in the short run, but as a standup, pocket QB not having the deep threat is an extreme liability.

The past 3 years our deep threat WR, Moss, has used his veteran route-running skills and speed to have 3 & 4 steps ahead of a CB only to have deep balls sail out of bounds or over his head. On the field, Moss has been visibly frustrated by this and his numbers have been affected by not being able to connect on his most advantageous aspect, the deep ball.


Bottom line...The 2 things most attributed to Campbell are his big arm and big character. Expect one to help and the other to hurt.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

The good news is that Campbell has the physical tools, is a diligent worker, and is committed to getting better.

The bad news is that many of Campbell's turnovers seemed to come late, when a game winning drive was in order. I never got the feeling that he would develop into a great 2 minute QB.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

The good news is Jason Campbell's best years as a QB (if he's going to have any) are still ahead of him.

The bad news is he was traded for a 4th round draft pick.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

[quote=SmootSmack;697601]They said all this on Mike and Mike today?[/quote]

Mike and Mike are complete jokes. I'll never forget the day I stopped listening to them. They actually had the audacity to say that Thurman Thomas wasn't a first ballot hall of famer.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

thanks for a lot of good responses so far....

deadline is today, so if anyone else wants to chime in, do so within the next couple hours.... obviously the thread can stay open for discussion.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

good news- definitely LOOKS the part of an NFL quarterback
bad news- doesn't play like an NFL quarterback

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Good News is that Campbell can learn any system.

Bad News is that he can't play in every system.

Good News is that Campbell will keep his mouth shut publicly about playing in a flawed offense

Bad News is that Campbell will keep his mouth shut about playing in a flawed offense.

Good News is that Campbell is a very hard worker. Always tries to stay later than everyone else, studying and working with coaches and trainers. He puts in the effort to be the best.

Bad News is that Campbell thinks to much sometimes. He doesn't "just do it".

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Bad news: a lot of fans think he stinks

Good news: most fans don't know what they are talking about

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

I think Campbell is a first class person, but he can't think with a football in his hand. He loses sight of his receivers and often overlooks wide open guys who could keep the chains moving. Jason just takes too long to get rid of the ball and that's the main reason he gets sacked so much (if you overlook the bad offensive line). As many years as he's been in the NFL, he really hasn't realized his full potential yet. I'll root for him as a Raider, but I would rather have somebody else as QB for the Redskins.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

okay, guys.... thanks again for all the great feedback. the article is now live!

[URL="http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/raiders/14853"]CLICK HERE to check it out.[/URL] please pass this along if you post on other message boards, or share thru facebook/twitter, etc....

thanks again.

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

Positive: He's not a Skin anymore

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 

bad news: we don't know what we could've gotten from campbell

good news: we don't know what we could've gotten from campbell