|
|
|
10-30-2009, 03:39 PM
|
#1 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
His ball security has been poor and it's not improving. His long release and his bad habit of "patting" the ball before a throw causes a delay in the ball getting out and missed opportunities. His inaccuracy, missing open receivers, and not making audibles are his fault. If audibles are not available to him in the system, then that's Zorn's fault.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996. |
|
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 04:00 PM
|
#2 | |
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
There's plenty to not like about Campbell's play right now, but the only thing that's different between this year and last year is the expectations and consequences. The Redskins don't score points, and they are really, really hoping that Jason Campbell is the reason. But, I think we've seen that Campbell succeeding at ball security and mid-range completions and failing at them are not the difference between the Redskins scoring points and not. You and I both know that Jason Campbell is incapable of giving the Redskins what they want, and we both know he's capable of playing better than he is right now. Here's where the siutation is at fault: should Campbell be more conservative with his mechanics giving the situation, even if it would make him a better player? Protecting the ball, and not throwing INTs gives this team it's best chance to win, but it does nothing for Jason Campbell's long term future of this team. Winning 6 games because of improvements in ball security still means a change at QB next year. And that's where the problem lies: there's no incentive to do the small things (which are 100% in his control) better because Campbell is getting blamed for the big picture things which ne has no control over. And that's because we're a horrendous organization. I do not, and have not disagreed with your analysis, and I think you're doing a top notch job. At this point though, I'm finding myself (naturally) less concerned with the what (bad QB play), and more with the why.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 02:32 PM
|
#3 |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stephens City, VA
Posts: 2,953
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
If i could post new threads, i would post the article where they talk to Al Borges about JC. It was on NFL.com...
__________________
Time to nut up or shut up |
|
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 02:41 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 58
Posts: 21,742
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
 http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...tml#post615466 |
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 02:48 PM
|
#5 |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stephens City, VA
Posts: 2,953
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Good Call...i am new to the site...i am a transplant from the great extremeskins purge of 2009...i've noticed that many members have joined here from there in the last couple of days...i recognize the screen names...
__________________
Time to nut up or shut up |
|
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 02:49 PM
|
#6 | |
|
Hail Raiser
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 53
Posts: 100,038
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 02:54 PM
|
#7 |
|
Quietly Dominating the East
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Naples, Florida
Posts: 10,675
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
The WP is like the Pitcairn Island of the Skins, board world?
__________________
Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios thankyou Joe....... “God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.” – Joe Gibbs |
|
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 02:59 PM
|
#8 |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stephens City, VA
Posts: 2,953
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
They just started getting ridiculous with the permanent bans. I myself got banned for life last night. They gave no reason. I suspected that some of my posts were unpopular with the moderators. I had been there since 2005 with no incidents whatsoever, and then last night got permanently banned. No lie, within the past month, i know of at least 50 people who have been banned for life. I saw 5 or 6 of them on here today.
The board over there is a mess...one guy named "Jumbo", apparantly launched into a racial tirade last night....they even called in about it today on 106.7 The Fan.....its just a couple bad mods ruined it for everyone...
__________________
Time to nut up or shut up |
|
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 03:18 PM
|
#9 | |
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Age: 46
Posts: 17,460
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
I bet Vinny Cerrato threatened the ES mods to tighten things up. 
__________________
Not sent from a Droid, iPhone, Blackberry or toaster |
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 03:27 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stephens City, VA
Posts: 2,953
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
I seriously wish someone would start a thread off-topic somewhere where all of us old ex Extremeskins members could re-unite and stuff. It's just plain crazy over there...like seriously no other message board among the NFL could be that bad. I can't believe they let the moderators over there do what they are doing. The mods got all angry because they were accused of censoring on the SportsJunkies show, banned all people that voiced the opinion that they were, and were calling people names. I asked last night in allegation of the censorship charges, did anyone regret officially merging with the team back in 2005, now in hindsight...."Jumbo" one of the mods told me i was too stupid to post here and warned others who agreed with me that they too would be "cut from the herd". Good stuff though, as this helps WP's ranks grow. Ironically, after i was banned, somebody started a thread called "F Dan Snyder"...the thread was closed, and the person lifetime banned.....go figure
__________________
Time to nut up or shut up |
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 07:25 PM
|
#11 | |
|
Hail Raiser
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 53
Posts: 100,038
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
Well, you're always welcome here. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-31-2009, 11:26 AM
|
#12 | |
|
Gamebreaker
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 42
Posts: 12,514
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 03:29 PM
|
#13 |
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
BTW, there's a lot of interest in Campbell around the league right now, specifically from franchises out west. I would not be surprised if Matt Hasselbeck was the quarterback here next year.
Just saying.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
|
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 03:35 PM
|
#14 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stephens City, VA
Posts: 2,953
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
__________________
Time to nut up or shut up |
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2009, 03:49 PM
|
#15 | |
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
If we traded Campbell at this point, we'd likely get a late round draft pick or a backup QB. But there will be a lot of QBs released from their contracts this offseason who we can bring in. The free agent class is Chad Pennington, Daunte Culpepper and a bunch of nobodies, but I could see any of the following players released: Matt Hasselbeck Mark Bulger Kellen Clemens Tavaris Jackson Alex Smith Shaun Hill Billy Volek Brodie Croyle Byron Leftwich Jim Sorgi Chris Simms Of course, the only two players on that list that would represent an upgrade over Campbell are Hasselbeck and Pennington...who are both injury risks. I think we'll address QB in the draft, but not in the first round.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
