Campbell's numbers dont lie

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Why would you extend a QB when you have no idea who will be coaching your team and what offensive system you'll be running next year?

Good point. I'd have to think he's scheme adaptable. Given the evidence, I feel that applies.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Good point. I'd have to think he's scheme adaptable. Given the evidence, I feel that applies.

I thought the fact that he's had to be in so many schemes was the reason campbell apologists say he's never become league-mvp? He's been mediocre in every scheme he's been in at the pro-level. Jason Campbell will turn 29 in the 2010-2011 season. Unless you're predicting he'll go on to have a Favre-like career, there's no sense in extending a mediocre QB. He'll be on the downside of his career by the time he ever reaches any comfort level in a new system. Unless we keep a similar offensive system next year, I won't understand any argument for keeping Campbell around.

We're better off letting our new coach pick his own veteran QB familiar with the system and then draft a young guy the coach can groom. Now, if in 2010, Campbell wants to stick around for a Collins-esque deal and compete for a starting job, then so be it, let the best man win. But extending him in 2009 without knowing exactly what system we'll be running or who will be coaching the team is just stupid. It would turn prospective head coaching candidates away, and is almost as dumb as naming offensive and defensive coordinators before hiring a head coach.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I thought the fact that he's had to be in so many schemes was the reason campbell apologists say he's never become league-mvp? He's been mediocre in every scheme he's been in at the pro-level. Jason Campbell will turn 29 in the 2010-2011 season. Unless you're predicting he'll go on to have a Favre-like career, there's no sense in extending a mediocre QB. He'll be on the downside of his career by the time he ever reaches any comfort level in a new system. Unless we keep a similar offensive system next year, I won't understand any argument for keeping Campbell around.

We're better off letting our new coach pick his own veteran QB familiar with the system and then draft a young guy the coach can groom. Now, if in 2010, Campbell wants to stick around for a Collins-esque deal and compete for a starting job, then so be it, let the best man win. But extending him in 2009 without knowing exactly what system we'll be running or who will be coaching the team is just stupid. It would turn prospective head coaching candidates away, and is almost as dumb as naming offensive and defensive coordinators before hiring a head coach.

Well, I mean, look at a stat sheet. It's hard to argue with what Campbell has accomplished in spite of significant offensive turnover. In a lot of ways, the word mediocre demeans what he actually has accomplished. The last year he played mediocre was 2007, which was his first full year as a starter. That was a long time ago.

You can probably find some 2008 splits that suggest mediocrity (**OMG--last 8 games--OMG**), but I think that's missing the big picture.

Still, I bolded your best point (and nice zinger, btw). A good organization would not handcuff it's head coach search by locking in a quarterback prior to firing it's head coach. Then again, a good organization knows how to value its own players in the context of the market. I'm clearly more concerned with them getting the small things right at this point than I am with them trying to show that they can be a good organization all of a sudden.

But that's the point. If the question is, "would you extend Jason Campbell right now?", I think the correct answer is, yes. And it's not a good situation right now to be deciding to extend players, but between Rogers, McIntosh, and Campbell, Jason is the only one who has played well enough to deserve it. And, frankly, if all a Jason Campbell extension does is force the organization to retain Zorn...then so be it. If it makes Zorn the best man for the job, then I could care less if we would not have kept him under different conditions.