The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball

[30gut]

The Raiders are not a good team.
They're WRs are sub-par.
The OL is sub-par.
They have a decent to slightly above average running game.
It would be a tall task getting production from that unit for a veteran OC and Jackson is basically a rookie.

Bottom line JC's production goes as the OL+WRs+OC

It was the 1st game against a good team, does everyone here expect our Redskins offense to struggle the way they did Week 1 for the entire season?

I didn't think so.

[Longtimefan]

If things continue to go the way the way they have so far in Oakland, what little confidence JC had going when he left here will soon dissipate. It won't be long before he'll finally discover the fact the NFL may not exactly be his calling.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

If things continue to go the way the way they have so far in Oakland, what little confidence JC had going when he left here will soon dissipate. It won't be long before he'll finally discover the fact the NFL may not exactly be his calling.

Or that is a bad idea to be a mediocre/below average QB playing behind terrible offensive lines.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Or that is a bad idea to be a mediocre/below average QB playing behind terrible offensive lines.

His ardent supporters can now use the same excuse they used when he was here. The Raiders O/L may be sub-par to the one he just moved on from. There comes a time when excuses exhaust themselves.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

His ardent supporters can now use the same excuse they used when he was here. The Raiders O/L may be sub-par to the one he just moved on from. There comes a time when excuses exhaust themselves.

Where did you see me use an excuse? I mean I'm sure you can be a mediocre QB and play decently behind a good offensive line (see Mark Sanchez). I'm just saying, the guy is not a good QB and he's played for bad teams, not a good combination. I'm sure he can be a decent backup after this stint in Oakland.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Where did you see me use an excuse? I mean I'm sure you can be a mediocre QB and play decently behind a good offensive line (see Mark Sanchez). I'm just saying, the guy is not a good QB and he's played for bad teams, not a good combination. I'm sure he can be a decent backup after this stint in Oakland.

What I said was not directed at you personally and I really didn't view it as you using an excuse.

My only point was in making a comparison, a comparison between two less than formidable O/L's. JC's supporters have always maintained the major reason for his lack of success as a QB here was due mainly to that fact. I was always one of his staunchest supporters when he was here, supported by the feeling his shortcomings were not all his fault.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

His ardent supporters can now use the same excuse they used when he was here. The Raiders O/L may be sub-par to the one he just moved on from. There comes a time when excuses exhaust themselves.

Your above statement is not logical.
If something is true it remains true regardless of how many times it repeated.
OL play will always effect QB play.
Its not an excuse it simple football 101.

E.g. Imagine your sprinting 100 meters with a parachute on your back against people that don't; in your 4th race does having a parachute on your back become an excuse?

[MonkFan4Life]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Your above statement is not logical.
If something is true it remains true regardless of how many times it repeated.
OL play will always effect QB play.
Its not an excuse it simple football 101.

E.g. Imagine your sprinting 100 meters with a parachute on your back against people that don't; in your 4th race does having a parachute on your back become an excuse?

Football 101 should also say that you shouldn't pump fake an open guy only to check down a player that is covered.

Ex. It's 2nd and 10 and you're in a shotgun formation. Your offesnsive line gives you good protection and you pump fake a receiver that is open only to check down to your running back in the flat. Would you balme the GM, or the owner, or the O-Line for that ?

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Your above statement is not logical.
If something is true it remains true regardless of how many times it repeated.
OL play will always effect QB play.
Its not an excuse it simple football 101.

E.g. Imagine your sprinting 100 meters with a parachute on your back against people that don't; in your 4th race does having a parachute on your back become an excuse?

The statement "There comes a time when excuses exhaust temselves" is only intended to express the mind-set of those who proclaim using the deficiencies of the o/lines as a declaration for the acceptance of failure is not acceptable. The mind-set of JC's detractors are that the we can no longer use o/line as an excuse, it has worn out it's welcome. Nothing ilogical about it at all IMO.

[MonkFan4Life]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Or that is a bad idea to be a mediocre/below average QB playing behind terrible offensive lines.

At least you can admit that he's mediocre.

[KLHJ2]

I heard that you pick the fastest horse in a race by looking at the size of it's ass. The horse with biggest ass is usually the winner.

[GTripp0012]

Isn't Sanchez an example of a bad QB who plays bad behind a good offensive line?

I mean, does anyone still think we'd be better off with Sanchez than Campbell then McNabb? Anyone? At all?

I've (rightfully) criticized the Redskins of the cost it took to acquire McNabb vs. the reward, but there's no doubt that going to get Sanchez would have costed more for less, and on top of that, Mike Shanahan might not have been willing to come here to work with Mark Sanchez.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Isn't Sanchez an example of a bad QB who plays bad behind a good offensive line?

I mean, does anyone still think we'd be better off with Sanchez than Campbell then McNabb? Anyone? At all?

I've (rightfully) criticized the Redskins of the cost it took to acquire McNabb vs. the reward, but there's no doubt that going to get Sanchez would have costed more for less, and on top of that, Mike Shanahan might not have been willing to come here to work with Mark Sanchez.

Barring a miracle Sanchez is on the road to Bust. He has a good line, good RB's (LT looks good so far when given a chance) and good/great receivers. I understand the Ravens defense is good but currently their secondary is banged up; the jet's poor offense was dude to one guy last night.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Barring a miracle Sanchez is on the road to Bust. He has a good line, good RB's (LT looks good so far when given a chance) and good/great receivers. I understand the Ravens defense is good but currently their secondary is banged up; the jet's poor offense was dude to one guy last night.

I wouldn't call him a bust quite yet. It's just too early to say that. He had a bad game against a good defense. It's one game and it's a long season. But I do think we'll see Brunell in there at some point.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Isn't Sanchez an example of a bad QB who plays bad behind a good offensive line?

I mean, does anyone still think we'd be better off with Sanchez than Campbell then McNabb? Anyone? At all?

I've (rightfully) criticized the Redskins of the cost it took to acquire McNabb vs. the reward, but there's no doubt that going to get Sanchez would have costed more for less, and on top of that, Mike Shanahan might not have been willing to come here to work with Mark Sanchez.

Mark Sanchez is a typical example of why so many people choose to take the "wait and see" approach when it comes to collegiate QB's with impressive resumes.

It's my belief we've embarked on a course that includes a win now philosophy. I agree Shanahan may not have been willing, or had the patience to work with a young QB if indeed it's his ambition to win now. I don't think he's totally opposed to working with young QB's [he did draft Cutler] it's just that the situation here is different than the one in Denver, he obviously felt a veteran presence here was imperative, thus the price we paid for McNabb.