Updated: Evaluating the QB Situation (Discuss Campbell, Colt, etc)

[redsk1]

This is a pure speculative article. Opinion. Nothing more.

I think all would agree JC deserves to be our QB next year and a chance to improve even more. Now after next year, if he hasn't made any strides or has regressed the organization has a right to offer or not to offer him a contract.

As someone who is unsold on JC, I do really like the fact he works his butt off and has improved every offseason. I hope he does the same this year.

[KLHJ2]

Just a thought, but why have two 5+ page threads talking about the same thing. Why not merge them and label it "All things QB and all about JC".

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Angry

Just a thought, but why have two 5+ page threads talking about the same thing. Why not merge them and label it "All things QB and all about JC".

Because that would make sense, and people still insist in voicing their opinion and make the point that QB is the sole reason we went 8-8.

Seriously though, you are correct, I think you can go back and pick out two or three more threads about the same subject.

By the way, kudos to redsk1 for this comment:

I think all would agree JC deserves to be our QB next year and a chance to improve even more. Now after next year, if he hasn't made any strides or has regressed the organization has a right to offer or not to offer him a contract.

As someone who is unsold on JC, I do really like the fact he works his butt off and has improved every offseason. I hope he does the same this year.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

If Campbell remains the starter in 2009, there are really three possible scenarios to how this could all play out (as i see it).

1. Campbell Sucks. Whether its solely his fault or partly due to playcalling, poor o-line play, lack of effort from receivers, etc --the bottom line is, campbell doesnt perform well in 2009. At the end of the season, we obviously wont renew his contract and theres a very good chance Zorn is fired too, and we have to build from scratch in 2010 with a new coach, new system, and new QB.

2. Campbell plays extremely well; puts up great numbers and does everything asked of him. But since his contract is expired, he's going to be very very expensive to retain. We will pay through the nose for him and this will hurt our ability to address other areas of need.

3. Campbell plays extremely well and he signs somewhere else because we can't "show him the money." We lose campbell, get no compensation in return for him; and have to find a new starting QB.

if i'm missing something, please let me know, but those are the only realistic scenarios i can think of and none of None of them sound appealing to me. How can we avoid all of those unpleasant scenarios? Well, we have to do something NOW. There are two choices:

1. Trade Campbell. Ive discussed this issue and the benefits of it in the Byron Leftwich thread, and i'm not going to go into much detail there. Suffice to say, in this scenario we would go after a free agent QB with WCO experience to "hold down the fort" until Brennan became a viable option. In the trade, we would net atleast a 2nd round pick, which could be used on an offensive linemen to protect our new starter and help open lanes for Portis.

2. Sign Campbell to some sort of modest extension now. I'm thinking a 3-4 year extension that paid him above average starting QB money (6-8M/year?)if he remains the starting QB. Understandably, Campbell would want some security, so we could include a clause that allowed him to become an unrestricted free agent at the end of a season if he was no longer the starting QB. We could also included language that allowed him to become a free agent if he was elected to the pro-bowl or reached other performance incentives. A contract like this would be good for both Campbell and for the team. It would give him a dramatic pay increase in 2009 and beyond, as well as a garauntee that he could become a free agent if we (a) demoted him or (b) his performance dicated that he would make more money on the open market.

IMO we have to make some sort of decision about Campbell now, otherwise we are setting ourselves up for some sort of messy situation in 2010.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

If Campbell remains the starter in 2009, there are really three possible scenarios to how this could all play out (as i see it).

1. Campbell Sucks. Whether its solely his fault or partly due to playcalling, poor o-line play, lack of effort from receivers, etc --the bottom line is, campbell doesnt perform well in 2009. At the end of the season, we obviously wont renew his contract and theres a very good chance Zorn is fired too, and we have to build from scratch in 2010 with a new coach, new system, and new QB.

2. Campbell plays extremely well; puts up great numbers and does everything asked of him. But since his contract is expired, he's going to be very very expensive to retain. We will pay through the nose for him and this will hurt our ability to address other areas of need.

3. Campbell plays extremely well and he signs somewhere else because we can't "show him the money." We lose campbell, get no compensation in return for him; and have to find a new starting QB.

if i'm missing something, please let me know, but those are the only realistic scenarios i can think of and none of None of them sound appealing to me. How can we avoid all of those unpleasant scenarios? Well, we have to do something NOW. There are two choices:

1. Trade Campbell. Ive discussed this issue and the benefits of it in the Byron Leftwich thread, and i'm not going to go into much detail there. Suffice to say, in this scenario we would go after a free agent QB with WCO experience to "hold down the fort" until Brennan became a viable option. In the trade, we would net atleast a 2nd round pick, which could be used on an offensive linemen to protect our new starter and help open lanes for Portis.

2. Sign Campbell to some sort of modest extension now. I'm thinking a 3-4 year extension that paid him above average starting QB money (6-8M/year?)if he remains the starting QB. Understandably, Campbell would want some security, so we could include a clause that allowed him to become an unrestricted free agent at the end of a season if he was no longer the starting QB. We could also included language that allowed him to become a free agent if he was elected to the pro-bowl or reached other performance incentives. A contract like this would be good for both Campbell and for the team. It would give him a dramatic pay increase in 2009 and beyond, as well as a garauntee that he could become a free agent if we (a) demoted him or (b) his performance dicated that he would make more money on the open market.

IMO we have to make some sort of decision about Campbell now, otherwise we are setting ourselves up for some sort of messy situation in 2010.

Third option. We do nothing with Campbell right now. Campbell improves in 2009, and going into the uncapped 2010 year, we use one of our three franchise/transition tag designations on Jason Campbell while we hammer out the specifics of a long term deal. With no cap, $16 million for one season is nothing, and Campbell's incentive is to try to get a deal done so he gets all that money in the form of guaranteed contract value, and gets to play here for his prime years.

Absent a CBA extension, he wouldn't actually become a UFA in 2010 anyway, he would be an RFA.

With Rogers and Campbell both, there's no hurry to get a deal done with them right away because there's crazy uncertainty with the CBA, and knowing the specifics of a potential new deal is critical to determining the structure of these long term contracts. Basically, we have to avoid screwing ourselves over from a potential cap (or lack thereof) perspective.

Also, when has a pro-bowl QB under the age of 34 ever hit the open market? I don't think that has ever occurred in NFL history. I'm far more worried about Rogers' future than Campbell's.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Third option. We do nothing with Campbell right now. Campbell improves in 2009, and going into the uncapped 2010 year, we use one of our three franchise/transition tag designations on Jason Campbell while we hammer out the specifics of a long term deal. With no cap, $16 million for one season is nothing, and Campbell's incentive is to try to get a deal done so he gets all that money in the form of guaranteed contract value, and gets to play here for his prime years.

Absent a CBA extension, he wouldn't actually become a UFA in 2010 anyway, he would be an RFA.

With Rogers and Campbell both, there's no hurry to get a deal done with them right away because there's crazy uncertainty with the CBA, and knowing the specifics of a potential new deal is critical to determining the structure of these long term contracts. Basically, we have to avoid screwing ourselves over from a potential cap (or lack thereof) perspective.

Also, when has a pro-bowl QB under the age of 34 ever hit the open market? I don't think that has ever occurred in NFL history. I'm far more worried about Rogers' future than Campbell's.

A few months ago, I would have considered this a viable option. However, since then, we've learned that Snyder has become somewhat stingy (atleast compared to his past self). Snyders other businesses have been losing tons of money and by all appearances, the economy is going to stay crappy for quite a while. In 2005, Snyder wouldnt have blinked about paying 16M to his starting QB for a year if there were no salary cap... now its not very likely. Its highly unlikely that franchise tag will be used heavily iby teams on players at premier positions in 2010.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

However, since then, we've learned that Snyder has become somewhat stingy (atleast compared to his past self). Snyders other businesses have been losing tons of money and by all appearances, the economy is going to stay crappy for quite a while. In 2005, Snyder wouldnt have blinked about paying 16M to his starting QB for a year if there were no salary cap... now its not very likely. Its highly unlikely that franchise tag will be used heavily iby teams on players at premier positions in 2010.

Is it possible that Snyder has learned from past mistakes of overpaying for FAs and is now being more responsible in not killing the cap with signing bonuses and building the team properly......NAW, Synder's just an idiot, he needs to sell the team. :frusty:

[GusFrerotte]

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;525973]A few months ago, I would have considered this a viable option. However, since then, we've learned that Snyder has become somewhat stingy (atleast compared to his past self). Snyders other businesses have been losing tons of money and by all appearances, the economy is going to stay crappy for quite a while. In 2005, Snyder wouldnt have blinked about paying 16M to his starting QB for a year if there were no salary cap... now its not very likely. Its highly unlikely that franchise tag will be used heavily iby teams on players at premier positions in 2010.[/quote

Voila!!!!! This is the reason I think JC is gone after '09. IF he stinks, he still might ask for a raise and Snyder isn't going to give an average QB a raise so it will be bye bye. If he is great and gets us in the playoffs(unlikely, but who knows), his asking price will be even greater and Snyder will be forced to tell him to take a hike. I think we have too many holes to fill, and even if JC does improve, I am not sure that is going to necessarily mean more wins per say. Bottom line is either way I think JC is going to overprice himself from being a Skin in 2010.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

A few months ago, I would have considered this a viable option. However, since then, we've learned that Snyder has become somewhat stingy (atleast compared to his past self). Snyders other businesses have been losing tons of money and by all appearances, the economy is going to stay crappy for quite a while. In 2005, Snyder wouldnt have blinked about paying 16M to his starting QB for a year if there were no salary cap... now its not very likely. Its highly unlikely that franchise tag will be used heavily iby teams on players at premier positions in 2010.

Uh, even if he's in the red in terms of the bottom line, the revenue sharing concept (that still would run through 2010 even with no cap) still indicates that Snyder would be able to push his payroll north of 150 without losing any value on his investment. If he doesn't spend it, he's got to give it away anyway.

After that, who knows, there might not be a 32-team NFL. I would not speculate about anything past 2010.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

A few months ago, I would have considered this a viable option. However, since then, we've learned that Snyder has become somewhat stingy (atleast compared to his past self). Snyders other businesses have been losing tons of money and by all appearances, the economy is going to stay crappy for quite a while. In 2005, Snyder wouldnt have blinked about paying 16M to his starting QB for a year if there were no salary cap... now its not very likely. Its highly unlikely that franchise tag will be used heavily iby teams on players at premier positions in 2010.

I think there's a difference between being stingy with DJ Hackett and ponying up money for an improved JC in 2009. By the way, can people not act like having an uncapped year wouldn't be such a big deal? Please, I don't want my beloved sport of football to turn into that faux-pro sport known as baseball.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think there's a difference between being stingy with DJ Hackett and ponying up money for an improved JC in 2009. By the way, can people not act like having an uncapped year wouldn't be such a big deal? Please, I don't want my beloved sport of football to turn into that faux-pro sport known as baseball.

right there with you, i really hope the nfl doesnt go uncapped for even a year. yeah i know an uncapped year favors teams like us and the boys but i dont want to turn into the yankees who offer outrageous Ks to any decent FA.

IMO i dont see any problem showing JC some money if he proves he can lock down the qb position next year. its not likely that his stats are going to be astronomical next year to the point we have to make him a top 5 or 10 paid qb. something around derek anderson's K would probaly work if he continues to improve at the pace he is currently on.

also, having to negotiate a K with a qb we want to lead our team for years to come is a problem i welcome with open arms. honestly, if JC proves the doubters wrong (im kinda one of them), would we really be that upset in giving him 4 yr 25 mil type money? its not like the guy is going to throw for 4000 yds and 25+ tds next year, where he would be in a position to demand 5 yr 56 mil type money.

man the JC vortex has sucked me back in . .

go skins!!

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Third option. We do nothing with Campbell right now. Campbell improves in 2009, and going into the uncapped 2010 year, we use one of our three franchise/transition tag designations on Jason Campbell while we hammer out the specifics of a long term deal. With no cap, $16 million for one season is nothing, and Campbell's incentive is to try to get a deal done so he gets all that money in the form of guaranteed contract value, and gets to play here for his prime years.

Absent a CBA extension, he wouldn't actually become a UFA in 2010 anyway, he would be an RFA.

With Rogers and Campbell both, there's no hurry to get a deal done with them right away because there's crazy uncertainty with the CBA, and knowing the specifics of a potential new deal is critical to determining the structure of these long term contracts. Basically, we have to avoid screwing ourselves over from a potential cap (or lack thereof) perspective.

Also, when has a pro-bowl QB under the age of 34 ever hit the open market? I don't think that has ever occurred in NFL history. I'm far more worried about Rogers' future than Campbell's.

Always a first time for everything now isn't there? Besides JC isn't a Pro Bowler now.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

Always a first time for everything now isn't there?

Not for things that don't happen there isn't.

[SouperMeister]

If we give Jason ANY pass protection, he will be very productive. It might help if the last year's rookie receivers actually take time to learn the playbook. In any case, why are we in such a hurry to get rid of a guy who manages the game at QB and gives us a chance to win? We can do a lot worse than Jason Campbell at QB.

I just don't get the infatuation with Colt Brennan. Of the "chuck and duck" QBs playing the run and shoot or the spread in college, how many have become bigtime NFL starters. I can name a a few of the pretenders: Andre Ware, David Klingler, Alex Smith, Danny Weurffel, Ty Detmer, etc. I see Brennan far more likely to end up in that group than ever becoming a top starting QB.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

One uncapped year doesnt benefit anyone. Since teams would have three franchise tags, and players would need 6 years of service to become unrestricted free agents, the free agent market in an uncapped 2010 would be very pathetic. its not like there would be a ton of great players to spend on... even if snyder was willing to spend.

The one and only advantage of an uncapped year for a team like the skins would be it would allow us to cut guys like Randy Thomas, jansen, ARE, Moss, Portis, and Carter... guys who will still be on the roster entering 2010 but grossly overpaid....

And, since there wouldnt be that many free agents out there, teams would be more likely to trade older players with high cap figures... which means the skins could send 4 1st rounders to the Pats for Tom Brady or something ridiculous like that and the teams could afford to take the cap hits... trust me, Snyder would trade away the future for old vets and it would be the early 2000s all over again....

then, when the cap was reinstated, we would have to cut tons of players (ones we had traded picks for), just to get under the newly reinstated cap... while the teams who fleeced us for picks had additional picks to better themselves going forward. An uncapped year would be a field day for irresponsible, short-sighted teams like ours to ruin themselves.... no thanks.

hopefully a miracle will happen and a new CBA can be signed before the deadline.