Grade Jason Campbell

[Redskins_P]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Yeah, it looked like Rogers was running around to celebrate, then realized, "Oops - they caught it!".

I saw that too. Rogers is really starting to irritate me. The guy doesn't even seem focused.

Maybe thats why I see him all the time in Tysons taking shots in Coastal Flats.....

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Redskins_P

I saw that too. Rogers is really starting to irritate me. The guy doesn't even seem focused.

Maybe thats why I see him all the time in Tysons taking shots in Coastal Flats.....

The worst was when he let up on the corner blitz. He had a clear path to the QB and just stopped

[The Zimmermans]

I don't look to luck when evaluating our defense's performance. It should have been pass interference on Rogers, then he was too busy celebrating to realize that they caught it. Plus, why couldnt anyone else have gone after that ball, very typical, we are always "unlucky", i'd consider it more unaware than unlucky. maybe we could have recovered the fumble sean taylor forced as well. By the way, why does rogers talk sh&t, when he gets beat more often than not, im starting to really dislike him. Is williams the reason that our players never jump on fumbles and deflections? Hey, I'm still happy we got two turnovers, finally got over that hump.

[The Zimmermans]

ladell is a fumbler, you will see once he gets more of the load. Portis is just amazing at avoiding fumbles.

[charlielyons]

campbell had a pretty solid game, i really liked his poise, scrambling ability and the way he threw on the run like the last touchdown, if we had any kind of defense and a running game we would have won pretty easy. he should have like 26-34 with 200+ yards but the recivers dropped alot of passes.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by charlielyons

he should have like 26-34 with 200+ yards but the recivers dropped alot of passes.

Well, he's gotta play with the deck he's been handed. A lot of things have gone wrong for us this year, maybe the least of which is receiver play, but Randle El and Lloyd and even Cooley have dropped some balls this year, for both quarterbacks now.

We were promised a mystical "spark" this week to help our receivers hands not be so hard, and help them try harder...but I guess that didn't happen.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, he's gotta play with the deck he's been handed. A lot of things have gone wrong for us this year, maybe the least of which is receiver play, but Randle El and Lloyd and even Cooley have dropped some balls this year, for both quarterbacks now.

We were promised a mystical "spark" this week to help our receivers hands not be so hard, and help them try harder...but I guess that didn't happen.

Cooley didn't drop the TD pass he improvised and came back to Campbell for. that ball would've been in the stands if it were Mark. same with the clutch 3rd down pass to Thrash. they stayed trying to make the play instead of expecting a throw out of bounds once the play broke down. i'd call that a spark, and thats why we're talking about JC like this today.

i also don't see any 'statistical' reason for you to assume that Campbell would've been just as bad or worse than Mark was in Philly.

[railcon56]

Originally Posted by illdefined

Cooley didn't drop the TD pass he improvised and came back to Campbell for. that ball would've been in the stands if it were Mark. same with the clutch 3rd down pass to Thrash. they stayed trying to make the play instead of expecting a throw out of bounds once the play broke down. i'd call that a spark, and thats why we're talking about JC like this today.

i also don't see any 'statistical' reason for you to assume that Campbell would've been just as bad or worse than Mark was in Philly.

No shit....that ball would have been 15 rows in the stands had that been Markie Mark...

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

Cooley didn't drop the TD pass he improvised and came back to Campbell for. that ball would've been in the stands if it were Mark. same with the clutch 3rd down pass to Thrash. they stayed trying to make the play instead of expecting a throw out of bounds once the play broke down. i'd call that a spark, and thats why we're talking about JC like this today.

i also don't see any 'statistical' reason for you to assume that Campbell would've been just as bad or worse than Mark was in Philly.

So you are saying that Campbell had a better 2 plays, and I think he played a game similar to if not worse than what Brunell would have done if he had started the game.

You aren't really responding to my point, because I'm talking about the game as a whole. You mentioned two plays in which you believe that Campbell did stuff that your perception of Brunell would not allow for.

I'm going to make this statement: "Campbell played nearly as well as you would expect Brunell to have played had he gotten the start instead of Campbell." This statement is heavily evidenced. Now if you perceive this to be an insult to Campbell's day, then I would suggest you go back and compare Brunell's season average to Campbell's day. Campbell played very well. And I have no better evidence that Brunell did his part well this season, then to take everyone's grade for Campbell, take the stats that Campbell produced in doing so, and looking at what Brunell did with the same team.

Regardless of whether you think there should have been a change (I agree with the decision after watching Campbell play this week, he is ready), I want someone (anyone who holds the position) to tell me how we are a better team now then we were 5 weeks ago. Use evidence. Not cliches like "Spark". Either logical arguements or statistical evidence. If you use the vertical game angle, give a case study comparision (where in history has it been successful before).

But when you have problems and fix something completely unrealted to those problems, you aren't going to get any better. That's my point.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Regardless of whether you think there should have been a change (I agree with the decision after watching Campbell play this week, he is ready), I want someone (anyone who holds the position) to tell me how we are a better team now then we were 5 weeks ago. Use evidence. Not cliches like "Spark". Either logical arguements or statistical evidence. If you use the vertical game angle, give a case study comparision (where in history has it been successful before).

is "luck" cliche? because thats the only way you've been explaining away Brunell's game in Philly. isn't much more likely that his age and the conditions had finally gotten to him? at least that's tied to a factual number. 36.

you also insisted Campbell "wouldn't be pretty" at all in Tampa, and fully expected 3 INTs in spite of your own 'projected stats'. you stick die hard to stats only when it suits you, and then subjective facets of the game when they don't follow your point. things you villify everyone else here for doing. which is it gonna be?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Regardless of whether you think there should have been a change (I agree with the decision after watching Campbell play this week, he is ready), I want someone (anyone who holds the position) to tell me how we are a better team now then we were 5 weeks ago. Use evidence. Not cliches like "Spark". Either logical arguements or statistical evidence.

First, you admit that 1 game is not a good enough sample to assess the offense's performance under Campbell. Then, you ask us to use statistical evidence or logical arguments to say how we are a better team than we were 5 weeks ago. Sounds like you are laying the groundrules such that no one (but you) can possibly be right.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm going to make this statement: "Campbell played nearly as well as you would expect Brunell to have played had he gotten the start instead of Campbell." This statement is heavily evidenced.

I have no idea how you can make that statement. How is it heavily evidenced? Are you referring to Brunell's stats this season? Those stats wouldn't have accurately predicted Brunell's stats against Philly, or the Cowboys, or the Giants.

Also, Campbell's QB rating against TB was better than Brunell's 2006 QB rating.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

Cooley didn't drop the TD pass he improvised and came back to Campbell for. that ball would've been in the stands if it were Mark. same with the clutch 3rd down pass to Thrash. they stayed trying to make the play instead of expecting a throw out of bounds once the play broke down. i'd call that a spark, and thats why we're talking about JC like this today.

Also, are you saying Campbell needed this offensive "spark" just to be as good as Brunell? So what does that mean for Campbell when the effects of the "spark" "wear off", if indeed that is how this spark operates.

Better yet, start by explaining to be exactly what a spark is, besides term you heard on TV, and might apply. How do we, as fans, identify a spark?

[Hail2em]

Yeah i agree alot of QB's can look good their first start, but to into Tampa where their D is pretty agressive ithink he did outstanding in their house on the road. i figure if a QB can go into someone elses house and perform like he did i think we have a pretty good QB for a long time to come.


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Grade

[70Chip]

Don't mock the spark GTripp. The spark surrounds us and it binds the universe together. You must go with me to Alderon if you are to learn the ways of the spark. May the spark be with you.