CBMGreatOne Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 It is ridiculous, asinine, confounding, ignorant, ludicrous, laughable, flabbergasting, idiotic, moronic, and senseless for anyone on this board to say ANYTHING negative about Jason Campbell's performance today. It would take about 10 times the negative adjectives listed above to do justice to how COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL it would be to even dream that Brunell would have been even CLOSE to as good. If you don't have anything positive to say about the quarterback position after this game, you just should give up your right to have an opinion. It is absolutely mind-boggling :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxSpearheadxX Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Umm...umm...uhh...oh yeah, he started the game at QB. OK, seriously. 4 of 13 on 3rd down conversions. Not stats. Not dropped passes. Plays, where he did something wrong that lead to a bad play. Aspects of his game and ability that led the team to completely toss the gameplan they had been working on all week (let aloneall offseason). If you didn't know JC was in his first start, you would have believed it was his 30th. I know you would have. And rightfully so. Not passes that were thrown where only the WR could catch it. Not nitpicking. REAL things. The truth is? Nothing. He stepped into the pocket (MB can't do that) He threw in the seams of the Cover 2 (MB did that 3 times only. In the 2nd dallas game) He threw it downfield without having to set his feet, squat and hurl. He had poise. He saw the field. He threw it to 7 different recievers. SEVEN! HE was not 4 of 13 on 3rd downs. The team was. Those weren't even all passing plays for gosh sakes. Stats don't work anymore here than they do when people have tried to convince me that MB is a top 10 QB in the NFL this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSB 21 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Not stats. Not dropped passes. Plays, where he did something wrong that lead to a bad play. Aspects of his game and ability that led the team to completely toss the gameplan they had been working on all week (let aloneall offseason). If you didn't know JC was in his first start, you would have believed it was his 30th. I know you would have. And rightfully so.Not passes that were thrown where only the WR could catch it. Not nitpicking. REAL things. The truth is? Nothing. He stepped into the pocket (MB can't do that) He threw in the seams of the Cover 2 (MB did that 3 times only. In the 2nd dallas game) He threw it downfield without having to set his feet, squat and hurl. He had poise. He saw the field. He threw it to 7 different recievers. SEVEN! HE was not 4 of 13 on 3rd downs. The team was. Those weren't even all passing plays for gosh sakes. Stats don't work anymore here than they do when people have tried to convince me that MB is a top 10 QB in the NFL this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MABfan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Seriously this has got to be the most assinine argument on the board today (and that's saying something)......and Jason is not 100% free from blame in this... Wasn't that my argument in the first place?:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgensHauss60`sskinsfan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Now that I am finished playing around with all the JC lovers on the board today ( all in fun really people, I swear ). I was waiting to see what JC had to offer this club. What he did was impress this skins fan. He wasn't outstanding, he wasn't lighting the world on fire but he played solid. What is more concerning to me was the lack of attitude the rest of the team seemed to have. This was a bad Tampa team we lost to today and I expected this team to rally behind theDid anyone else feel like they were let down by the team and not the young QB, like I was? I think your comments are right on target!! I felt the same way. I listened to the game on the internet and, without putting words in their mouths, I think Larry, Sonny and Sam were dissapointed also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCWarEagle Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 My first post here, and just wanted to say that Jason looked great. I'm an Auburn guy and have been anxious to see him play for the Skins since they drafted him. I was very pleased today and know the Skins have a bright future. War D*mn Jason!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgensHauss60`sskinsfan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 That`s disappointed also(that`s disappointing...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Considering it was a game that basically consisted of two losing teams going through the motions halfway through the season, it was a good zero-pressure situation for Campbell to start in. He played pretty solidly, but I have to say I didn't see anything to get excited about. His size and decent mobility definitely help him in the pocket, and his arm is strong enough to do anything that needs to be done, although it's not nearly as strong as some people have apparently hyped it to be. That said, about half--and probably more--of his passes were either too high, too low or completely overthrown, including many that were caught. He hung his receivers out to dry on a number of occasions, and he rarely hit them in stride so they could run after the catch. On a couple of occasions he made very poor decisions with the ball. He also seems to have more trouble keeping a tight spiral on his throws than you normally see from an NFL QB. He didn't look bad, so much as he looked very mediocre. Everybody who knows anything knew we "overpaid" for him in the draft. As much as it has been beaten to death-- the team drafted Ramsey in the same part of the draft four years ago, wrecked his career and tossed him aside without ever formally even handing him the job. Ramsey showed more promise than Campbell has, and now here we are four years later, looking at another QB project on a losing team. Can't get excited. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkFan8 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 The offense looked like they were playing with some fire. The defense looked disenchanted and lost nearly all game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooley4President Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I was definitely pleased with JC, but also dissapointed with the effort around him. Seems to me like this team is so lost in so many areas that they don't even look like they have a clue out there. Here's to some progress for the rest of the year.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBMGreatOne Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 He didn't look bad, so much as he looked very mediocre. If that was very mediocre, then Brunell has been very awful. I totally disagree with your post. He was generally quite accurate, a misfire here and there, but the same goes for Peyton Manning. JC sparkled in his NFL debut today and many are going to (rightfully) question if Gibbs has lost it in light of how much better he was than Brunell has been. What game were you watching? What did you expect from him? He was better than I expected and I expected a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Considering it was a game that basically consisted of two losing teams going through the motions halfway through the season, it was a good zero-pressure situation for Campbell to start in. He played pretty solidly, but I have to say I didn't see anything to get excited about. He didn't look bad, so much as he looked very mediocre. The simple fact that you're not calling for his immediate dismissal from the NFL is a glowing endorsement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONTEY Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Possible this team has just plain given up with six more to go? Wonder because this team should have won this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MABfan Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 So, didn't see it mentioned but incase anyone wants to know (I know there are certain people that like to base everything off stats) here is JC's stats...NFL QB rating: 92.3 Completion Percentage: 55.9 Yards Per Attempt: 5.76 TD%: 5.9 INT%: 0.0 Brunell's rating for the year...86.5 Some of you can stick that in your pipe and smoke it :laugh: Personally I don't care much for basing things completely off stats, he looked ok, needs some work but needless to say it is promising. And the best part he is young and not 34+ years old already. Hopefully we may have found a QB to play for many years to come. Before you start bashing brunell.... here's a stat for you: Campbell's winning percentate: 0% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrol14 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I'll tell you whats disappointing........Marcud Washington doing all his trash talking to Cadillac when Cadillac is running up our ass!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 If that was very mediocre, then Brunell has been very awful. I won't argue that point. However, there are a number of instances today where Brunell would have made a better play. I totally disagree with your post. He was generally quite accurate, a misfire here and there, but the same goes for Peyton Manning. Here we go again...comparing him to QBs taken at the top of the first round. Please just stop... JC sparkled in his NFL debut today and many are going to (rightfully) question if Gibbs has lost it in light of how much better he was than Brunell has been.What game were you watching? What did you expect from him? He was better than I expected and I expected a lot. Like I said, his size and ability to move around make him much more solid standing in the pocket than Brunell. No question. However, when it comes to the QB's primary job-- throwing the ball-- he was really not very good. He needs to improve a lot, and if he doesn't, we'll be looking for another QB...again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Considering it was a game that basically consisted of two losing teams going through the motions halfway through the season, it was a good zero-pressure situation for Campbell to start in. He played pretty solidly, but I have to say I didn't see anything to get excited about. His size and decent mobility definitely help him in the pocket, and his arm is strong enough to do anything that needs to be done, although it's not nearly as strong as some people have apparently hyped it to be. That said, about half--and probably more--of his passes were either too high, too low or completely overthrown, including many that were caught. He hung his receivers out to dry on a number of occasions, and he rarely hit them in stride so they could run after the catch. On a couple of occasions he made very poor decisions with the ball. He also seems to have more trouble keeping a tight spiral on his throws than you normally see from an NFL QB. He didn't look bad, so much as he looked very mediocre. Wow you are even more clueless than I thought. What occasions did he make "very poor decisions" with the ball? Also, did you expect his timing to be perfect in his first career start throwing to players that he's had all of 1 week of practice time with? I guess if you are judging him by 2004 Manning standards, he was mediocre today. But if you dont have a 10 cent head, you judge this player in this setting, under these circumstances as no worse than a B. He looked poised, he was generally accurate and he seemed to have good pocket awareness. He showed excellent mobility and was accurate on the run and outside of the pocket. This is with no running game and very limited opportunities on offense due to our poor excuse for a defense that couldn't get off the field. You can't be this dumb. You just can't. Something tells me you're just looking for attention again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUskins Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 172 yards of total offense ( + 80 in the last meaningless drive ) does not exactly make a GREAT QB. He was ok. He showed some promise. I liked how he stepped up to make throws, wasn't afraid of the rush, etc. But to call him our next fanchise QB is nothing short of stretching it.I understand how the Brunell bashers instantly turn from" The three and outs would give the defense some time to get fresh" one week, to " this defense sucked and lost the gave for #17", but try to be a little less obvious... :logo: Almost as quickly as Brunell lovers are to point out every negative about Campbell and the game and discard the circumstances as you did here. Please just go ahead and admit that you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betterman Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Bench Mark Brunell!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUskins Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 All I'm saying is this...Brunell Bashers on this site put all of the blame on #8 for our lack of productivity, and today's loss would have been his fault, of course. In all fairness... If Campbell is so much better, then what about the 3 pts. in the first half, and 17 total points for the game? Wouldn't his superior skills give us at least 20 points? Maybe 24? I would agree that Campbell has a lot of potential, and even though some "rifle" throws were a little high, and a little low, he does have a good arm. I hope he does well, but now we will see ALL of the blame shift from #8 to...take your pick. We lost, Campbell was the QB, so he gets to share in the blame as well. Welcome to the NFL. Most people did not say he would be much better than Brunell in his first game, but he could not be any worse. In fact, by most counts he was better and he certainly wasnt worse so they were correct. Still defending Brunell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtacconi Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Maybe answer the question?Why attack religion? You turned Brunell Bashing into religion bashing? Feel Proud? he wasnt religion bashing, he was implying that maybe they are close or see each other regularly..maybe even friends!!! RELIGION BASHING WTF!! LOLOL when ppl argue on here it gets hilarious, I hope ur not a lawyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Wow you are even more clueless than I thought. What occasions did he make "very poor decisions" with the ball? The pass that was almost picked in the end zone, and the head scratcher where he threw the ball to the umpire, to name two. Also, did you expect his timing to be perfect in his first career start throwing to players that he's had all of 1 week of practice time with? I guess if you are judging him by 2004 Manning standards, he was mediocre today. But if you dont have a 10 cent head, you judge this player in this setting, under these circumstances as no worse than a B. He looked poised, he was generally accurate and he seemed to have good pocket awareness. He showed excellent mobility and was accurate on the run and outside of the pocket. This is with no running game and very limited opportunities on offense due to our poor excuse for a defense that couldn't get off the field. You can't be this dumb. You just can't. Something tells me you're just looking for attention again. I don't know who you are, so I guess it's a sign of my greatness that you feel the need to talk smack to me. There are a lot of elements that go into playing QB, but I think most people would agree the main skill is throwing the football. Campbell did not throw the football well at all today. If you happen to have the game taped or Tivo-ed, go back and run through his passes. I would say at least 50% were off-target to one degree or another. A number of those were caught by receivers cleaning it up, but they were forced to adjust such that they had to immediately go to the ground after they caught it-- or in the case of Brandon Lloyd, almost had their back broken because he hung them out high to get killed by a defender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBMGreatOne Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Here we go again...comparing him to QBs taken at the top of the first round. Please just stop... Wow, I mean seriously... wow. Yeah, I was comparing him to Peyton Manning, right... Give me a break. I was just saying to say that he was inaccurate because of a couple of misfires is silly. Here- I'll put it in terms that you won't misunderstand. No QBs always put the pass on target, even Peyton Manning. Accusing me of comparing him to Manning- seriously dude, you missed the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUskins Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Considering it was a game that basically consisted of two losing teams going through the motions halfway through the season, it was a good zero-pressure situation for Campbell to start in. He played pretty solidly, but I have to say I didn't see anything to get excited about. His size and decent mobility definitely help him in the pocket, and his arm is strong enough to do anything that needs to be done, although it's not nearly as strong as some people have apparently hyped it to be. That said, about half--and probably more--of his passes were either too high, too low or completely overthrown, including many that were caught. He hung his receivers out to dry on a number of occasions, and he rarely hit them in stride so they could run after the catch. On a couple of occasions he made very poor decisions with the ball. He also seems to have more trouble keeping a tight spiral on his throws than you normally see from an NFL QB. He didn't look bad, so much as he looked very mediocre. Everybody who knows anything knew we "overpaid" for him in the draft. As much as it has been beaten to death-- the team drafted Ramsey in the same part of the draft four years ago, wrecked his career and tossed him aside without ever formally even handing him the job. Ramsey showed more promise than Campbell has, and now here we are four years later, looking at another QB project on a losing team. Can't get excited. Sorry. Was waiting for your negative post AJ. We all knew it was coming just a matter of when. Sorry none of us on this board know as much about football as you do. Thanks again for your expert analysis. Im still waiting for a post where you have a positive comment about something or someone associated with the redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtacconi Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 It is ridiculous, asinine, confounding, ignorant, ludicrous, laughable, flabbergasting, idiotic, moronic, and senseless for anyone on this board to say ANYTHING negative about Jason Campbell's performance today. It would take about 10 times the negative adjectives listed above to do justice to how COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL it would be to even dream that Brunell would have been even CLOSE to as good. If you don't have anything positive to say about the quarterback position after this game, you just should give up your right to have an opinion. It is absolutely mind-boggling :doh: Very well said, JC looks great MB is done...lets support our future and stop being so damn negative. I love the redskins and have never said anything negative about any of our players. Except that piece of %&$ brunell!! J/K Skins in 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.