young or campbell

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

I posted about 10 different stats to show why, overall, I think Campbell is better than young...the QB rating was one of them, but it was the last one I listed. I could have easily left it out and showed the stats overwhelmingly in Campbell's favor, and would have still reached the same conclusion. You made it seem as if we're picking Campbell to be good simply because of his QB rating.

no no, i just hate seeing QB rating thrown around as a stat because its very misleading.

regardless again

campbell > young

[Birdlives]

I'd bother to respond but after muffing the QB rating thing I assume M&W ran out of here with his tail between his legs.

[TheREALJBird]

Young is the better natural athlete, but Campbell will prove to be the better quarterback in my opinion. Let's not forget JC had some pretty nice runs last season, he can run if need be

[ouvan59]

The difference being that Campbell has 2 training camps and an entire year on the bench to get adjusted.

Vince left college early, switched from UT's ridiculous spread offense to a pro-style offense, and managed to do it all in his first year.

Despite JC's 4 years in college, one and a half seasons on the bench, he came in and looked like Vince looked.

JC could be the better pocket passer if he developed his mechanics in a way to improve his accuracy.

But right now neither of them can be considered a consistent passer. Given that, I'll go with Vince because his upside is higher and he is a running threat.

I will give you that it helps to have a year in the pros under your belt but Campbell was also learning a new offense, his sixth new offense in six year.

But Campbell's throwing mechanics are a ton better than Young's at this point. This crap that the idiot Cowboy fan is putting out there about Campbell's footwork (and happy feet :laugh: ) is ludicrous. Every college QB has to work on their footwork to help speed things up at the pro level. Every one. The numbskull Cowboy fan read Al Saunders comments about working on Campbell's footwork and has made it is focus not realizing that it is standard practice. He clearly hasn't seen him play (or doesn't know a thing about football) if that is where he thinks Campbell's weakness is.

Campbell's completion % is a direct result of not being completely comfortable with the offense last year. The faster you read a defense and get through your progressions the better your passing % will be. Hopefully all the study this offseason will help although I still think we will see some growing pains because nothing teaches you like live action.

Now back to Campbell vs Young. Young is clearly a special talent and won quite a few games because of his great athletic ability. But he has a much farther way to go in his passing mechanics. He doesn't square his shoulders all that often because he is always ready to tuck it and run. If he turns his front shoulder towards his intended receiver he will have much better accuracy but it also limits where he can run with the ball. McNabb had some of the same problems early in his career. Once he stopped thinking run so much, squared his shoulders more often, he became a much better passer. Much like a baseball pitcher repetition of the throwing motion is the key to accuracy.

[bubba9497]

I'd bother to respond but after muffing the QB rating thing I assume M&W ran out of here with his tail between his legs.

one of several things he got wrong :laugh:

of course he only shows up to rankle the Skin fans, nothing else, heck I doubt he believes most the stuff he posts

[KDawg]

QB rating is a stupid stat.

if qb rating was a good stat to measure, mark brunell would have had a good season. i know some of you guys are huge homers for campbell, but cmon now.

Actually, the majority of us feel that way. But Poke fans champion Romo sits to pee with it all the time, so why not throw that stat back at them?

[KDawg]

Of the 10 QBs you listed, only 3 (McNair, Hasselbeck, and Manning) have been truely elite QBs at any point in their careers.

So Campbell has a 30% chance of being the player Skins nation will have us believe he will be. I'll agree to that.

McNabb's not? Despite his injuries, I'd say so. And you'd consider Hasselbeck elite over McNabb? That speaks volumes for your football intelligence right there...

Leinart is still young, so who knows. As is Young. Oh and Smith.

The only one on there who has really seen alot of time and hasn't produced is Eli. And Eli is better in the pocket than everyone's favorite NFL quarterback Michael "Pit Bull" Vick.

I love debunking horrible thought processes. Its fun.

[Siven]

Young definately is a winner, he wins games with his athleticism. So did Mike Vick. I don't see anything out of him that scares another team other then his running prowess. Jason Campbell is definately a much more polished passer, and still a good runner, maybe his running doesn't SCARE a defense, but it definately puts them a little bit on edge. Campbell also has shaken 3-4 SURE sacks, by sheer strength and shake and bake alone.

Vince Young is good, but unless he gets some serious talent down there, he's going to win games with his legs, and not his arms.

When they get into their veteran, older years, when they lose their mobility, my money is on Campbell that he is still an effective quarterback.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

no no, i just hate seeing QB rating thrown around as a stat because its very misleading.

It can be, but overall when used in the correct context, it's a helpful stat. QB ratings for starters who have played less than a full season tends to be less important: Brunell had a higher QB rating in 2006 than in 2005 even though he played much better in 2005, and that's primarily because he only played 9 games in 2006. With first time starters it's even less important...with 9 more games, Campbell's QB rating could have gone up significantly...with 6 more starts Romo sits to pee's could have continued to drop. Cutler's QB rating could have easily eclipsed Romo sits to pee's "95 rating :excited:" had he played in more than 5 games...You never know.

But overall the QB rating encapsulates most of the individual stats we do place importance on (TD%, INT%, ypa, etc, etc)...it has its value when used properly.

regardless again

campbell > young

One of the few things you and I have agreed on, I think lol...that, and Portis > Betts.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Campbell also has shaken 3-4 SURE sacks, by sheer strength and shake and bake alone.

And that was just in the Giants game lol :laugh:...

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

It can be, but overall when used in the correct context, it's a helpful stat. QB ratings for starters who have played less than a full season tends to be less important: Brunell had a higher QB rating in 2006 than in 2005 even though he played much better in 2005, and that's primarily because he only played 9 games in 2006. With first time starters it's even less important...with 9 more games, Campbell's QB rating could have gone up significantly...with 6 more starts Romo sits to pee's could have continued to drop. Cutler's QB rating could have easily eclipsed Romo sits to pee's "95 rating :excited:" had he played in more than 5 games...You never know.

But overall the QB rating encapsulates most of the individual stats we do place importance on (TD%, INT%, ypa, etc, etc)...it has its value when used properly.

agreed. stats can be misleading when just looked at as straight up stats, the context in which they are generated is what is most important. like brunells completion rating was very high, but when youre throwing 2 yard dump offs, of course it will be. i remember arguing with people on here about brunell during the early parts of 06, "but his QB rating is higher"; drove me insane.

One of the few things you and I have agreed on, I think lol...that, and Portis > Betts.

indeed, we just cannot discuss the defense........or lack thereof

[BMahoney]

Thats actually the first time you posted the first seven games number and that stat is interesting. Here are some more interesting stats against the same opponents.

Campbells Seventh game 250 total yds 2 td 1 int

-Pretty good game

Young 9th game of his entire NFL career, 320 total yds 3 tds 0 ints

No other real glaring stats with same opponents, Young did better against the Eagles neither one did very good however. Campbell did have 2 picks.

-Funny how in one thread I read if a qb plays 7 games they werent given a chance to break out. But on the other hand Romo sits to pee breaks out in 7 games and people say no one has film on him once they do he'll slow down. But at the same time as people gain film on Campbell he is supposedly getting better. And don't retort you obviously get better with more nfl experience because wouldn't this be the same case in Romo sits to pee. Or does no one in this site give any other team in the NFL credit.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Thats actually the first time you posted the first seven games number and that stat is interesting. Here are some more interesting stats against the same opponents.

Campbells Seventh game 250 total yds 2 td 1 int

-Pretty good game

Young 9th game of his entire NFL career, 320 total yds 3 tds 0 ints

No other real glaring stats with same opponents, Young did better against the Eagles neither one did very good however. Campbell did have 2 picks.

-Funny how in one thread I read if a qb plays 7 games they werent given a chance to break out. But on the other hand Romo sits to pee breaks out in 7 games and people say no one has film on him once they do he'll slow down. But at the same time as people gain film on Campbell he is supposedly getting better. And don't retort you obviously get better with more nfl experience because wouldn't this be the same case in Romo sits to pee. Or does no one in this site give any other team in the NFL credit.

the reason people say you dont know enough about Romo sits to pee is b/c his last five games or so were soooo much worse than his first 5. that is just fact. worse stats, and worse results.

[BMahoney]

They were worst in his int %, but other than that he was still putting up some solid #'s. Look at his stats from the ATL game his 3rd to last game of the season 22/29 for 278 1 td 2 int. There is that int stat of his that definitely increased at the latter part of last season.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

They were worst in his int %, but other than that he was still putting up some solid #'s. Look at his stats from the ATL game his 3rd to last game of the season 22/29 for 278 1 td 2 int. There is that int stat of his that definitely increased at the latter part of last season.

yes, well INT's are important. and they went 1-4 in his last five starts, right?

we go by what we see most recently.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

They were worst in his int %, but other than that he was still putting up some solid #'s. Look at his stats from the ATL game his 3rd to last game of the season 22/29 for 278 1 td 2 int. There is that int stat of his that definitely increased at the latter part of last season.

Some of the "solid #'s" Romo sits to pee put up in three of his last five games:

20/34

58.8 completion percentage

0 TDs

2 INTs

16/33

48.5 completion percentage

1 TD

2 INTs

14/29

48.3 completion percentage

1 TD

2 INTs

[BMahoney]

No he went 2-3 in his last five starts.

20/34 with 257 yds and the win

16/33 for 249

14/29 only 142 yds just plain bad game but every qb will have one.

23/32 321 2 tds and 1 int yea that and the atl game along with the other numbers I would say are pretty solid. Am I wrong?

-Funny how you only put a qb stats out there cali if they help out your point. Of course

I said the last 5 games not three of them, and keep in mind campbell broke 200 yds 3 times this season. Never over 220.

P.S. if were going by what we have most recently seen his last game of the season was for 321 yds.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

No he went 2-3 in his last five starts.

20/34 with 257 yds and the win

16/33 for 249

14/29 only 142 yds just plain bad game but every qb will have one.

23/32 321 2 tds and 1 int yea that and the atl game along with the other numbers I would say are pretty solid. Am I wrong?

-Funny how you only put a qb stats out there cali if they help out your point. Of course

I said the last 5 games not three of them, and keep in mind campbell broke 200 yds 3 times this season. Never over 220.

P.S. if were going by what we have most recently seen his last game of the season was for 321 yds.

are you counting the playoff game? i think in those last 5 he was 1-4.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

No he went 2-3 in his last five starts.

20/34 with 257 yds and the win

16/33 for 249

14/29 only 142 yds just plain bad game but every qb will have one.

23/32 321 2 tds and 1 int yea that and the atl game along with the other numbers I would say are pretty solid. Am I wrong?

-Funny how you only put a qb stats out there cali if they help out your point. Of course

I said the last 5 games not three of them, and keep in mind campbell broke 200 yds 3 times this season. Never over 220.

You REALLY need to take a debating class...as well as a class in posting coherently on a message board lol.

Do you define a completion percentage under 50% as "solid numbers"? You must, or else why did you list two games in which Romo sits to pee was 16/33 and 14/29?

Do you define throwing more INTs than TDs as "solid numbers"? You must, or else why would you list three games in which Romo sits to pee threw a combined 2 TDS and 6 INTs?

The only stat I left out of my posts were the yardage. You, on the otherhand, left out completion percentages, TDs thrown and INTs thrown. And you have the utter stupidity to claim I only put out the QB stats that prove my point?

And the point of YOUR post was that other than INTs, Romo sits to pee put up solid numbers, not how Jason Campbell did in comparison...I showed several areas in several games during that stretch in which he did NOT put up "solid numbers" by any sane person's definition.

I swear, you argue like a deluded Cowboys fan.

[bubba9497]

[Tulane Skins Fan]

yea, with the playoff game he is 1-4 in his last 5. and he sucked in that last game too.

[BMahoney]

The other stats are right above thats why I left them out. And he had more than 2 tds what are you talking about your WRONG. Bubba I did last 5 games of the regular season, I was not taking playoffs into account.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The other stats are right above thats why I left them out. And he had more than 2 tds what are you talking about your WRONG. Bubba I did last 5 games of the regular season, I was not taking playoffs into account.

exactly... in his last 5 GAMES, he was 1-4. which is terrible, and hence the reason many people have doubts about him.

[bubba9497]

The other stats are right above thats why I left them out. And he had more than 2 tds what are you talking about your WRONG. Bubba I did last 5 games of the regular season, I was not taking playoffs into account.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

The other stats are right above thats why I left them out. And he had more than 2 tds what are you talking about your WRONG. Bubba I did last 5 games of the regular season, I was not taking playoffs into account.

Add a reading comprehension class to your "To Do" list while you're at it...

My quote:

Do you define throwing more INTs than TDs as "solid numbers"? You must, or else why would you list three games in which Romo sits to pee threw a combined 2 TDS and 6 INTs?

Notice how I've put the words "list three games" in bold? That's to point out to the comprehension-challenged that I was specifically and literally talking about how Romo sits to pee threw 2 TDs and 6 INTs in those three games YOU yourself listed as evidence that Romo sits to pee put up "solid numbers". Get it now?

As for the entire 5 games, Romo sits to pee threw 6 TDs and 8 INTs. Is that really any better?