Looks like we just needed a QB change...

[fansince62]

Yes we did play the Pats. And as aI recall, a Jason Campbell offense was held SCORELESS for all but the last 2 minutes when the PATS gave the Skins a free TD. Look, the point is that yes Jason played some of the same teams and he even played a bunch of losing teams....and he came up empty with a 5-7 record. Todd is 4-0 with ZERO interceptions. I have no idea why some of you Campbell koolaide drinkers just can't get on the Todd Collins party machine and get with the flow. You won't be happy until Campbell is back fumbling and thorwing interceptions and incompletions. My guess is that you will get your wish next season. Lets all hope that Jason learns something from watching Todd and somehow, miraculously, het GETS IT. And understands that he can throw from a 5 step drop without patting the ball and bolting from the pocket.

and Todd has played a bunch of loser/one dimensional teams, games where the weather mattered most, or teams with zero incentive who sat chunks of their starting line-ups. you are reading too much into a highly unusual set of circumstances.

the defense is leading this streak......TC is benefitting. not the other way around.

[fansince62]

Even allowing that Collins has started 3 games, TWO THIRDS of those games have come against playoff teams, and in fact, if we hadn't beaten Minnesota, then all 3 would have been against playoff teams. Todd never had the pleasure of playing Miami, or the Jets, or Detroit, etc. Since the moment he has come in, he has been playing playoff teams and playoff defenses. Don't think Chicago was a good defense. Try telling that to Green Bay or New Orleans over the last 2 weeks. Don't think New York is a good defense? They lead the league in sacks. Don't think Dallas is good at rushing the passer? Try checking out the number of pro bowl players they have INCLUDING Demarcus Ware who sacked Todd.

Stop trying to find fault with Todd Collins while holding Campbell blameless for his 5-7 record as QB. Todd is better, even against playoff teams, and he is interception FREE and his record is 4-0. Why not just accept these facts?

oh please...you aren't that intellectually dishonest...are you?

- bears: horrible offense; I remember laughing during that game to myself "their offense is more inept than ours"

- gints: wx game (whihc you better buy into since hero boy was 8-25)

- vikes: one dimensional team with no QB; GW had that game wired

- boys: sat TO; sat 3 other starters; didn't care about the outcome/no incentive

none of these are "trend setting" efforts. a subplot all along has been the inspiration tracing to a murdered teammate many players were close to; and a defense playing lights out.....especially againts the run...creating turnovers and field position.

[bobzmuda]

Stop trying to find fault with Todd Collins while holding Campbell blameless for his 5-7 record as QB. Todd is better, even against playoff teams, and he is interception FREE and his record is 4-0. Why not just accept these facts?

First off, show me where I hold Campbell blameless. You can't. Please understand the difference between showing how a change in circumstances could explain for "some" difference in results and holding a player blameless. It's not a ham-fisted argument. And it's very, very poor form to intentionally misrepresent what someone has said.

Further, why should any player be free from examination and criticism? Criticism doesn't mean he's terrible, just that acknowledgment that can do some things better. Surely you will acknowledge that Collins, like Campbell, has areas to impove upon.

So many folks on here are so quick to try to polarize any discussion into some mutually exclusive pro-Collins rant or pro-Campbell rant. Why can't folks realize that we can discuss players' shortcomings without meaning to say that player sucks.

Collins has made plays. That's undeniable. He has also been fortunate to avoid a couple of interceptions that found their way into defender's hands. He has also fumbled at a greater rate than Campbell (4 in 3.5 games compared to 13 in 13 games). Still, the team is winning with Collins, and that's the bottom line for keeping him in as starter, not the bottom line for any analysis of his play.

[Mania]

I hope you post this in every JC/TC thread out there, because it's well written.

Of course, it would take you about 3 days to reply to all of them, so I can't blame you for not doing so

Of course he could make it his sig and eventually it will make it into most of the JC vs. TC threads.

[fansince62]

Re-read my post "all knowing one". All I'm doing is celebrating the success we've finally seen at the QB position this season. My defintion of success utlimately comes down to wins. Billy Kilmer wasn't pretty back in the day, but remains an all time fan favorite simply becasue he won games.

My opinion is backed by sound reasoning and it seems that most, except the most loyal of JC lovers, would agree with me. In fact, in reading some of your stuff, you are even admitting that TC has played great and that it should be an open competition next season for the #1 slot. I agree somewhat, but I'm leaning toward favoring it being TC's job to lose based on his success to date along with how we do in the playoffs. He has flat out been a part of a team rally that has been remarkable.

Your response to my posts? Name calling, scoffing, and ridicule, claims of me being Mrs. TC. Whatever. It matters not what you think as you seem to enjoy debating and prattling on endlessly.

Like Al Davis once said, "just win baby". Or like Bill Parcells states, "you are what your record is".

I'm absolutely thrilled that Joe Gibbs has proven to us that he has not lost his touch and am hoping this weekend is the beginning of something special. I was certainly having my doubts. Bottom line, it looks as if a simple change a QB was the final piece to the puzzle. With TC under center, we are playing much, much better.

good....so...according to your definition...once TC is part of a loss...he's a failure!

[fansince62]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I am sure he will hit that button even if TC takes us to the SB and fails to win the rings (e.g., "He is not the kind of QB that can take us all the way ... TC couldn't do it with all the support that would have made any QB successful, including JC ... Now, time to move forward with improving this team with eyes firmly set on the horizon ... ").

now now boys...sounds to me like you all are working your excuses into play way in advance!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[fansince62]

And what exactly is that deficiency? Weak arm? Didn't the G-spots try to compress the field to take advantage of that, and TC repeatedly toasted them, with LONG passes to Moss?

Mini Dykes tried to increase pressure (probably hoping to fluster him lik a rookie); TC responded by throwing to receivers close to sidelines. Again, TC toasted them.

So, what IS exactly his weakness?

you mean the game he went 8-25? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

oh it was the wx....can't have it both ways.

[fansince62]

JC had two drives in the Bears game that went the length of the field , both stalled by CP run's that went no where and even lost yardage. Then Suisham missed two field goals. I don't disagree that TC is playing better but explain to me again why CP running backwards and Suisham missing field goals is JC's fault. I guess I'm too ignorant to understand that.

RCS....don't bother...what you point to is just one more example of intellectual dishonesty.

[fansince62]

I'm glad there is a QB playing now that has shown he can handle the pressure!

oh...you mean like his fumble and INT? against a team that didn't even care about the outcome? :laugh:

[fansince62]

Allow me to put on my Miss Cleo headdress here...ok. Here's my prediction:

Collins will sign a new contract here in the offseason for 2-3 years, with a stipulation that there be an open competition for the QB position next year. And I bet he wins it.

man....this one is too easy. if TC doesn't carry the team through to succcess...especially if the Skins are clobbered by the Pats and he is ineffective...he goes back to the bench.

were this to happen....JC should quietly demand to be traded......THE TEAM STILL LOSES IN THE END. we have seen the TC's of the world a million times in the NFL...can anyone say DAMON HUARD? watch and see......Miss CLeo.

[SearchHorizon]

now now boys...sounds to me like you all are working your excuses into play way in advance!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

We can boil our "debate" down to this: is TC's playing ability good enough to justify delaying JC from being a starting QB in 2008? Put slightly differently, how well does TC have to play in this playoff run?

It seems that you feel TC has to win the SB 2007 for TC to be able to compete for his starting job next year. In contrast, I feel that if the Skins beat Dallas and/or reach the SB, without winning it, TC has done well enough to compete for the job next year.

In such a case, TC would not need an excuse, IMHO. The whole point of grooming a young QB is to obtain a player who can get us to the SB. If we already have such a QB in TC, we only need to worry about more distant future, when TC can no longer be the starting QB for us.

[SearchHorizon]

you mean the game he went 8-25? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

oh it was the wx....can't have it both ways.

You are being disingenuous here. We can also talk about Campbells awesome statistics when we lost games.

[ttr77]

oh...you mean like his fumble and INT? against a team that didn't even care about the outcome? :laugh:

Right. 4-0 means nothing. It's all a team effort. Yet this same team, and coaching staff, is completely to blame for the 5-7 start. This begs the questions - does the team really dislike Campbell that much so as to not perform for him? Do they not want to succeed when he is under center?

If the answer is yes, then this franchise is in more trouble than any of us thought.

But don't worry - every single QB in the league has a bad game. I'm sure Collins' time will come. I just hope that time comes a lot later than you hope it does.

[ttr77]

man....this one is too easy. if TC doesn't carry the team through to succcess...especially if the Skins are clobbered by the Pats and he is ineffective...he goes back to the bench.

were this to happen....JC should quietly demand to be traded......THE TEAM STILL LOSES IN THE END. we have seen the TC's of the world a million times in the NFL...can anyone say DAMON HUARD? watch and see......Miss CLeo.

Ok, you can point to the end of the TC's of the world. I can also point to dozens of first round QB's that never reached their potential.

So if JC comes in next year and leads the team to another sub-500 record, how exactly does the team win?

[SearchHorizon]

were this to happen....JC should quietly demand to be traded......THE TEAM STILL LOSES IN THE END. we have seen the TC's of the world a million times in the NFL...can anyone say DAMON HUARD? watch and see......Miss CLeo.

Why would the team lose in the end, if the Skins continue to develop JC on the bench while the Skins are winning games today with TC? That way, we win TODAY with TC, and we win TOMORROW when JC develops into a complete QB.

It looks like a win-win proposal to me.

[bobzmuda]

Right. 4-0 means nothing. It's all a team effort.

Be careful hanging your hat on team wins as the sole indicator of QB performance. If you do you'll be forced to defend QBs like 2007 Vince Young or Super Bowl winner Trent Dilfer. It's a great indicator of QB performance, but it certainly shouldn't be the sole indicator, or even the biggest indicator of QB performance, since any one QB is typically on the field for less than half of the plays and probably does anything of significance a quarter of the plays in the game.

Yet this same team, and coaching staff, is completely to blame for the 5-7 start. This begs the questions - does the team really dislike Campbell that much so as to not perform for him? Do they not want to succeed when he is under center?

Can you explain this? Are you trying to be facetious in your point that wins are primarily a result of QB play?

But don't worry - every single QB in the league has a bad game. I'm sure Collins' time will come. I just hope that time comes a lot later than you hope it does.

Hell, I hope Collins' finishes the year with the team on an eight game winning streak. If so, that doesn't NECESSARILY mean he's played amazing football. It does mean that the team has achieved something amazing and he was a major part of it. Conduct your analysis of the QB position on stats more conducive to QB analysis. With the way Collins has played you'll likely come to the same conclusion, but by a more honest method.

[ttr77]

Be careful hanging your hat on team wins as the sole indicator of QB performance. If you do you'll be forced to defend QBs like 2007 Vince Young or Super Bowl winner Trent Dilfer.

Can you honestly say that you wouldn't mind having a Dilfer in 2000 if the end result was the same? Man, I would LOVE it.

Conduct your analysis of the QB position on stats more conducive to QB analysis. With the way Collins has played you'll likely come to the same conclusion, but by a more honest method.

Wait, are we analyzing the team or the QB? As I've stated many times before, as a REDSKINS fan I don't care who is behind center. All I want to see is a successful team in the win column. We can sit here and point to stats all day...the only stat I really want to compare is 5-7 and 4-0. I would think other Redskins fans would want to do the same.

[mistertim]

Can you honestly say that you wouldn't mind having the Ravens Defense in 2000 if the end result was the same? Man, I would LOVE it.

Fixed that for you. Dilfer had almost nothing to do with that win. He was 12/26 with 1 TD. The Ravens returned an INT for a TD and ran back a kick for a TD. They picked off Kerry Collins 4 times and held him to 112 yards for zero TDs. If you're trying to use Dilfer as a comparison you are basically saying that Collins is relying more on his defense and the play around him.

[bobzmuda]

Can you honestly say that you wouldn't mind having a Dilfer in 2000 if the end result was the same? Man, I would LOVE it.

I would love it if I was behind center if the result was the same. Wouldn't necessarily mean I was a good QB.

Wait, are we analyzing the team or the QB? As I've stated many times before, as a REDSKINS fan I don't care who is behind center. All I want to see is a successful team in the win column. We can sit here and point to stats all day...the only stat I really want to compare is 5-7 and 4-0. I would think other Redskins fans would want to do the same.

Okay, I think it's safe to assume everyone here wants the Skins to win.

The problem here is that many folks are assuming that Collins is the singular or primary cause behind the 4-0 run, instead of actually trying to determine to what extent the 4-0 run merely correlates to Collins starting. Comparing 5-7 to 4-0 will only definitively tell you that, as a team, they are playing better in the 4 games Collins started than the 12 Campbell started.

Your mistake is assuming that just by looking at a single number, wins, will also tell you all you need to know about QB performance. By that same logic I guess you could also say that since the 2004 Redskins were 5-11 that 2004 Cornelius Griffin played worse than the 9-7 2007 Cornelius Griffin, which is obviously false as 2004 Griffin was truly dominant.

Or to take it to a silly end, since the Skins are 4-0 when I wear my long-sleeve Skins T-shirt, that my long-sleeve T-shirt is the cause of the 4-0 run. Just because something is correlated does not mean you have found causation. BTW, I will be wearing my long-sleeve T-shirt again. That doesn't mean I actually believe they will win because of my wearing that shirt.

Again, the endlessly debated question is to what extent Collins caused or brought about that 4-0 run. The fact that his 4 starts correlate to that 4-0 run does not prove causation. If you want to prove causation, you'll need to more than just say "4-0 BABY!!!!!!!!".

Further, I don't think it's hard to prove that Collins played a significant causal role in the 4-0 run, so I don't know why you would settle for some inferior method of trying to prove your point.

[ttr77]

I would love it if I was behind center if the result was the same. Wouldn't necessarily mean I was a good QB.

Or to take it to a silly end, since the Skins are 4-0 when I wear my long-sleeve Skins T-shirt, that my long-sleeve T-shirt is the cause of the 4-0 run. Just because something is correlated does not mean you have found causation. BTW, I will be wearing my long-sleeve T-shirt again. That doesn't mean I actually believe they will win because of my wearing that shirt.

Again, the endlessly debated question is to what extent Collins caused or brought about that 4-0 run. The fact that his 4 starts correlate to that 4-0 run does not prove causation. If you want to prove causation, you'll need to more than just say "4-0 BABY!!!!!!!!".

I never said that I thought Collins was the sole reason for the team's record. But the record cannot be denied. All I have ever said is that I would prefer whichever QB gives the best chance to win starting, regardless of age and pedigree.

Hell, if YOU can wear your long sleeve T-shirt while playing QB for this team and win a Super Bowl, I'll start a thread calling for you to be the starter. And I won't care what factors most led to the win.

[bobzmuda]

I never said that I thought Collins was the sole reason for the team's record. But the record cannot be denied. All I have ever said is that I would prefer whichever QB gives the best chance to win starting, regardless of age and pedigree.

Hell, if YOU can wear your long sleeve T-shirt while playing QB for this team and win a Super Bowl, I'll start a thread calling for you to be the starter. And I won't care what factors most led to the win.

Of course the record can't be denied. The team is 4-0 in Collins last 4 starts. Fortunately, everyone agrees there. What can be denied is anyone's belief that Collins is the primary cause of the 4-0 run, because simply he was the starter for those 4 games. There's much better reasons to believe that Collins has contributed to the 4-0 run than simple correlation of starts and wins. To refuse to even look past that evidences what I consider to be an incredibly naive viewpoint.

But, if that's how you roll that's how you roll. So how awesome is that Vince Young, huh?

[Duncan]

To refuse to even look past that evidences what I consider to be an incredibly naive viewpoint.

What is naive is to deny that TC has played a very large roll in the turnaround. Read the players quotes in Boswell's article and tell me TC is just lucky the team started playing well.

[bobzmuda]

What is naive is to deny that TC has played a very large roll in the turnaround. Read the players quotes in Boswell's article and tell me TC is just lucky the team started playing well.

What's flat-out wrong is to presume I ever said TC hasn't played a significant role in the turnaround.

I wouldn't tell you TC is just lucky the team started playing well, because my own personal opinion is that TC played well and that the team as a whole started playing better also. I don't think it's as simple as "When X happens, the team has won 4 games, therfore X should continue to happen". Whether X is Todd Collins starting or me wearing my long-sleeve T-shirt.

There are other, more substantive and meaningful reasons that TC should continue to start than just saying the team is 4-0 in his limited starts. So why people keep coming back and resting their argument entirely on the 4-0 record baffles me.

[fansince62]

Yes we did play the Pats. And as aI recall, a Jason Campbell offense was held SCORELESS for all but the last 2 minutes when the PATS gave the Skins a free TD. Look, the point is that yes Jason played some of the same teams and he even played a bunch of losing teams....and he came up empty with a 5-7 record. Todd is 4-0 with ZERO interceptions. I have no idea why some of you Campbell koolaide drinkers just can't get on the Todd Collins party machine and get with the flow. You won't be happy until Campbell is back fumbling and thorwing interceptions and incompletions. My guess is that you will get your wish next season. Lets all hope that Jason learns something from watching Todd and somehow, miraculously, het GETS IT. And understands that he can throw from a 5 step drop without patting the ball and bolting from the pocket.

you're the one with the reality problems. JC did just fine for his 12 games and he was making strides into the upper echelons in terms of game production as a passer. I have no problems with the fumbles and INTs. these are easily fixable. you make it sound as though he was a turnover machine. he wasn't......your propensity for LSD induced fantasies is...well...annoying!

it is mindboggling that folks will jump ship based on 12 games by a player who was unequivocably getting better. even more riotous is the notion that an aging vette, playing a limitted number of games, in unique circumstances, with a team firing on all cylinders...should be compared on equal grounds with the QB in development. there is no doubt in my mind that JC would do just as well as TC given similar defensive performances. your analysis fixates on his mistakes while ignoring all the good - including what could have happened had things not fallen apart around him. simialrly, you ignore TC's foul-ups that have been swept away by shere luck....and all the things he benefits from. he is not the prime mover here......we will just have to disagree on that one.

have at it mr leary!

[fansince62]

What is naive is to deny that TC has played a very large roll in the turnaround. Read the players quotes in Boswell's article and tell me TC is just lucky the team started playing well.

yup...they're gonna come out and blast him! no doubt about it.

and...oh btw...they aren't coming out and saying "we are winning because of Todd". They are giving him props but not to the degree you imply.