Why Zorn & Campbell Are Wedded To One Another

[tr1]

I'm starting to think that G. Williams didn't get the HC job because he was ready to sit JC, something that struck horror into Vinny and DS' minds. Doing that would be an admission that the JC pic was a bad move. Hey, Gibbs has whiffed on picks in Gibbs I, but what he got out of mediocre players was enough to win...something few coaches, including Zorn, can do.

There's enough ego at Redskins Park that we may have to ride out this failure for several more years.

[Skinsinparadise]

Am actually in the minority on this I know but I am confident Zorn is the guy to improve Campbell's mechanics but that is offset by Zorn trying to pigeonhole Campbell into an offense that isn't suited to him thereby exposes his weaknesses -- so its sort of a catch 22.

I find it weird when I start reading that Campbell now doesn't throw a good deep ball, doesn't have much of an arm, and actually PREFERS to throw 5 yard slants and dump offs. Heck wasn't the drill on Campbell before that he was sort of like Rypien, has a gun of an arm but struggles on the short stuff?

IMO its Zorn's offense that's the main problem and for all the good he does for him as a QB coach its offset by the offense he runs. Andy Reid adjusted his west coast offense to McNabb, Zorn arguably didn't adjust his offense to Campbell. IMO that coupled with the fact that Zorn is running the least imaginative, most predictable offense in the NFL -- how hard is it to stop this offense?

I wouldn't shock me if defensive coordinators rejoice when they review game tape before they play the Skins -- look Campbell can beat us deep but they aren't going to throw deep, lets just have our linebackers crowd the line of scrimmage to stop those 5 yard slants and hitches and at the same time they will be in position to stop the running game.

I forgot which Baltimore player but one of them was quoted on the radio saying something to the degree of how unbelivably simple it is to figure out the Redskins offense.

[alwaysaskin]

Once again, the most popular player in Burgundy and Gold is the back up. Will Zorn ride the Campbell Train? I don't know, if Colt plays lights out and JC struggles than maybe Zorn will look heavily at Colt. As for the people who want a rebuild, do you want Vinny running the rebuild with his magic 8-ball?

[Madison Redskin]

Let me pose this hypothetical: in week 12 of the 2008 season Zorn benches Campbell and starts Brennan, Brennan sets the world on fire, and the Redskins make the playoffs and go on a nice run. Are Colt fans really so twisted that they think Snyder would fire Zorn because, notwithstanding the wins, Zorn benched Campbell?

[TimmySmith]

Let me pose this hypothetical: in week 12 of the 2008 season Zorn benches Campbell and starts Brennan, Brennan sets the world on fire, and the Redskins make the playoffs and go on a nice run. Are Colt fans really so twisted that they think Snyder would fire Zorn because, notwithstanding the wins, Zorn benched Campbell?

Your hypothetical has no legs. Zorn could not bench Campbell, period. That is point of the thread.

[Madison Redskin]

Your hypothetical has no legs. Zorn could not bench Campbell, period. That is point of the thread.

And people know that Zorn cannot bench Campbell because? I've read every post and have yet to see any evidence that Zorn cannot bench him. I've read conjecture and speculation, but nothing more and nothing less.

[mistertim]

Mine Too....

ASHBURN, Va. -- Even though there isn't a glimmer of a quarterback controversy in Washington, I'll pose the question: If Todd Collins outplays Jason Campbell in the team's five exhibition games, any chance he wins back a job that was his at the end of last season?

"No," new coach Jim Zorn said, leaving no room for interpretation. "If (Collins) plays lights out, and we sputter with Jason my job is to get Jason up to speed by the time the season opens."

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10905810

I think this is a bit different than talking about JC and Colt. There Zorn was basically being asked if he would start a 35 year old over the young QB he wants to help bring to the next level if it would help them win some games right now but wouldn't do squat for the future since Collins is a dinosaur.

[Metalhead]

100% agree. I think when JC is done, Zorn is done too. I also want to know where Zorn's name came up in the discussion as a OC? Was it Fassel who brought him up? Why was this urge to fly to seattle to interview him? Didn't we also interview a Qb coach from San Diego? The end result will be that neither JC or zorn lasts because very few situations have been successful in this way

I personally think we were close to an agreement with Mariucci, and he chose Zorn. Since they were likely ironing out the details with him, they went ahead and snagged Zorn for OC. Mooch decided no, because he would not be given enough time with this mess to implement a WCO.

And I agree with the OP. I do think upon Zorn's promotion, the deal was that he HAD to make it work with Jason or he wouldn't get the job. Why would Zorn turn down a chance to coach even if he thought the players may not work?

[Taylor 36]

I have thought this from the beginning. Nothing else made/make sense if you stop and think about it.

If reports are to be believed, everyone, including Gibbs, was in favor of a QB competition this past spring. None of those men (of course, Gibbs is not part of this equation since he took himself out of it) was hired to coach this team. Along comes an unproven QB coach and he is handed the reins. Why? Because he must have felt he could turn Jason around as he did Hasselbeck, and he told Dan and Vinnie that he would take their investment to the promised land.

Now, Zorn has to be privately sweating it. Regardless of what any ES member's view point is on the QB situation, it is obvious JC still needs to improve, a lot. Whether he can or will is up for debate, and Zorn, watching JC constantly, knows this deep down inside whether he is willing to admit it or not. He got the job and staked his reputation on JC and his development. He can't give up on JC because both forementioned are on the line.

[TheLongshot]

Your hypothetical has no legs. Zorn could not bench Campbell, period. That is point of the thread.

I disagree with this statement. I think Zorn has all the ability in the world to bench Campbell. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason why he was hired was because he was a believer in Campbell and that he felt that Campbell could do the job.

The only way Zorn's job is tied to Campbell is because Campbell is the starting QB. If they decide that Campbell is not the answer, it doesn't necessarily mean that Zorn would lose his job. If Zorn decides that Campbell is the answer, and they extend him because of it and still don't get results, it could mean his job.

[TimmySmith]

And people know that Zorn cannot bench Campbell because? I've read every post and have yet to see any evidence that Zorn cannot bench him. I've read conjecture and speculation, but nothing more and nothing less.

I am not sure I understand. The thread is speculation based on the evidence presented. Right or wrong it's a reasonable explanation, which is supported by many facts. All threads are speculation. If you wish to ignore the evidence presented, it's your prerogative.

Here are the facts I stated in a thread like this one. If one ignores age, money, draft position and simply focuses upon the best player for the job, Collins would have started the season, based on last year's success. Yet Campbell was installed as the starter from day 1. If one ignores ALL previous performance and simply goes on pre-season success. Campbell is 3rd string (not even close). Yet he was the opening day starter. Not even a debate. The reason seems simple to me. The Skins have much invested in the guy. Zorn was hired despite almost no serious coaching leadership experience, save working with QBs. You do the math.

[jtyler42]

I guess with all the talent evaluators and QB coaches on this board, I guess the reason Campbell was playing couldn't have been that he was just better than Colt or Collins...It's asinine IMO to think that if JZ thought Colt or Collins was that much better than JC that the better man wouldn't be starting.

Sure JZ was given the mandate to coach JC up when he got the job, but if you actually believe that Vinny or JZ would suffer through a season like this instead of go to the playoffs with Colt or Collins(like everybody believes) then you don't have a clue.

[Mark The Homer]

Found this vid from Nov 2007 showing the relationship Zorn had with his last QB.

http://www.nflplayers.com/user/video.aspx?pid=324&type=v&tp=f

[Oldfan]

And people know that Zorn cannot bench Campbell because? I've read every post and have yet to see any evidence that Zorn cannot bench him. I've read conjecture and speculation, but nothing more and nothing less.

Evidence? Who needs evidence in this forum? Sheesh!

[Madison Redskin]

If one ignores age, money, draft position and simply focuses upon the best player for the job, Collins would have started the season, based on last year's success. Yet Campbell was installed as the starter from day 1. If one ignores ALL previous performance and simply goes on pre-season success. Campbell is 3rd string (not even close). Yet he was the opening day starter. Not even a debate. The reason seems simple to me. The Skins have much invested in the guy. Zorn was hired despite almost no serious coaching leadership experience, save working with QBs. You do the math.

Zorn was undoubtedly brought here to improve the quarterbacks, particularly Jason Campbell. The team, including Snyder and Cerrato, has a lot invested in Campbell. So, I am confident that, during the interview process, Snyder, Cerrato and Zorn had long talks about what Zorn would do to improve Campbell.

That being said, Zorn's number one objective in Washington is to win games. That goal supersedes all others, including the goal of turning Campbell into a prolific, or at least, proficient NFL starting quarterback. Anyone who thinks Zorn would rather lose with Campbell than win with Collins or Brennan is simply living in fantasy land. Under the former scenario, Zorn will get fired by the end of 2009. Under the latter scenario, Zorn will become a deity in D.C. and, more importantly for Zorn, in the eyes of one Daniel Snyder.

So, conspiracy theories aside, really what this quarterback controversy comes down to is whether Zorn is better or worse than the fans at evaluating our quarterbacks. Call me crazy, but I'm going to side with Zorn regardless of whether Campbell is the #1, Colt is the #1, etc.

Finally, let me point out that our other quarterbacks weren't lighting things up. Collins was a very solid quarterback in Saunders' offense, one with which Collins was very familiar. But by all accounts, Collins struggled in camp while trying to grasp the nuances of Zorn's radically different West Coast offense. Additionally, Collins struggled in his preseason outings.

Although revisionist history says otherwise, Colt Brennan looked spectacular in 2 preseason games, pretty unimpressive in 2 preseason games, and average in 1 other preseason game. All such performances came against 3rd string cannon fodder, the overwhelming majority of whom failed to make a NFL roster.

[mistertim]

Anyone who thinks Zorn would rather lose with Campbell than win with Collins or Brennan is simply living in the ES forums.

Fixed that for you.

[deejaydana]

Campbell NEVER was considered a player with a good deep ball and or touch/accuracy on the deep ball. The scouting reports on him out of college NEVER once said he had a really strong and accurate arm needed to play in the WCO. They actually stated the counter to that and (at least I think) our ultra-conservative playcalling is an acknowlegement of this fact.

[jimster]

And people know I've read conjecture and speculation, but nothing more and nothing less.

Welcome to Extremeskins. Enjoy your stay.

[Hooper]

John Keim reported (and LavarLeap confirmed) that Greg Williams and at least one other head coaching candidate (Mooch I believe) would not guarantee Snyder and Cerrato that JC would be the starter on opening day. Greg Williams was apparently in love with Collins (it's why JAX offered him the same money as we did) and had soured on Campbell. So had Gibbs apparently -- he had thought of benching JC even before he got hurt and told Snyder if he came back, it would be an open competition at QB.

John Riggins claims that Jim Fassel told him one of the reasons he didn't get the job was because he wanted an open competition as well.

So clearly Snyder and Cerrato wanted JC to be the starter. It's not the biggest crime -- it makes sense on a lot of levels. I mean, Collins is an old man. Vinny and Danny wanted to see if JC could be a franchise QB and Zorn told them he would do his best to find that out.

I like JC, but I do think some of his recent comments make him come across as a guy who feels entitled to the starting job here. So maybe just handing him the job no questions asked this year was a mistake in that way. I also think it was a bit baffling why Zorn never even considered a change when the offense stalled. For over a month, the offense was scoring like ten points a game. It wasn't all JC's fault, but I think 95 percent of the qbs would have got the hook just to shake things up. Personally, I would have gone to Collins in the second half of the Bengals game. That game was a complete indictment of all the flaws in JC's game. He had plenty of time and was still double-clutching and not getting rid of the ball.

I think next year will be different. Reading between the lines, I think the front office is hardly over the moon about JC anymore. They want him to succeed, but he's going to have to earn that contract extension. I imagine JC will look great in camp -- he always does -- but if the offense is struggling three games into the season, I think Zorn will make a change. Vinny and Dan aren't blind or deaf. JC had all the same problems in Zorn's offense as he did in Saunders's offense. Several coaches during the search told them they weren't sold on him as a franchise QB. Next year there will be no more excuses. If the offense does not look good with JC under center, Zorn will see how it looks under a different QB -- and I believe Danny and Vinny will fully support the move, something I'm not so sure they would have done this year.

Hail.

[Gregpeck99]

Bulldog hit the nail on the head ... the key with JC is his upside or lack of same. I'm betting that both Zorn and Campbell will be gone by 2010.

[Oldfan]

So clearly Snyder and Cerrato wanted JC to be the starter. It's not the biggest crime -- it makes sense on a lot of levels. I mean, Collins is an old man. Vinny and Danny wanted to see if JC could be a franchise QB and Zorn told them he would do his best to find that out.

When Zorn was hired, I speculated that he was here as a last-ditch attempt to salvage Jason's career and because the WCO would make life easier for the aging O line in the protection scheme. Made sense to me.

[modazfuk]

And people know that Zorn cannot bench Campbell because? I've read every post and have yet to see any evidence that Zorn cannot bench him. I've read conjecture and speculation, but nothing more and nothing less.

As was posted by IHOPSkins:

ASHBURN, Va. -- Even though there isn't a glimmer of a quarterback controversy in Washington, I'll pose the question: If Todd Collins outplays Jason Campbell in the team's five exhibition games, any chance he wins back a job that was his at the end of last season?

"No," new coach Jim Zorn said, leaving no room for interpretation. "If (Collins) plays lights out, and we sputter with Jason my job is to get Jason up to speed by the time the season opens."

Note Zorn doesn't say his job is to produce WINS for the Washington Redskins. This is further evidence the OP of this thread is absolutely correct. Zorn and Campbell are indeed wedded to one another.

[mistertim]

As was posted by IHOPSkins:

ASHBURN, Va. -- Even though there isn't a glimmer of a quarterback controversy in Washington, I'll pose the question: If Todd Collins outplays Jason Campbell in the team's five exhibition games, any chance he wins back a job that was his at the end of last season?

"No," new coach Jim Zorn said, leaving no room for interpretation. "If (Collins) plays lights out, and we sputter with Jason my job is to get Jason up to speed by the time the season opens."

Note Zorn doesn't say his job is to produce WINS for the Washington Redskins. This is further evidence the OP of this thread is absolutely correct. Zorn and Campbell are indeed wedded to one another.

And as I said in reply, there are probably other elements to that. One of the things he was brought in to do was help Campbell progress. So in this he was basically being asked if he would go with Collins, who would be a very short term answer considering his age, or if he would stick with Campbell so the guy who they hoped would be the QB for the future could learn and improve. It's "short term vs long term".

Let's say Collins had actually played better than Campbell in camp, etc and they decided to make him the starter. I'm going to guess that we wouldn't have won many more games and if we did get into the playoffs we wouldn't be SB bound. Right now this is just not a SB TEAM. There are holes to fill and the players need to keep getting comfortable with the offensive system. So we get the satisfaction of getting to the playoffs (maybe) with a QB who is 37 years old and unlikely to do much more. Meanwhile, the young QB they want to try and move forward with is sitting on the bench and will probably end up starting the next year with growing pains he would have had this year.

[TheLongshot]

I have thought this from the beginning. Nothing else made/make sense if you stop and think about it.

If reports are to be believed, everyone, including Gibbs, was in favor of a QB competition this past spring. None of those men (of course, Gibbs is not part of this equation since he took himself out of it) was hired to coach this team. Along comes an unproven QB coach and he is handed the reins. Why? Because he must have felt he could turn Jason around as he did Hasselbeck, and he told Dan and Vinnie that he would take their investment to the promised land.

Now, Zorn has to be privately sweating it. Regardless of what any ES member's view point is on the QB situation, it is obvious JC still needs to improve, a lot. Whether he can or will is up for debate, and Zorn, watching JC constantly, knows this deep down inside whether he is willing to admit it or not. He got the job and staked his reputation on JC and his development. He can't give up on JC because both forementioned are on the line.

Gibbs' motivations and Zorn's motivations are very different. Gibbs didn't have much time left and mostly couldn't afford to look long term. While he made some long term moves as President, he also made a lot of short term moves, some of which has hurt this team over the long term.

Here are the facts I stated in a thread like this one. If one ignores age, money, draft position and simply focuses upon the best player for the job, Collins would have started the season, based on last year's success. Yet Campbell was installed as the starter from day 1. If one ignores ALL previous performance and simply goes on pre-season success. Campbell is 3rd string (not even close). Yet he was the opening day starter. Not even a debate. The reason seems simple to me. The Skins have much invested in the guy. Zorn was hired despite almost no serious coaching leadership experience, save working with QBs. You do the math.

Maybe the answers you are looking for are in the words of Zorn. He has said many times that he is here to build a team for the long term. Going with Collins as your starter is not a long-term move. Considering also that Collins looked pretty darn mediocre in preseason doesn't give any strength to your argument. Campbell was the best QB out there in preseason. That might not be saying much considering the general performance of the QBs in general in the preseason, which was a mixed bag.

That being said, the FO drafting Jordan Palmer and Colt Brennan also says that the FO isn't putting all of their eggs in the Campbell basket. If Campbell doesn't work out, they have a plan B.

[HawaiianTime]

And as I said in reply, there are probably other elements to that. One of the things he was brought in to do was help Campbell progress. So in this he was basically being asked if he would go with Collins, who would be a very short term answer considering his age, or if he would stick with Campbell so the guy who they hoped would be the QB for the future could learn and improve. It's "short term vs long term".

Let's say Collins had actually played better than Campbell in camp, etc and they decided to make him the starter. I'm going to guess that we wouldn't have won many more games and if we did get into the playoffs we wouldn't be SB bound. Right now this is just not a SB TEAM. There are holes to fill and the players need to keep getting comfortable with the offensive system. So we get the satisfaction of getting to the playoffs (maybe) with a QB who is 37 years old and unlikely to do much more. Meanwhile, the young QB they want to try and move forward with is sitting on the bench and will probably end up starting the next year with growing pains he would have had this year.

Funny how the choices go with everyone. Majority here wanted Jason to play in a meaningless game because a win was important, and when asked if a win was more important than Jason's development, You guys said Jason's development was more important. Talk about a Flip Flopping bunch of whiners. Either you want this team to win later by developing it's future now, or you want this team to win now by sacrificing it's future. You usually cannot have both. With Zorn, he doesn't believe either because he obviously sounds like he is the Lap Dog for Danny and Vinny. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but this whole thing is ridiculous. No one can debate any of you because you flip and flop in what you believe to accommodate your blind argument. You talk about being fans, but you cling desperately to the hope that Jason is the future and sacrifice wins for that hope. Yet, when others say try another QB, you cry about sacrificing a win to develop another QB. What a joke. But enough of that rant.

It's interesting. Giants benched Warner to play Manning. Than Cards benched Warner to play Leinart, than benched Leinart to play Warner. Why the change? Because Wiz wanted to win now and saw Kurt as the best chance this year. But wait, according to many of you Jason pundits, Leinart will continue to develop by watching from the sidelines. So, for the Cards it is a win-win situation. So going with that line of thought, we should bench Jason so we can win and Jason will still learn from the sidelines. Still a win-win situation. Of course I'm getting the IRE of you guys and stoking the fires of Jason Love.

Seriously, either stick with one train of thought and we'll take your opinions seriously, or flip flop and be considered the crazy uncle everybody puts up with at family parties.