Why Zorn & Campbell Are Wedded To One Another

[mistertim]

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.

Can you expand on this a bit? You're sort of jumping around. In the first part, I assume you're talking about the 49ers game, correct? Sure a win is important, but what does that have to do with Colt? I think the main argument here was "what is putting Colt in for half of one game at the end of a season really going to help with?". Ok, now in the second part what are you comparing this to? Which game or series of games? What year? When was Campbell in the situation where there was a question about whether or not he should be put in for half of a game at the end of the season just for the hell of it? The comparison between Collins starting over JC and JC starting over Colt is somewhat ludicrous considering the COMPLETELY different circumstances and concerns between the two.

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.

Again, what is the specific relevance to what I was talking about and the Collins/JC, JC/Colt debate? Are you saying that playing JC instead of Colt in the 49ers game was "sacrificing the future"? Seriously? I've always wanted the team to develop it's future, even if it means that an old backup who played well at the end of the previous season and who might win more games during the next season doesn't get the nod. This has nothing to do with Colt, since he is still a raw QB in the NFL and Campbell, despite what some make it sound like, didn't play that bad this year.

Collins was old and obviously wasn't the long term answer because of that. Not much of a way to dispute that since he is 37. IMO we still don't know if Campbell is the long term answer, which is why I'd like to see him get another year in the system before we decide to give him the boot as he is still pretty young. Have an open QB competition in camp, fine with me. I think Colt will win the #2 job next year, but I doubt he has much of a chance of beating Campbell. But it will make everyone feel better, so let's do it.

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 can sound as harsh as you want; doesn't bother me, really. But it also doesn't mean you're right. It may be "obvious" to you, but the reality of it is that none of us are coaches, or inside the organization, in the locker room, at team meetings, watching practices, watching gametape from tons of different angles, etc. If nobody can debate "us", why are you doing it? I don't think my argument has been blind. Usually that just amounts to "this person sucks, period" without going into specifics. I've given specific reasons why I think one thing or another. Disagree with them; that's fine. But don't tell me I'm making a blind argument just because you look at specific things from a different angle. As I said, I think I've been relatively consistent in what I've said.

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.

So now it is the "you aren't REAL fans" argument because we disagree about something? I'm not "clinging" to anything. From what the coaches and professional analysts have said and from what I've seen, Campbell is improving. That is my opinion and you're free to disagree with it but I don't see a reason why I'm not a fan (and you ostensibly are) because of that. So I think that it is fair to give Campbell another year in this system, hopefully along with upgrades in other positions that are vital to the offensive system as a whole. If he fails, they don't re-sign him.

As far as the "sacrificing a win to develop another QB" thing, as I said above...what exactly do you think Colt would gain by playing in half of, or even one full game at the end of the season? Is a lightbulb going to come on and he will suddenly develop into be an NFL starter in 2 or 4 quarters of football? If Campbell had an injury halfway through the season, I think giving Colt a shot would be a fine idea. See what he has, give him some games to adjust. But one game at the end of the season? IMO not gonna do much.

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.

Bench Jason and win with who, exactly? Who is it you want him to learn from? Warner is a 2x MVP, 4x Pro Bowler, and Super Bowl MVP. Collins is a career backup who played well in a few games for us at the end of the 07 season. Collins knew Saunders offense inside and out; that is what Campbell could learn from him. Saunders and his system are long gone. Is JC going to learn from Colt? A raw talent with zero starting experience in the NFL?

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.

Who is this "we" you're talking about? You're the one coming after me for explaining my stance on the Collins quote.

[NastyBoy]

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.

It's the politics of football. You have a high paid player at the position, who was drafted high with numerous picks dispensed to acquire him...........well, then he's the guy you HAVE to develop. At least that is what's commonplace in the NFL. Why draft position dictates whether or not a guy either becomes a starter, or in this case STAYS one is totally beyond anything logical.

If I'm Dan..........regardless of my own preference..........I'd have to respect a guy who'd sit the starting QB (JC) and insert another QB (either CB or TC) to give the best chance to win. I want a coach working for me who has the guts to make that move, rather than bow to the owner because of issues totally unrelated to actual play. But that's just me.

Perhaps Colt wasn't ready at the start of the season. I'll buy that one. But with really no progress in JC throughout the year...........and especially once we were eliminated from the playoffs.........I'd have respected Zorn more if he decided to shake things up just a little. Who ever said JC still wouldn't prove to be the man? Maybe it would have been just what the doctor ordered. I doubt it..........but who knows? I believe there were more positives to gain from doing this than negatives. JC finds his motivation, and, understanding that his job is truly on the line........finds a way to rise to the next level. OR.........Colt is much more capable than anyone thought.

Either way........the team benefits. Enough with this coddling of players because you'll damage their "psyche". That's such horse doo doo! If JC is so mentally weak that a benching would shatter his confidence, then that isn't the guy I want leading my team, anyway. Anyone notice what Donovan has done since his benching? Yeah, that's the sorta guy you want playing. One with a chip on his shoulder AND the ability to play at a high level. Enough with the kid-golves, already. Treat these players like men, and let the better man win, whomever that may be.

[Ant15fromNJ]

I feel horrible about Jason I just hope we dont waste our core redskins because we cant get a QB to play well enough to become a 12 win team.

[Madison Redskin]

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.

The above, oft-quoted statement does not support your assertion that Zorn cares more about JC than winning. Zorn repeatedly said in the preseason that he was confident that Jason would play at a Pro Bowl level in 2008. So, let's assume for argument's sake that Zorn didn't believe Collins could take the Redskins deep into the playoffs but believed Campbell could. Should a few minutes of preseason playing time change his mind?

Each year, the majority of head coaches declare quarterback X the opening day starter. What does that mean? That, regardless of the preseason, quarterback X is going to start. It doesn't mean the head coach won't change his mind in the future. It doesn't mean that the head coach cares more about quarterback X than winning. It simply means the head coach is convinced quarterback X gives the team the best shot at winning and, therefore, the head coach declares that QB the starter.

In short, a lack of an open QB competition is NOT evidence that the head coach is married to a particular quarterback and will sacrifice wins for him.

[TheLongshot]

The above, oft-quoted statement does not support your ridiculous assertion that Zorn cares more about JC than winning. Zorn repeatedly said in the preseason that he was confident that Jason would play at a Pro Bowl level in 2008. So, let's assume for argument's sake that Zorn didn't believe Collins could take the Redskins deep into the playoffs but believed Campbell could. Do a few minutes of preseason playing time have to change his mind? No.

Each year, the majority of head coaches declare quarterback X the opening day starter. What does that mean? That, regardless of the preseason, quarterback X is going to start. It doesn't mean the head coach won't change his mind in the future. It doesn't mean that the head coach cares more about quarterback X than winning. It simply means the head coach is convinced quarterback X gives the team the best shot at winning and, therefore, the head coach declares that QB the starter.

In short, a lack of an open QB competition is NOT evidence that the head coach is married to a particular quarterback and will sacrifice wins for him. Seriously, the retardation is reaching new levels.

You'd think after Gibbs sat Ramsey in 2005 that people would realize this. While I didn't like the way he did that, it was probably the correct decision. Brunell was playing much better than Ramsey in preseason, tho some of us were accepting that maybe Gibbs was willing to let Ramsey struggle a bit.

In the case of this year, Campbell wasn't impressive, but neither was Collins. So, you stick with the young guy who can be the future of the franchise and have him grow into the offense, not the old guy who isn't the future for anyone and probably isn't the present either.

[brandymac27]

The above, oft-quoted statement does not support your ridiculous assertion that Zorn cares more about JC than winning. Zorn repeatedly said in the preseason that he was confident that Jason would play at a Pro Bowl level in 2008. So, let's assume for argument's sake that Zorn didn't believe Collins could take the Redskins deep into the playoffs but believed Campbell could. Do a few minutes of preseason playing time have to change his mind? No.

Each year, the majority of head coaches declare quarterback X the opening day starter. What does that mean? That, regardless of the preseason, quarterback X is going to start. It doesn't mean the head coach won't change his mind in the future. It doesn't mean that the head coach cares more about quarterback X than winning. It simply means the head coach is convinced quarterback X gives the team the best shot at winning and, therefore, the head coach declares that QB the starter.

In short, a lack of an open QB competition is NOT evidence that the head coach is married to a particular quarterback and will sacrifice wins for him. Seriously, the retardation is reaching new levels.

Frankly, I don't care who Zorn cares about more. I care that this team is successful and wins games. What I don't understand is why you are so opposed to an open QB competition to begin with. Why can't you see that if there is one, everybody wins. The team, the coach, the FO, and the fans. And yes, that's true even if JC wins that competition. We want the best man to win for the TEAM'S sake and we won't know who that is until there's a competition. Who cares about who Zorn cares about more, or who is married to who?!?

And as far as your "retardation" comment... well, it seems to me that if you consistently LOSE and your QB is seriously going ass backwards, yet you want to continue to start him over and over again (doing the same exact thing) and expect that we'll miraculously win (different results)- you're bordering on insanity. Now we may be "retarded" because we don't agree with your insanity, but in this case, being retarded might just help the team's success so I will gladly take that classification.

[TheLongshot]

Frankly, I don't care who Zorn cares about more. I care that this team is successful and wins games. What I don't understand is why you are so opposed to an open QB competition to begin with. Why can't you see that if there is one, everybody wins. The team, the coach, the FO, and the fans. And yes, that's true even if JC wins that competition. We want the best man to win for the TEAM'S sake and we won't know who that is until there's a competition. Who cares about who Zorn cares about more, or who is married to who?!?

The problem with a QB competition is that you are going to have to split reps with the starters between the two. That's going to hurt your team preparing for the season. It also makes it harder to evaluate other non-starter players on the team, since you might keep your starters in longer to properly evaluate QB play. I think most coaches try to avoid QB competitions if at all possible for that reason. Unlike other positions, the QB position is so dependent on other players to do a proper evaluation.

[Madison Redskin]

Frankly, I don't care who Zorn cares about more. I care that this team is successful and wins games. What I don't understand is why you are so opposed to an open QB competition to begin with. Why can't you see that if there is one, everybody wins. The team, the coach, the FO, and the fans. And yes, that's true even if JC wins that competition. We want the best man to win for the TEAM'S sake and we won't know who that is until there's a competition. Who cares about who Zorn cares about more, or who is married to who?!?

And as far as your "retardation" comment... well, it seems to me that if you consistently LOSE and your QB is seriously going ass backwards, yet you want to continue to start him over and over again (doing the same exact thing) and expect that we'll miraculously win (different results)- you're bordering on insanity. Now we may be "retarded" because we don't agree with your insanity, but in this case, being retarded might just help the team's success so I will gladly take that classification.

I believe every player should have to compete for his job, including the starting quarterback. However, why do people believe Jason has things on lockdown? He doesn't. The team's decision to wait until next season to commence contract negotiations is evidence of that fact. Vinny's unwillingness to commit to Jason for the long haul is further evidence of as much.

Yet, for some bizarre reason, fans will not be satisfied until either (a) Colt is declared the starter or ( Jim Zorn comes out and says, "Fans, I hereby declare the quarterback competition officially open." Just because "your guy" isn't become the starter, don't assume there isn't competition at the QB position.

PS - I have serious questions about Campbell and wouldn't be opposed to bringing in a guy like Hasselbeck to compete, or waiting and seeing how Colt does this offseason. So, just because I haven't annointed Colt the Jesus Christ, Jr., don't lump with me in the Jason fan club members.

[brandymac27]

The problem with a QB competition is that you are going to have to split reps with the starters between the two. That's going to hurt your team preparing for the season. It also makes it harder to evaluate other non-starter players on the team, since you might keep your starters in longer to properly evaluate QB play. I think most coaches try to avoid QB competitions if at all possible for that reason. Unlike other positions, the QB position is so dependent on other players to do a proper evaluation.

I get the point that you're making here, and I can respect what you're saying. But, IMO, the team may suffer worse next season if we don't have a competition. So, technically, we're kind of damned if we do and damned if we don't. So, why not go ahead and bite the bullet and get it over with?

[brandymac27]

I believe every player should have to compete for his job, including the starting quarterback. However, why do people believe Jason has things on lockdown? He doesn't. The team's decision to wait until next season to commence contract negotiations is evidence of that fact. Vinny's unwillingness to commit to Jason for the long haul is further evidence of as much.

Yet, for some bizarre reason, fans will not be satisfied until either (a) Colt is declared the starter or ( Jim Zorn comes out and says, "Fans, I hereby declare the quarterback competition officially open." Just because "your guy" isn't become the starter, don't assume there isn't competition at the QB position.

PS - I have serious questions about Campbell and wouldn't be opposed to bringing in a guy like Hasselbeck to compete, or waiting and seeing how Colt does this offseason. So, just because I haven't annointed Colt the Jesus Christ, Jr., don't lump with me in the Jason fan club members.

I think the problem is that you seem to be lumping everyone who wants a QB competition into this group of people who hate JC, are conspiracy theorists, or retarded. That isn't the case. All we want is to see first hand who the best man for the job is.

Unfortunately, we really didn't get that opportunity last season b/c Zorn pretty much declared that JC would be the starter, no questions asked, without him really having to earn his role.

This past season, JC really didn't show us any proof that he deserved the QB position. Like any other player, I think he should also have to earn his spot on our roster and that's why I don't think it is so ridiculous to have an open QB competition.

And, for the record, If JC wins that competition, I will support him fully b/c I will know that he is in fact the best that we have available for the job.

[TheLongshot]

I get the point that you're making here, and I can respect what you're saying. But, IMO, the team may suffer worse next season if we don't have a competition. So, technically, we're kind of damned if we do and damned if we don't. So, why not go ahead and bite the bullet and get it over with?

I don't understand why you think the team will suffer worse next year without a competition. Either we find out that Campbell's the guy or he isn't, but that's what most of next season is going to be about and what it has to be about at the QB position. If Zorn thinks that Campbell has made progress and can continue to make progress, he's gotta be the guy until someone else proves otherwise.

Now, it is a long offseason and Zorn is going to be working with all the QBs. There are a lot of places to prove where you have improved. That being said, I wouldn't expect Campbell to get unseated.

[brandymac27]

I don't understand why you think the team will suffer worse next year without a competition. Either we find out that Campbell's the guy or he isn't, but that's what most of next season is going to be about and what it has to be about at the QB position. If Zorn thinks that Campbell has made progress and can continue to make progress, he's gotta be the guy until someone else proves otherwise.

Now, it is a long offseason and Zorn is going to be working with all the QBs. There are a lot of places to prove where you have improved. That being said, I wouldn't expect Campbell to get unseated.

The downward spiral the second half of the season is something that I really don't want to have to go through again. I feel that if there's a competition, and the best man wins, it might improve our chances next season of being successful, or at least show some serious improvements.

I also understand that a different QB could produce the same results that we had this year, but the fact is that none of us really know that we have the best person under center right now. It's a crap shoot either way, so have the competition to assure everyone the best man is our QB.:2cents:

[bulldog]

the fact remains that Campbell will be a free agent in 2010 and isn't going to be signed to a new contract during the offseason. A competition in 2009 can only help the Redskins because the team may be looking for a qb in 2010 and the club will need to know what it has on the roster before deciding on actions in free agency and the draft.

If Brennan has something to offer, let's see it. If there is a West Coast veteran qb available in free agency at reasonable dollars who could make a difference in pushing Campbell or even supplanting him during the 2009 season or in 2010, let's see him.

[brandymac27]

the fact remains that Campbell will be a free agent in 2010 and isn't going to be signed to a new contract during the offseason. A competition in 2009 can only help the Redskins because the team may be looking for a qb in 2010 and the club will need to know what it has on the roster before deciding on actions in free agency and the draft.

If Brennan has something to offer, let's see it. If there is a West Coast veteran qb available in free agency at reasonable dollars who could make a difference in pushing Campbell or even supplanting him during the 2009 season or in 2010, let's see him.

Well, It was reported that Brett Farve might want to leave the Jets.

[Skinsinparadise]

interesting on the pre game, NBC just now Peter King said Shanahan probably sits out this season, comes back next one and the Skins and Dallas pursue either him, Cowher, or Holmgren.

[modazfuk]

interesting on the pre game, NBC just now Peter King said Shanahan probably sits out this season, comes back next one and the Skins and Dallas pursue either him, Cowher, or Holmgren.

Dungy was tossed in the hat too.

[TimmySmith]

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.

Brennan had a rating of 110. Campbell had a 72. Brennan had more attempts, completions, tds, etc. The pre-season competition was not even close. But alas there was no competition. Which again is the point of the thread. The job was GIVEN to Campbell from day 0, and was in no way EARNED. Why? Simple. The Skins have a great investment in Campbell. Once again, many believe that Zorn was brought in almost specifically to get Campbell into shape, kind of a deal with the devil to get a HC slot. I honestly cannot see either Zorn or Campbell with the team in 2010. It would take a playoff run for either to stay, and this team is not close to playoff caliber.

[TheLongshot]

the fact remains that Campbell will be a free agent in 2010 and isn't going to be signed to a new contract during the offseason. A competition in 2009 can only help the Redskins because the team may be looking for a qb in 2010 and the club will need to know what it has on the roster before deciding on actions in free agency and the draft.

If Brennan has something to offer, let's see it. If there is a West Coast veteran qb available in free agency at reasonable dollars who could make a difference in pushing Campbell or even supplanting him during the 2009 season or in 2010, let's see him.

If Campbell fails next year, there is plenty of time during the season to "see what we have", because if he fails, we probably aren't going to be in contention for anything. Anyways, "we" don't have to see anything. The coaching staff is the one who needs to see stuff, and they see these guys in practice all the time.

So, don't worry, your time for calling Colt a bum will come soon enough.

[TheLongshot]

Brennan had a rating of 110. Campbell had a 72. Brennan had more attempts, completions, tds, etc. The pre-season competition was not even close. But alas there was no competition. Which again is the point of the thread. The job was GIVEN to Campbell from day 0, and was in no way EARNED. Why? Simple. The Skins have a great investment in Campbell. Once again, many believe that Zorn was brought in almost specifically to get Campbell into shape, kind of a deal with the devil to get a HC slot. I honestly cannot see either Zorn or Campbell with the team in 2010. It would take a playoff run for either to stay, and this team is not close to playoff caliber.

I'm sure Campbell would have looked good against a lot of guys who probably aren't on NFL squads. Even so, Colt wasn't THAT impressive. He had a couple of big plays here and there, but even then he came close to throwing ints as much as TDs.

While I like his potential, he just wasn't NFL ready as of last preseason.

[Geoff_K]

but even then he came close to throwing ints as much as TDs.

.

"came close" does not equal did ... i would RATHER have a qb who threw 4 ints and 4 td's a game than what we had this year .... but hey .. maybe you are happy with 10 points a game .. /shrug

[pocampo]

"came close" does not equal did ... i would RATHER have a qb who threw 4 ints and 4 td's a game than what we had this year .... but hey .. maybe you are happy with 10 points a game .. /shrug

Did we ever run a hurry up Offense this year ?

Did we ever run a no huddle offense this year?

These guys either don't know how to run it, or won't run it.

How can we keep either one of them, if that can't do what every other team can do.

[Wyvern]

For me the issue is keeping Zorn. I certainly hope his fate isn't wedded to Campbell's performance. I see a lot of upside for this rookie coach. Zorn's detractors point to conservative play-calls, especially in the second half things went sour, but maybe they need to consider whether this conservatism reflected how the team needed to play better in the passing game, especially the QB, WRs, and O-line.

Now, if 2009 reveals that Campbell isn't the one to have at QB the Skins, I hope Snyder and Cerrato stand by Zorn and let him continue to coach the team for at least a few years.

Good franchises maintain consistency in their coaching ranks and are slow to make changes. The Skins were competitive this season, and Zorn was a part of the reason for that. Given enough time, Zorn will wind up being a very good and innovative head-coach for the Skins, or for some other more patient team.

[IHOPSkins]

Once again, the most popular player in Burgundy and Gold is the back up....

Funny how this was true at the end of last year also

[IHOPSkins]

...In the case of this year, Campbell wasn't impressive, but neither was Collins......

You can't say Collins would not have outperformed JC this year

It happened last year.......when Todd was also 2nd string

[TheLongshot]

You can't say Collins would not have outperformed JC this year

It happened last year.......when Todd was also 2nd string

With no one having film on him for years, running an offense he had been in for years.

Sorry, but I think NFL defenses would have ate him up over a full season.