pjfootballer Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 And you guys have to remember, the Rams needed a QB deperately and Trent was coming off a great year. He is also a native of St, Louis and that SB that Warner won, was supposed to be his if not for the cheap shot on his knee. Him being from St. Louis had alot to do with where he signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 And you guys have to remember, the Rams needed a QB deperately and Trent was coming off a great year. He is also a native of St, Louis and that SB that Warner won, was supposed to be his if not for the cheap shot on his knee. Him being from St. Louis had alot to do with where he signed.I think we all agree that there were many factors. But the fact remains that the Skins gave him a token offer that was well below his market value and was way, way below what they paid to replace him. It may well have been the first prime example in the Snyder era of allowing a solid prospect to leave in order to lavish money on somebody outside the organization. In this particular case, 2 guys, Johnson and George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPortJGibbs89 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Hell, even Joe Gibbs said earlier this year that he had considered benching Campbell, even before he got injured! That should tell you something... I spend far to much time on this message board and I have never seen Gibbs say anything like this. Can you provide a link or an exact quote about this. I think if he actually said this I would have heard something. Please provide some info. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 This thread has got me to thinking about the whole Gus-Trent thing. I still remember the image in that first game of the 1998 season after Gus threw a few picks in the second half and Marvcus Patton screaming at him on the sideline......but I couldn't believe Norv gave him the hook in that game. I'm thinking that the whole head-butting the wall in the Giant game the year before was when he really started to lose favor. Any other things happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mi6 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 The Skins lost out on two very productive QBs. Stan Humphries who took the San Diego Chargers to the Superbowl, and Trent Green. Comparing Jason to anyone of the elite QBs Redskins or otherwise is a mute point. He is not there yet! He hasn't anything to justify such a comparison. He will be going into his 5th year, and has yet to show consistency, and brilliance. QBs taken the same year he was, have done alot more ... and, one has even won the Superbowl. Time the Skins fess up to their mistake of giving way TOO much for an average QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 The Skins lost out on two very productive QBs. Stan Humphries who took the San Diego Chargers to the Superbowl, and Trent Green. Comparing Jason to anyone of the elite QBs Redskins or otherwise is a mute point. He is not there yet! He hasn't anything to justify such a comparison. He will be going into his 5th year, and has yet to show consistency, and brilliance. So you're calling Gus Ferotte and Brad Johnson elite QBs? Even calling Rypien elite is stretching it. QBs taken the same year he was, have done alot more ... and, one has even won the Superbowl. Time the Skins fess up to their mistake of giving way TOO much for an average QB. Who from his class has done anything? Smith was a bust, Rodgers led his team to 6-10 in his first season as a starter, and Campbell is what he is. I don't see any superbowl winning QBs in that draft class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnb123 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Who from his class has done anything? Smith was a bust, Rodgers led his team to 6-10 in his first season as a starter, and Campbell is what he is. I don't see any superbowl winning QBs in that draft class. Smith is a bust. Rogers is going to be an elite QB. He put up 28 TD's, 13 INTs, 400 yds in his first year starting.... not bad. The Packer's will be very good with him leading the team once they get the rest of their problems sorted out. Kyle Orton is a little rough around the edges but he is still a serviceable QB. Matt Cassel played well enough to be franchised and is getting a 12 mil paycheck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 Smith is a bust.Rogers is going to be an elite QB. He put up 28 TD's, 13 INTs, 400 yds in his first year starting.... not bad. The Packer's will be very good with him leading the team once they get the rest of their problems sorted out. But he took a 13-3 team and went 6-10. How come he gets excuses for going 6-10 and Campbell doesn't? Kyle Orton is a little rough around the edges but he is still a serviceable QB. So now Kyle Orton is better than Jason Campbell. This is the guy who got benched in Chicago because he as ONLY a game manager. Then they put him back in there because they realized that the game manager they have in Orton is better than the gambler they have in Grossman cause too often his gambles end up costing them the game. Could be kinda similar to what we have with Campbell and Brennan. Matt Cassel played well enough to be franchised and is getting a 12 mil paycheck Yeah Cassel played well, for NE. I'm not saying he's great or horrible, but look at how well Derek Anderson played in 2007 before he put up horrible numbers in 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnb123 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 [But he took a 13-3 team and went 6-10. How come he gets excuses for going 6-10 and Campbell doesn't? So now Kyle Orton is better than Jason Campbell. This is the guy who got benched in Chicago because he as ONLY a game manager. Then they put him back in there because they realized that the game manager they have in Orton is better than the gambler they have in Grossman cause too often his gambles end up costing them the game. Could be kinda similar to what we have with Campbell and Brennan. Yeah Cassel played well, for NE. I'm not saying he's great or horrible, but look at how well Derek Anderson played in 2007 before he put up horrible numbers in 2008. I wasn't bashing Campbell I was analyzing the rest of the 2005 draft class. A) The Packer's had one of the highest scoring offenses in the league. Your a moron of you think that Rogers caused the team to go 6-10. I never said that Orton was better than Campbell, your putting words in my mouth. But you certainly could make the argument that he is better. And the Grossman/Orton situation has absolutely no similarities to our QB situation. C) Cassel has shown many things that Derek Anderson didn't show last year. Anderson was one of the fewest sacked QB's in the league last year, and was able to sit in the pocket play catch with his receivers. Cassel was sacked 47 times this year and still carried the team and made plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant15fromNJ Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Its really sad we cant find a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There is one star in the mix that you did not mention. Mainly because he did nothing for the Skins.Rich Gannon was 2 time ALL-PRO and an MVP who never got a whiff with the Skins. If he was on the team today with the same future ahead, Campbell lovers would have a field day saying how he is a career back up and a never-will-be. He is, without a doubt, the greatest talent at QB that the Skins had since Sonny. Too bad he never got a shot. Please.. Rich Gannon was ONE thing,, a creation of Jon Gruden. Up until he got hold of him in Oakland for his last hurrah, Gannon was below average. Chucky wins with retreads. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Please.. Rich Gannon was ONE thing,, a creation of Jon Gruden.Up until he got hold of him in Oakland for his last hurrah, Gannon was below average. So basically EVERY qb out is capable of a 3500-4000YD, 30TD, 500 YD rushing season. It's just a matter of coaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 So basically EVERY qb out is capable of a 3500-4000YD, 30TD, 500 YD rushing season. It's just a matter of coaching. Yeah, that's ridiculous. Well, maybe not but he turned in a hell of a couple seasons and it was a severe injury that ended what was still a pretty decent career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There is one star in the mix that you did not mention. Mainly because he did nothing for the Skins.Rich Gannon was 2 time ALL-PRO and an MVP who never got a whiff with the Skins. If he was on the team today with the same future ahead, Campbell lovers would have a field day saying how he is a career back up and a never-will-be. He is, without a doubt, the greatest talent at QB that the Skins had since Sonny. Too bad he never got a shot. He did get his shot. He was a lousy QB in Minnesota and when he came here he did start several games and was awful. He left us and went on to be a backup in KC for another 5 years before getting his shot in Oakland with the Raiders. I'll admit that he was a late bloomer and had some very fine seasons out in Oakland but I don't blame the Redskins for getting rid of him after 1993. There was no indication that Gannon was going to be anything other than a marginal backup. It's unreasonable to say they should have kept him in 1994 because he finally played good ball in 2001 when he was in his late 30's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayouBrave86 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Trent Green could've been our franchise qb. A damn shame the ownership change screwed that all up. Brad Johnson was great in 99 but damn he was terrible the following season. I think the most frustrated I've ever been as a Skins fan was watching Johnson Qb for us against the Giants at FedEx Field in a late season game. I think we were down 13-0 or 14-0 and then Jeff George was finally able to come on the field and of course we scored a td to make it a one score game, but of course it was too little, too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 But he took a 13-3 team and went 6-10. How come he gets excuses for going 6-10 and Campbell doesn't? Apart from the fact that Rodgers' personal statistics on the season are far more impressive... The Packers finished 8th in total offense, 8th in passing offense, and 5th in scoring offense. If you look at the games they lost almost all of them were either closely contested or just plain shootouts where the Pack's 20th ranked defense just couldn't keep up. The Redskins finished 19th in total offense, 23rd in passing offense, and 28th in scoring offense. Our defense was 4th overall and practically each and every one of our games was close and low scoring. In the Packers' case you can't really point the blame at their offense and in ours it is blindingly obvious that we failed on offense, particularly in the passing game. It should go without saying that people will blame the most visible player on offense when things go badly and that player usually happens to be the QB. Whether or not JC is at fault here is up for debate... but the question you posed is ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 Apart from the fact that Rodgers' personal statistics on the season are far more impressive...The Packers finished 8th in total offense, 8th in passing offense, and 5th in scoring offense. If you look at the games they lost almost all of them were either closely contested or just plain shootouts where the Pack's 20th ranked defense just couldn't keep up. The Redskins finished 19th in total offense, 23rd in passing offense, and 28th in scoring offense. Our defense was 4th overall and practically each and every one of our games was close and low scoring. In the Packers' case you can't really point the blame at their offense and in ours it is blindingly obvious that we failed on offense, particularly in the passing game. It should go without saying that people will blame the most visible player on offense when things go badly and that player usually happens to be the QB. Whether or not JC is at fault here is up for debate... but the question you posed is ludicrous. Yeah, but had our defense held up on the last two drives in two games, we could be sitting on a 10-6 record with the same (or real similar) offensive stats. Plus every game of ours was highly contested as well (well, the Pitt game is debatable). So its easy to look at stats, but Cambell had a better year a starter and while the offensive stats are impressive, the weapons he has on offense are also impressive. I'll paraphrase what CP said in the beginning of the year, except think about JC instead, "put me on a team with an all pro OL and three all pro WRs and see what I do" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnb123 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Yeah, but had our defense held up on the last two drives in two games, we could be sitting on a 10-6 record with the same (or real similar) offensive stats. Plus every game of ours was highly contested as well (well, the Pitt game is debatable). So its easy to look at stats, but Cambell had a better year a starter and while the offensive stats are impressive, the weapons he has on offense are also impressive. I'll paraphrase what CP said in the beginning of the year, except think about JC instead, "put me on a team with an all pro OL and three all pro WRs and see what I do" Wait, wait, wait.... wait are you saying that JC had a better year than Rodgers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Campbell is closest to Tony Banks in '01 - following the coach's directives and managing the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Campbell is blacker than Patrick Ramsey but no as black as Heath Shuler. (Ok...that sentence is absurd even by my standards. I have no earthly idea what it means. I think it is bed time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Yeah, but had our defense held up on the last two drives in two games, we could be sitting on a 10-6 record with the same (or real similar) offensive stats. Plus every game of ours was highly contested as well (well, the Pitt game is debatable). So its easy to look at stats, but Cambell had a better year a starter and while the offensive stats are impressive, the weapons he has on offense are also impressive. I'll paraphrase what CP said in the beginning of the year, except think about JC instead, "put me on a team with an all pro OL and three all pro WRs and see what I do" I'm assuming you're talking about the Rams and San Fran. We scored 17 against the Rams which is one more point than he averaged as the starter. How about we score more against a hapless team and not put the defense in that situation? Against San Francisco, we had a 17-7 lead and the second half kickoff. Go down and score on the 2nd half kickoff and it's 24-7 and Gore is taken out of the game. But what did we do? Do I even have to type it? Three and out! Typical of our offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 JC has the most potential of any of those QBs, but until he takes us to the playoffs, it's just that: potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 I'm assuming you're talking about the Rams and San Fran. We scored 17 against the Rams which is one more point than he averaged as the starter. How about we score more against a hapless team and not put the defense in that situation?Against San Francisco, we had a 17-7 lead and the second half kickoff. Go down and score on the 2nd half kickoff and it's 24-7 and Gore is taken out of the game. But what did we do? Do I even have to type it? Three and out! Typical of our offense. And I'm sure Portis has nothing to do with that....maybe a critical fumble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.