BR:Colt Brennan: The Future of the Washington Redskins...Jason Campbell: The Past

[HawaiianTime]

-6th by ppg and that's really the best stat to go by.

You won't get much agreement on your opinion from people who understand football stats.

4 in total defense. We're solid, but we don't create many opportunities for the offense. Roethlisberger had plenty of mistakes but he had a defense that had 20 ints, forced 22 fumbles, and 51 sacks, and defensive scores (as seen in the Superbowl). It'd take us 3 years to get that. Like I said, I love our defense, but if we got turnovers like that...man. Then people talk about Flacco, their defense had 34 sacks, 13 forced fumbles, 26 ints, and 5 defensive scores. A defensive score basically lost us the Rams game.

Sorry guys, but I have to agree with Mahons21. Whether we have a defense with high take-aways or not, a defense that can hold our opponents scoring down means they are giving our offense the chance to score. Take-aways are nice, but a team that stops a TD and only gives FGs will demoralize our opponents offense.

[Mad Mike]

Besides, just as McD5 can post 87 threads aboue Betts over Portis, and Brandon lloyd Xmas can post 143 threads about "we suck", LL56 certainly can post about the QB situation with a new article as his base for discusssion.

You know, last year I told myself to remember what I told myself the year before ---that I would not pull another "Ramsey" and try to delude myself that we finally had a Redskin QB that was the answer when they weren't. I loved Pat and got my hopes all up and my denial was strong for awhile. I usually have little appreciation of denial as a coping mechanism.

So last year I said "this is Campbell's last year with me, no excuses." I really like the guy, think he has some very good tools, and for the first half of the year I thought "thank you!" Then, I'll be damned if not only did it go into the toilet, but it did so in a multi-faceted complicated way that left me with no clear-cut objective decision on JC.

But I kept reminding myself I had promised to come to a conclusion and move on either way. Obviously, what I think only affects the Redskins' decisions somewhat and not totally. But even with the mixed analysis of last years issues, I have decided JC isn't going to be the guy. It's not "all his fault", but that doesn't matter. He just isn't good enough in enough ways to carry this team maninly on his own back other than briefly and rarely.

And that is the one thing we need in a QB more than anthing else--someone who can make it happen mainly on their own talent and instincts when you need it, and do so on a semi-regular basis, at least. That's not Jason, IMO.

We will go into next year with him at #1 and obviously I will hope and root for the best, and pray that I have it wrong.

<edit--forgot to add---Zorn has said he will look hard at Colt. I think the guy is very rough, but hope he gets serious time with the first string in pre-season. If we look lukewarm at the position during the season, I would love to see him in some real game situations.

I think you pretty much voiced my position right down to the history of QBs like Ramsey. I Like JC but after convincing myself that Ramsey was the man and being disappointed, I've chilled on falling in love with a player based on hope.

After three years, regardless of how many systems he has been in, Campbell needs to show something and to this point he hasn't. He's still making rookie mistakes and showing flaws that have nothing to do with the system.

Campbell will start next year and I will pull for him and hope for the best, I'm just not holding my breath.

:2cents:

[truskinsfan18]

What an idiotic article. First of all, why the HELL is he comparing Jason Campbell to Tom Brady. Brady shouldn't even be a benchmark for NFL success. He is one of the best Qb's in the HISTORY of the game, if not the best.

This is what pains me the most. Lets compare Campbell to other QB's who are successfull but not elite. We can't expect him to be elite, becaue there are only 3 or 4 of those QB's in the league.

[Oldfan]

-Where did I say you have to build around this franchise qb?

Okay, I misunderstood you.

I am saying if a qb with franchise abilities came in right now onto this Redskins team that we could succeed with this supporting cast.

I don't know what "franchise abilities" means. It seems to me that the term is applied in hindsight and is almost meaningless. If he wins 12 games next year, Jason Campbell will be labeled a franchise QB. He's not a franchise QB now because he hasn't done it yet.

So, how can you be sure he's not going to be a franchise QB? It still comes back to opinions on his potential.

[Santana_Fan]

Sorry guys, but I have to agree with Mahons21. Whether we have a defense with high take-aways or not, a defense that can hold our opponents scoring down means they are giving our offense the chance to score. Take-aways are nice, but a team that stops a TD and only gives FGs will demoralize our opponents offense.

That is true, I didn't disagree with that, but having a defense that shuts down drives (fumbles, ints), and makes drives longer to convert (sacks), is a lot easier.

[Oldfan]

Sorry guys, but I have to agree with Mahons21. Whether we have a defense with high take-aways or not, a defense that can hold our opponents scoring down means they are giving our offense the chance to score. Take-aways are nice, but a team that stops a TD and only gives FGs will demoralize our opponents offense.

Takeaways aren't just "nice." the average turnover leads to four points. the Ravens had 34 takeaways. That's one less than Greg Blaches Skins (18) and Gregg Williams Jags (17) combined.

34 X 4 = 136 points. That's 8.5 per game.

[Mooka]

I agree with Jumbo and this board seemed to unanimously agree with that position after 2007.

However, there was a consensus that Saunders' offense took 3 seasons to master, and bringing in Zorn changed people's expectations.

Can't say they changed mine, because the offense we ran under Zorn looked nearly identical to the last Air Coryell offense we ran under Saunders without all the shifting.

Jason shouldn't be the starter without question. Some realistic competition for the spot is a good thing.

Sorry guys, but I have to agree with Mahons21. Whether we have a defense with high take-aways or not, a defense that can hold our opponents scoring down means they are giving our offense the chance to score. Take-aways are nice, but a team that stops a TD and only gives FGs will demoralize our opponents offense.

The points allowed is inflated a bit. If your team scores 19ppg, then 20ppg will beat them. Look at the 2nd Dallas game for a quick example. Had Dallas needed to score more points they would've, but they had the game in hand and ran out the clock.

It doesn't mean our defense isn't good, it just means it isn't top 5 or to 10 good. The 11th ranking from football outsiders, seems closer to the real rank.

[eljeasel]

Takeaways aren't just "nice." the average turnover leads to four points. the Ravens had 34 takeaways. That's one less than Greg Blaches Skins (18) and Gregg Williams Jags (17) combined.

34 X 4 = 136 points. That's 8.5 per game.

jeez, and we only get half of that? 4.3ish points per game more? Could have meant the difference in alot of those close games last year

[ExoDus84]

Wow, now some of you are throwing our pretty damn good defense under the bus, and accusing them of keeping our points down? Please, come back to reality. The 0-16 Lions scored more points than us, yet we won 8 games. You know how we did that? It sure wasnt based on the pathetic efforts of our offense. The only reason this team wasnt 2-14 is because our defense kept us in almost every game, even when the offense was mustering 3'n'outs every damn posession. Having a defense that can force 50 turnovers a year is a luxury that almost no team has. Usually, its up to the OFFENSE to score points, it doesnt matter if they start at their own 20 or at midfield. Don't blame the defense for the deficiencies of our pathetic offense. Bottom line, defense did its job, in preventing the other team from scoring. If our offense even did their job adequately, and scored around 16th in the league in ppg, we'd have made it to the playoffs at least, and maybe to the SB.

[HawaiianTime]

Wow, now some of you are throwing our pretty damn good defense under the bus, and accusing them of keeping our points down? Please, come back to reality. The 0-16 Lions scored more points than us, yet we won 8 games. You know how we did that? It sure wasnt based on the pathetic efforts of our offense. The only reason this team wasnt 2-14 is because our defense kept us in almost every game, even when the offense was mustering 3'n'outs every damn posession. Having a defense that can force 50 turnovers a year is a luxury that almost no team has. Usually, its up to the OFFENSE to score points, it doesnt matter if they start at their own 20 or at midfield. Don't blame the defense for the deficiencies of our pathetic offense. Bottom line, defense did its job, in preventing the other team from scoring. If our offense even did their job adequately, and scored around 16th in the league in ppg, we'd have made it to the playoffs at least, and maybe to the SB.

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

Rated 6th in the league is a damn good Defense.

[Mahons21]

Footballoutsiders.com has our defense rated at #11. Their stats are still a work in progress. They aren't the final word, but at least the guys on that site understand the problems.

Our offense only gave the ball away 18 times (8th), but our defense only had 18 takeaways (29th).

The average turnover leads to about four points, so Miami at +17 on the turnover ratio scored about 68 points more than the Skins (zero). that's about 4.25 points per game.

-So I say ppg is the best stat to use for a defense, and you respond people who know anything about football would disagree.

-I ask you for what stat you would like to use, and you reply with a website that combines multiple stats? (logical)

-Then you finally take some stance... or at least begin to. From what I can gather you are claiming turnovers is a better judge of a defense:

The top 3 defenses in turnovers this season:CHI, BAL, GB

Top 3 defenses in ppg: TEN, BAL, PIT

**ALSO important to note, Browns would finish fourth of defenses for turnovers, and they scored less points than even the skins**

-So if you are finally taking a stand then you are wrong, clearly ppg is a better stat than turnovers, but Im pretty sure your once again not going to take a stance, and claim my assumption my assumption on your point is off.

[Mahons21]

Okay, I misunderstood you.

I don't know what "franchise abilities" means. It seems to me that the term is applied in hindsight and is almost meaningless. If he wins 12 games next year, Jason Campbell will be labeled a franchise QB. He's not a franchise QB now because he hasn't done it yet.

So, how can you be sure he's not going to be a franchise QB? It still comes back to opinions on his potential.

-How can I be sure he's not a franchise qb? GAME WINNING DRIVES!

Wouldn't it be great to be down in the fourth and really think we actually had a shot at winning? Yes there was NO, but thats one game, I would like to be confident when the game rests on my qb's shoulders, I am not.

[CRAZYHORSE19682003]

We could change offenses 10 times over the next decade and it won’t matter running a different offense can’t make up for the fact that Jason Candle isn’t a NFL QB. It is doubtful he would even be on a roster other than ours. I am not saying CB is the answer but I do believe he couldn’t do any worse.

The biggest tell out there is the Redskins are not making any moves to sign JC to a contract extension! Right now even the management knows Campbell is a 3rd string emergency QB at best.

[HawaiianTime]

We could change offenses 10 times over the next decade and it won’t matter running a different offense can’t make up for the fact that Jason Candle isn’t a NFL QB. It is doubtful he would even be on a roster other than ours. I am not saying CB is the answer but I do believe he couldn’t do any worse.

The biggest tell out there is the Redskins are not making any moves to sign JC to a contract extension! Right now even the management knows Campbell is a 3rd string emergency QB at best.

Does that make Vinny, Danny, and Jimmy haters?

[Emoshag]

Wow, now some of you are throwing our pretty damn good defense under the bus, and accusing them of keeping our points down? Please, come back to reality. The 0-16 Lions scored more points than us, yet we won 8 games. You know how we did that? It sure wasnt based on the pathetic efforts of our offense. The only reason this team wasnt 2-14 is because our defense kept us in almost every game, even when the offense was mustering 3'n'outs every damn posession. Having a defense that can force 50 turnovers a year is a luxury that almost no team has. Usually, its up to the OFFENSE to score points, it doesnt matter if they start at their own 20 or at midfield. Don't blame the defense for the deficiencies of our pathetic offense. Bottom line, defense did its job, in preventing the other team from scoring. If our offense even did their job adequately, and scored around 16th in the league in ppg, we'd have made it to the playoffs at least, and maybe to the SB.

Exactly my original point. With a 4th in yards allowed and 6th in points allowed... we will win six games if we only ever kick field goals. We were the only top 5 defense in the league to not make the playoffs. Why? Points win. And we were 26th in the league in 3rd down conversions made with 35%. That means 65% of the time we were 3 and out. Atrocious. And nothing demoralizes an offense more in my opinion (aside from a pick six) than consecutive 3 and outs.

We have had a culture for years in Washington that our defense will win championships. But we have not been a sack or turnover producing defense.... so we can only stop the opponent and give the ball back to our offense. Which therein lies the problem.

Hell, lets just always field the defense. With a sharp dude like Fletcher at QB (and his alligator arms guarantee a short throwing motion) and our first rounder secondary (including Superhero Horton and aside from Rogers.... who can't catch a cold) we might win 12 games.

I am growing to loathe even the idea that Campbell is STILL being touted as the "potential" franchise QB. And I know the FO agrees with me because they came right out and said "We will see about an extension after the 2009 season." Doesn't get more limp-wristed than that.

[Oldfan]

Wow, now some of you are throwing our pretty damn good defense under the bus, and accusing them of keeping our points down? Please, come back to reality.

Football 101 Reality: the play of the offense has an effect on both points scored and the points against -- and so does the play of the defense.

[Oldfan]

-How can I be sure he's not a franchise qb? GAME WINNING DRIVES!

Wouldn't it be great to be down in the fourth and really think we actually had a shot at winning? Yes there was NO, but thats one game, I would like to be confident when the game rests on my qb's shoulders, I am not.

Game winning drives. It's all up to the QB. It's on his shoulders. The scheme, the playcalling, the performances of his ten teammates -- none of it matters. It's all on the QB.

Do I understand you correctly?

[Oldfan]

The biggest tell out there is the Redskins are not making any moves to sign JC to a contract extension! Right now even the management knows Campbell is a 3rd string emergency QB at best.

I think you are interpreting that piece of evidence the way you want to see it. I think we can safely say it isn't a vote of confidence, but you are taking its implication a little too far.

[Oldfan]

Mahons21: -So I say ppg is the best stat to use for a defense, and you respond people who know anything about football would disagree.

No, this is what I said: "You won't get much agreement on your opinion from people who understand football stats."

-I ask you for what stat you would like to use, and you reply with a website that combines multiple stats? (logical)

The intent was to rank defenses intelligently using statistics was it not? How is it logical that the task has to be limited to only one statistic?

-Then you finally take some stance... or at least begin to. From what I can gather you are claiming turnovers is a better judge of a defense:

No, I referred you to a website that did a better job of ranking defenses than the way you are doing it. Takeaways are just one important factor in the ranking.

Your stat puts all the blame for the lack of scoring unfairly on the offense while not crediting the offense with the good work it did in helping the defense.

[HawaiianTime]

Your stat puts all the blame for the lack of scoring unfairly on the offense while not crediting the offense with the good work it did in helping the defense.

I thought the best way an offense can help the defense is to take as much time off the clock and score?

[ExoDus84]

I thought the best way an offense can help the defense is to take as much time off the clock and score?

Seems right to be. Werent we also one of the worst teams in terms of 3 and outs? Having a high amount of 3 and outs puts a lot more stress on the defense. Our horrid PF category also put more stress on our defense to win games.

This isnt a difficult concept. Its up to the defense to do whatever it takes to prevent the other team from scoring points, and get off the field, so that the offense gets more opportunities. The role of the offense is to score as many points as they can, regardless of where they start out. Field position does play a role here, but thats usually a byproduct of how special teams performs, much more so than the defense. While I watched every game last season, I feel confident in saying our defense did its job, while the offense, with their high number of 3 and outs, and horrid performance in PF, did not. If it wasnt for our defense, we'd be picking 2nd or 3rd in this years draft. So, for those who want to blame the defense for the offenses woes, give me a break. More turnovers would have helped, but probably not by much. Look at the pittsburgh game. We started what, like 3 posessions early in the game on their side of the field, and came away with 6 points?

Am I to assume the only way this offense can score points, is if the defense intercepts/forces a fumble on every drive, so the offense can get 30 yard fields? Again, our D this year saved us from being Lion-esque. And if you consider our lack of sacks and turnovers, given that our team still was top 5 in PPG and yards allowed per game, thats even more impressive.

[NastyBoy]

So, he's 16-20 in his first 36 starts.

For the record, it took Troy Aikman 40 games to get to 16 wins (on a team with Michael Irvin and Emmit Smith and he was 14-24 in his first 38 starts). Peyton Manning got there in 32 starts. His Dad Archie, a 3 time pro bowler started 5-16-3 and it took him 71 starts to get to 16 wins. I could go on and on of course.

What you're leaving out of the equation is that Aikman was inserted into the starting lineup as a rookie, and though he had Irvin & Smith, there were other deficiencies and he went 1-15 that year. (darn one win was against US! blargh!) Peyton also started as a rookie and I believe Archie did as well (12 games in '71). While I can't speak intelligently about Archie's defense, I happen to know Indy's D was a joke when Manning took over, and was for several years after his rookie season. Ours is anything but that.

Also, it's pretty tough to compare anyone playing today's game to Archie Manning's era. If you go back and look at his stats..........you'd have a hard time concluding that a guy with 125 CAREER TD's vs. 173 INT's, with a season high of 23 TD's vs. 20 INT's (1980) could have pulled off 3 Pro Bowls in his career. Statistically speaking, the man only threw double-digit TD's 5 times in his career, and over 20 TD's in a season once in his 14 year career. Using the 71 games as a yard stick to measure anything Campbell has done to date is just smoke and mirrors.

These distinctions are important as none of those you referenced had more than their first off-season to prepare, and don't take the totality of the team's situation into consideration. I wonder how many of them had a top 5 defense. Strike that.......a top TEN defense?

Aikman was drafted by a 3-13 team. Peyton was also drafted by a 3-13 team. Archie was drafted by a 2-11-1 team.

Bingo. This further illustrates my point. The situations were apples and oranges.

You weaken your argument when you offer meaningless stats. Why would a young QB weaken during a season? Unless you can come up with an explanation that makes sense, the most likely answer for your stat is CHANCE, a random variation.

Ok, maybe "weaken" isn't the correct verbiage. I think a more accurate explanation is that he failed to adapt. Yes, I will acknowledge that the O-line's play worsened as the season progressed and injuries took hold. However, with that same O-line in the early part of the second half of the season, opponents became more well versed with the offense, and Campbell was unable to create any consistent production when the situation was less than ideal. His ability to work within the framework of the offense, when things are working well? Decent. Did he show the ability to extend plays or create opportunities when protection broke down? No way. Again, there were times when Jason took the snap and barely had time to take 2 steps back. I'm obviously not holding that against the man. But when given a couple of seconds, and protection broke down.......he's just not very good scrambling left or right, or throwng on the run. Sorry, I'm not making that up. For a guy who's a gifted athletically........he sure looks anything but athletic at times. It's really hard to figure.

When is it going to stop...Campbell could take us to the super bowl and people would still say put Brennan in! Campbell is our man just like Obama is our president! Support them!

So regardless of how I feel or what I believe, I should follow blindly like a lemming, and take the dive?

I should "support" someone simply because they're the one in charge? Says who? By that rationale, we'd still be English and not American! (no offense to my friends across the pond....GHH!! ) No thanks. I'd rather have the freedom to support, or not support anyone I wish. By the way, support, much like respect, is earned. There's a certain amount of respect associated with the positions themselves.........but beyond that you've got to prove something to me before I'll bang the gong for you.

This is possibly one of the worst arguments to support our offensive "leader", or anything else for that matter, I've heard. If you wish to be a mindless follower........that's your right, and I've fought for your right to make that choice. I choose logic, instead. (I'm using the word "mindless" for impact. Not suggesting YOU are mindless......so don't take offense)

[Pounds]

Sorry guys, but I have to agree with Mahons21. Whether we have a defense with high take-aways or not, a defense that can hold our opponents scoring down means they are giving our offense the chance to score. Take-aways are nice, but a team that stops a TD and only gives FGs will demoralize our opponents offense.

With all due respect, Hawaiian Time, I can’t tell you enough how much I disagree with your above statement.

Cliché as it may be to say, but football is a game of field position. As such, turnovers, or field flipping plays, are paramount to the overall success of a team. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there exists a clear and distinct correlation between turnovers and winning percentage.

Average defenses stop opposing offenses from scoring. Good defenses generate turnovers while stopping opposing offenses from scoring and great defenses generate turnovers and score points themselves, while stopping opposing offenses from scoring.

By this above definition you can see that the ‘Skins have an average defense.

Many people quantify good/bad as it relates to defensive performance through the measure of how many points said defense allows. This is wrong.

Marks such as the aforementioned are as faulty and unreliable, as they are deceptive. They are endemic of an approach, which runs counter to the essence of defense: giving the ball back to the offense as quickly as possible without allowing a score. I submit to you that the 18.5 points our defense allowed per game were largely the result of a close-to-the-vest and safe defensive approach; again, a philosophy which contradicts the very nature of defense. I can see way an offense should proceed and operate with caution, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why a defense would operate the same way. I’d much rather see a defense that allows 20-22 points a game, but plays more aggressively and turns the ball over at a much higher rate.

Defenses are best viewed in the vein of the aid they afford the offense. Allowing an opposing offense some dink-and-dunk scoring inevitability is no help it’s a detriment, one, which, in it of itself, is demoralizing.

*As an aside, Jim Schwartz, coach of the Detroit Lions was quoted, in the New York Times, as saying that his own research has shown that fumbles are a "random occurrence" and that moreover a good team is as likely to fumble as a bad one is. Suffice it to say that the same cannot be said of INTs.

[Mahons21]

Game winning drives. It's all up to the QB. It's on his shoulders. The scheme, the playcalling, the performances of his ten teammates -- none of it matters. It's all on the QB.

Do I understand you correctly?

-No where did I ever say that? But yes I do think qb's are the most important factor on game winning drives.

-Many other qb's have led multiple game winning drives, with less talent surrounding them.

[Mahons21]

No, this is what I said: "You won't get much agreement on your opinion from people who understand football stats."

The intent was to rank defenses intelligently using statistics was it not?

How is it logical that the task has to be limited to only one statistic?

No, I referred you to a website that did a better job of ranking defenses than the way you are doing it. Takeaways are just one important factor in the ranking.

Your stat puts all the blame for the lack of scoring unfairly on the offense while not crediting the offense with the good work it did in helping the defense.

-No, someone said what our defense was ranked according to ypg, I stated that ppg is a better stat indicator, and if you like a teams according to ppg the defenses are ranked quite accurately in my opinion. You however took it upon yourself to discredit my information, and say people who know about football stats don't use ppg.

-Looking at your website, it apears PHI is apparently a better D than TEN, as is MIN. And TB has a better D than CHI, and NYG? If I am reading this correctly credibility for this group stats is slowly going down the hill for me...

-Sorry you can't credit the offense for the field position they give you but, its a defensive stat, it measures how many points the DEFENSE is allowing while they are on the field.

-The same type of argument can be made against almost every stat, because football is a team game, and stats can't show you every aspect. Thats why there is always more to the story and why I in general don't like the use of stats.