Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 You slightly misunderstood my original post Om man as regards this in that I wasn't suggesting Campbell was a Snyder pick. He was Coaches' man all the way. The rest of it you read perfectly. What I was alluding to there with the "hand picked" line, which maybe could of been worded better for clarity, was that it's common opinion, not least after what Fassel had to say, that the ownership more or less stipulated the new HC, whom ever that may be, had to play Jason last year come what may. So there was no QB competition to speak of, and won't be yet again this year, by Zorn's own admission. (Though that may be as much on Zorn this time out as anything else.). If your privy in anyway to that not being the truth, then I take it back. That's what I was asking. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Not to butt in but I'm of the opinion that Gibbs picked Jason Campbell to be the QB and the reason we drafted him. In addition, when the coaching hunt began one of the reasons we interviewed so many people was due in part to the fact that all of the candidates for the position said they either wanted an open QB competition in camp or they wanted Todd Collins to start both of which Snyder did not want and it was Snyder who wanted the job to be Campbells. Zorn agreed and the deal was set. Am I correct or wrong on either of these two points? You're correct in that Gibbs picked Jason. I'm not sure that was ever really in question, which is why I was surprised to see GHH suggest it. As to how Campbell's being here played into the head coaching hire, the way you lay it out is certainly possible, but I don't believe there's any evidence as to what if any role it played with any given coaching interview. I'd like to think the coaching interview process delved a little bit deeper than that ... but then, as some are quick to point out, I've been known to overthink these things and suggest that they are not always black and white. Meaning, I'm in no position to say if you're "right or wrong" about that part. Only Vinny, Dan Snyder, Jim Zorn and the other candidates could answer that for you meaninfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 You're correct in that Gibbs picked Jason. I'm not sure that was ever really in question, which is why I was surprised to see GHH suggest it.As to how Campbell's being here played into the head coaching hire, the way you lay it out is certainly possible, but I don't believe there's any evidence as to what if any role it played with any given coaching interview. I'd like to think the coaching interview process delved a little bit deeper than that ... but then, as some are quick to point out, I've been known to overthink these things and suggest that they are not always black and white. Meaning, I'm in no position to say if you're "right or wrong" about that part. Only Vinny, Dan Snyder, Jim Zorn and the other candidates could answer that for you meaninfully. I could have swore I read something from one of the hires, maybe it was Gregg Williams who said this. I'm going to digg into that. Thank you as always for your response :helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 You slightly misunderstood my original post Om man as regards this in that I wasn't suggesting Campbell was a Snyder pick. He was Coaches' man all the way.The rest of it you read perfectly. What I was alluding to there with the "hand picked" line, which maybe could of been worded better for clarity, was that it's common opinion, not least after what Fassel had to say, that the ownership more or less stipulated the new HC, whom ever that may be, had to play Jason last year come what may. So there was no QB competition to speak of, and won't be yet again this year, by Zorn's own admission. (Though that may be as much on Zorn this time out as anything else.). If your privy in anyway to that not being the truth, then I take it back. That's what I was asking. Hail. I vaguely remember Fassel talking a lot after the fact, and I think I might even remember the suggestion you're making. I'll be honest, I have no strong sense one way the other if it was true (Fassel's a strange cat, I'm not sure what I believe about what comes out of his mouth), accurate, or most likely, just one part of the equation. Regardless, maybe it's true that that's the sense he walked away from. So assuming that's the case ... To me there are two parts of even that equation. One is the understanding that Zorn agreed to go INTO the season with JC as the starter. Meaning, he doesn't get traded and is the presumptive starter heading to camp. The other is whether or not, based on what happened on the field between the start of training camp and the end of the regular season, he agreed going in that Campbell was the starter no matter what. I'm willing to believe the first part. In fact, I'm not sure in Snyder's shoes I wouldn't have at least made noises about that myself, given the time and financial investment in JC since he was drafted. The second part, though ... I don't believe there's any evidence or reason to believe or state it's "fact" that Zorn did not have the option to bench Campbell as the season progressed if he felt Collins or Colt would have given him a better chance to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 :rotflmao:I wish I lived in bubba's fantasy land. :hysterical: Wow you proved me wrong :thumbsup: I mean you disputed my statement with logic and fact...... oh wait no you didn't, you just used the old "try to discredit, because I can't disprove" bull **** defense A little common sense and logical thinking..... you state publicly JC is your QB, you (team) are not going to trade for another QB, Nor Draft a QB.... not coach speak, not talking in vague "if's or probably's" but as a certain fact. Now the Skins do what Zorn states as a fact they wouldn't..... guess how the media reacts.... not to mention the creditability hit he would take, he would look like a huge boob :secret: remember the media beat down Vinny took for saying he hadn't talked to Miami, while they where discussing the trade. Even though he announced he lied to prevent another team to drive the trade cost up... and only lied for a couple hours.... he was raked over the coals, and still is a target in the media, and by this board over it yeah, I LIVE IN FANTASY LAND :jerk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The second part, though ... I don't believe there's any evidence or reason to believe or state it's "fact" that Zorn did not have the option to bench Campbell as the season progressed if he felt Collins or Colt would have given him a better chance to win. Maybe's I'm being too skeptical, and with what little they actually do tell us, most all of it is speculation; but given everything together, (the Coaching search and the way Zorn ended up with the job, almost by default if you like, allied to Fassel's comments, be they true or not; and not least the average, to be kind, production from the position), I can't help but go back to the amount of times I heard Vinny saying on his weekly radio spot "Jason is our man", right the way through last season. That say's to me that the option was out of the Z-Man's hands, if he wanted it or not, shrugs. But then who knows, he may of actually believed a change would of benefited nobody, as is his prerogative and right as the HC of the team, and my skepticism may be unfounded. (As he has as regards this year before the '08 NFL season had even finished, which I find inexcusable after the catostrophic collapse of last season, to not even have a competition, but that's a whole other debate.). I guess it comes down to what you ultimately think personally, as unless, as you said previous Mark, your either Dan Snyder, Vinny Cerrato or Jim Zorn, we'll never know. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaganaut Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I said about three months ago that that every new coach gets a fresh shiny quarterback on the Skins. People tried to take it out on my butt, but I fought back and got in everyone's face. Not so out of the question now is it? Apologies please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenic Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 He got injured, and TC got us the rest of the way there. I guess you can make the argument that he put us in position to make a run at it, but TC really is the one who got us there. Then he bombed in the game vs Seattle that was terribly upsetting because we held it close until he had 2 Pick 6's. Damn that game sucked. Yeh.. I can't believe Santana lost the ball in the lights. Apparently, TC shouldn't have thrown his way. That's a good example of how QB's & WR's get used to eachother and what they might due in certain situations. man.. what a crap game. If i remember correctly, Seattle's DL tore us up that game. bad memories.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins:Victory_or_Death Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 :secret: remember the media beat down Vinny took for saying he hadn't talked to Miami, while they where discussing the trade.That was my point. The second part of your statement read to me as, paraphrased, "The FO would never lie to our faces". I simply was arguing that part of that statement. If I misread your intent and the second half is applicable only to Zorn's statement and not other things the FO has said in general, I'll man up and admit I misunderstood you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenic Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 How very curious. Care to elaborate Sir, or are we leaving it that, that common held opinion is wrong, on both this and the Coaching search?Hail. do what? You're better off not using commas at all. Infact, you may want to consider removing the comma from your keyboard entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 One is the understanding that Zorn agreed to go INTO the season with JC as the starter. Meaning, he doesn't get traded and is the presumptive starter heading to camp. The other is whether or not, based on what happened on the field between the start of training camp and the end of the regular season, he agreed going in that Campbell was the starter no matter what. I'm willing to believe the first part. In fact, I'm not sure in Snyder's shoes I wouldn't have at least made noises about that myself, given the time and financial investment in JC since he was drafted. The second part, though ... I don't believe there's any evidence or reason to believe or state it's "fact" that Zorn did not have the option to bench Campbell as the season progressed if he felt Collins or Colt would have given him a better chance to win. Not direct evidence after the season started.Its hard not to believe it though: ""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." Plus Jason played every single snap. It started getting a little odd when I watched Jason go out for the last drive with 1 minute left against the Steelers down 3 scores after taking a horrible beating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaSkins21 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I think this a huge smoke screen because IF they actually they actually go ahead and take a QB with the 13th pick, Campbell is going to be on an incredibly short leash and the season is basically a lost cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 id lol like a banshee if we drafted sanchez at 13. it would 100% say this team does not think campbell is the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzalez_p Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 In my opinion we should draft for the offensive side of the ball, and our greatest area of need appears to be RT or possibly RG. I don’t think Randy Thomas post surgery or the duo of Heyer and Jansen are good enough to protect JC for the 2009 season. I don’t think JC played particularly well even when we were 6-2. When we were 2- 6 down the stretch his protection was certainly inadequate for all but the best QBs in the league. We need to give him more time. I’d like to see us pick up JC’s replacement for (2010) this year. Why? JC will either walk in 2010 leaving the skins with a big question mark at QB, or command more than he is worth with the franchise tag. I’d hate to draft a rookie QB in 2010 that starts the same year, too much bust potential. In either case his replacement should come this year to be groomed for the starting role and preferably with some o’line upgrades. I believe Vinny sees the situation in a similar light. Scary thought...:evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newera Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Listen, the Front Office always plays the media game. Of course, they are going to deny any interest in Cutler. Most teams do. Things leak. You know, we won't Jason back, then release him. I never trust what they say. So everything is speculation. However, it's obvious the Redskins have some concerns with Jason, otherwise they would have extended him. They haven't. That say's a lot. We still in prove yourself phase with him. Yet this is his last year. That's dicey at best. The top teams in this league get strong quarterback play. The Redskins need a guy to take the helm and man the position the next ten years. We have not had that in decades. Lord knows we've tried with Shuler, Ferrortte, Green (who would have been the guy, but left), Ramsey, Campbell. None have been steller. Sometimes you get lucky. Perhaps Brennan could be us getting lucky. Or perhaps Sanchez. Who knows. Here's what we do know, if Jason does not work out, this team is trouble. Back to square one. You have 39 old quarterback backing him up on the last year of his contract and Brennan -- who could work out. Leaving realistically with one quarterback. My point: I don't think our working out Sanchez is totally smoke screening. We probably do have some interest -- and could pull the trigger. He's a prototypical west coast offense quarterback and Zorn may like him. But it's probably baiting as well. Personally I think if we can get someone to bite for the pick and they give us what we want (say a third) -- I think a guy like Pat White could have some merit running a west coast style offense as well. Apparently his stock is moving up. I do think we need another young quarterback for insurance if Jason does not work out. I am eager to see how Jason does perform this year. Colt has an extra year in the system which could only help him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 yep.... Mark "Dirty" Sanchez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemocystem Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 it's smoke & mirrors people. i don't believe for a minute we're actually interested in Sanchez...unless it gets us more draft picks. which is the point of this "leak" if there actually is such a thing. that's the only thing that makes sense. trying to make somebody at around 17-25 with a surpluss of picks think that there's more value in pick 13 for them in order to move up & get Sanchez. even so, this will fail miserably because i don't think anybody believes for a decasecond we're even remotely serious about getting a QB in the 1st rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsince72 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Well, if they are going to target a QB, it may very well be one already in the NFL. See NFL.com for more info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Well, if they are going to target a QB, it may very well be one already in the NFL. See NFL.com for more info. One can only hope '72. One can only hope..... Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsince72 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 One can only hope '72. One can only hope..... Hail. Yes sir. One thing though. I don't think Cutler would want to go to an organization that makes deals behind their QB's back. Or maybe there is more to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWJ Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 One can only hope '72. One can only hope..... Hail. Were Cutler goes, Shanny might follow???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWJ Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Yes sir. One thing though. I don't think Cutler would want to go to an organization that makes deals behind their QB's back. Or maybe there is more to it. If we get him I think he will know that Shanny will be here. Cutler would be fine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsince72 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Were Cutler goes, Shanny might follow???? Uh oh!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laron Burgundy Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Hahaha, slide jansen to left tackle. OK! That might be the dumbest thing EVER in a sports article. And I hope we don't draft Sanchez. One year wonder qb's pretty much never work out in the nfl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.