Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WP: Redskins to Reassure Campbell (Dan and Vinny to meet with QB)


SMOSS89

Recommended Posts

BLC, I think you're making some excellent points. I think a change in quarterback can change the entire identity of the offense. When Mark Brunell was healthy, our offense looked impressive. That same offense didn't look nearly as impressive with Patrick Ramsey in the preseason.

The same goes for Todd Collins during the 2007-2008 season. He may not have had the arm strength that Campbell had, but he made quick decisions and threw accurately. The biggest difference between Collins and Campbell was that Collins would throw to spots where his receiver would be, even if that receiver was not open at the time of the throw. It was all about timing and anticipation - - reading the defense and getting rid of the ball quickly. I'm not sure Campbell does that as well as he should.

I like Campbell and have been rooting for him since we drafted him. However, he hasn't shown me anything that leads me to believe he can be a franchise quarterback. Perhaps he will prove me wrong, but the evidence doesn't seem to suggest that. I'd like to see what Colt can do with the starting offense. It could be very exciting to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Redskins lead runner was Rock Cartwright, and the Skins got themselves in trade talks for a young, talented runner, would you be all that concerned? Rock is a key Skin. He's a leader. He's well liked. And, in a lead runner role, would likely be as largely unproductive as Campbell at QB.

Jay Cutler just went for two firsts and a third AND a starting QB from another team.

It's unlikely the Redskins could get a second rounder for Campbell.

There is no comparision in the league between where the two players are perceived to be. We may have reasonable hope Campbell emerges, but, checking in for Cutler given how poor our play at QB has been is not exactly horrible.

I continue to be astounded by people who think we should treat Campbell like an established QB when he's not that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Redskins lead runner was Rock Cartwright, and the Skins got themselves in trade talks for a young, talented runner, would you be all that concerned? Rock is a key Skin. He's a leader. He's well liked. And, in a lead runner role, would likely be as largely unproductive as Campbell at QB.

Jay Cutler just went for two firsts and a third AND a starting QB from another team.

It's unlikely the Redskins could get a second rounder for Campbell.

There is no comparision in the league between where the two players are perceived to be. We may have reasonable hope Campbell emerges, but, checking in for Cutler given how poor our play at QB has been is not exactly horrible.

I continue to be astounded by people who think we should treat Campbell like an established QB when he's not that yet.

Good points, Art. I agree. Sometimes, it's hard for Redskin fans to step back and objectively evaluate Redskin players. People don't want to admit that their favorite player might not be the superstar we all hoped they would be. The draft is a game of chance. Some players pan out, others do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BLC, I think you're making some excellent points. I think a change in quarterback can change the entire identity of the offense. When Mark Brunell was healthy, our offense looked impressive. That same offense didn't look nearly as impressive with Patrick Ramsey in the preseason.

The same goes for Todd Collins during the 2007-2008 season. He may not have had the arm strength that Campbell had, but he made quick decisions and threw accurately. The biggest difference between Collins and Campbell was that Collins would throw to spots where his receiver would be, even if that receiver was not open at the time of the throw. It was all about timing and anticipation - - reading the defense and getting rid of the ball quickly. I'm not sure Campbell does that as well as he should.

I like Campbell and have been rooting for him since we drafted him. However, he hasn't shown me anything that leads me to believe he can be a franchise quarterback. Perhaps he will prove me wrong, but the evidence doesn't seem to suggest that. I'd like to see what Colt can do with the starting offense. It could be very exciting to watch.

How long was Collins in the Saunders system?

I think his '07 performance shows the importance of keeping the QB in one system for longer than just one season. Let's see what JC can do in year 2 in the WCO. Everyone agrees this year is make or break for him, so I really don't get why people (not you necessarily) are so content with whining and crying over and over again about the same subject which they can do nothing about anyway, and parroting the same biased observations while clinging to the only stat which really gives any credence to their argument, and dismissing all other stats and occurrences as "excuses" mostly because they don't coincide with their opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Mark Brunell was healthy, our offense looked impressive.

I remember 2 plays in Dallas. Both to Santana Moss. Hail Mary's.

The rest of Mark Brunells history is forgettable INCLUDING the 33 yards passing against the Bucs in playoff game.

P.S. see an eye doctor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Redskins lead runner was Rock Cartwright, and the Skins got themselves in trade talks for a young, talented runner, would you be all that concerned? Rock is a key Skin. He's a leader. He's well liked. And, in a lead runner role, would likely be as largely unproductive as Campbell at QB.

Jay Cutler just went for two firsts and a third AND a starting QB from another team.

It's unlikely the Redskins could get a second rounder for Campbell.

There is no comparision in the league between where the two players are perceived to be. We may have reasonable hope Campbell emerges, but, checking in for Cutler given how poor our play at QB has been is not exactly horrible.

I continue to be astounded by people who think we should treat Campbell like an established QB when he's not that yet.

I agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember 2 plays in Dallas. Both to Santana Moss. Hail Mary's.

The rest of Mark Brunells history is forgettable INCLUDING the 33 yards passing against the Bucs in playoff game.

P.S. see an eye doctor.

Brunell was actually very good in 2005 until he was hit low in the Giants game in December, losing his mobility and his ability to really step into this throws. He never recovered from that, nor did the offense, despite streaking into the playoffs.

Don't let that stop you from your simplistic "Brunell = bad" thinking though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Redskins lead runner was Rock Cartwright, and the Skins got themselves in trade talks for a young, talented runner, would you be all that concerned? Rock is a key Skin. He's a leader. He's well liked. And, in a lead runner role, would likely be as largely unproductive as Campbell at QB.

Jay Cutler just went for two firsts and a third AND a starting QB from another team.

It's unlikely the Redskins could get a second rounder for Campbell.

There is no comparision in the league between where the two players are perceived to be. We may have reasonable hope Campbell emerges, but, checking in for Cutler given how poor our play at QB has been is not exactly horrible.

I continue to be astounded by people who think we should treat Campbell like an established QB when he's not that yet.

when im in agreement with art, theres something really wrong here. haha :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long was Collins in the Saunders system?

I think his '07 performance shows the importance of keeping the QB in one system for longer than just one season. Let's see what JC can do in year 2 in the WCO. Everyone agrees this year is make or break for him, so I really don't get why people (not you necessarily) are so content with whining and crying over and over again about the same subject which they can do nothing about anyway, and parroting the same biased observations while clinging to the only stat which really gives any credence to their argument, and dismissing all other stats and occurrences as "excuses" mostly because they don't coincide with their opinion.

i think the problem is why draw the line at this year elkabong? i mean, weve seen 36 starting games, why not 52? why not 89? i personally feel weve seen enough, you on the other hand feel he needs one more year. thats fine, we disagree. but why is 2 years in the WCO needed? why not 3? why not 8? i guess my question is, when is enough enough?

tavaris jackson has started 19 games. youd be hard pressed to find anyone on this board that thinks hes good. but thats only 19 games, does he need 45-50 like our QB does? why shouldnt jackson get his chance to start? the vikings already brought in sage rosenfels to compete with him. our guy doesnt even get competition, and gets an entire extra year to play, where jackson has only started 19 contests. in some eyes, that would be premature to have given up on him.

if jackson were our QB, would the thoughts be different? would he warrant more time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Redskins lead runner was Rock Cartwright, and the Skins got themselves in trade talks for a young, talented runner, would you be all that concerned? Rock is a key Skin. He's a leader. He's well liked. And, in a lead runner role, would likely be as largely unproductive as Campbell at QB.

Jay Cutler just went for two firsts and a third AND a starting QB from another team.

It's unlikely the Redskins could get a second rounder for Campbell.

There is no comparision in the league between where the two players are perceived to be. We may have reasonable hope Campbell emerges, but, checking in for Cutler given how poor our play at QB has been is not exactly horrible.

I continue to be astounded by people who think we should treat Campbell like an established QB when he's not that yet.

The comparison of Campbell to Cartwright merely confirms that you've already concluded that Campbell cannot develop beyond his present status, much like Cartwright. Your comparison only leads to one conclusion, and that's by design. Your bias is noted.

There are many of us who see neither Campbell nor Cutler as players who "should be treated as established QB's." Both are young, developing players. Cutler has shown more, but he's had more to work with. He's arguably an improvement in the short term, but I don't see his ceiling as being any higher than Campbell's and I'm not sure that he's that much better even now.

The idea of trading away a fortune for such a marginal and uncertain improvement is ludicrous to those of us with this view of those two players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is some interesting analogy. I'm reminded of watching the Steelers when they had Tommy "Mr. Comeback" Maddox, and this rookie from a MAC School named Ben came in when he was hurt and was like lightning in the bottle.

I think there are different tiers and types of Quarterbacks. Some are so good they can come in at moment and play, others need time to develop chemistry with their team, not sure what the third is, but you get the idea.

I Want to see what JC has this yaer (barring a trade in which case not much I can say about it.), but I honestly feel, that we have more fundamental problems on this team than the QB, and it began when we started going after guys like Deon, Bruce Smith, Archulletta, Lloyd, and Duckett.

I maintain, after 5 games if JC hasn't impressed, bench him for Colt, for at least one game. I wanted Brunnel Benched when we had a JV Texans team to play that year, and we waited till the season was gone to try JC out. If we had known more that season, or if he had more time then, maybe, just maybe things would have been different.

Its all water on the bridge now, we only have control over today, and not the past. I'm just not sure there is any way you can honestly compare Rock to JC. Two entirely different guys, now, JC has to show something this year. If not then don't resign him for anything but backup duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comparison of Campbell to Cartwright merely confirms that you've already concluded that Campbell cannot develop beyond his present status, much like Cartwright. Your comparison only leads to one conclusion, and that's by design. Your bias is noted.

There are many of us who see neither Campbell nor Cutler as players who "should be treated as established QB's." Both are young, developing players. Cutler has shown more, but he's had more to work with. He's arguably an improvement in the short term, but I don't see his ceiling as being any higher than Campbell's and I'm not sure that he's that much better even now.

The idea of trading away a fortune for such a marginal and uncertain improvement is ludicrous to those of us with this view of those two players.

It's true to say I think Campbell will never be great in Zorn's system because of how he plays. I believe he is still too slow in his drops and far too slow getting rid of the ball when he hits his step to be effective in that offense. At one point I thought Rock would be awesome as a lead runner in the Spurrier offense. Straight line speed, small, strong, good draw runner, etc.

I thought Ramsey would not be good in Spurrier's system, but would be great in Norv's. I think Campbell would actually do a nice job in Norv's or even in Baltimore's. That game where of their first 8 passes seven were over 20 yards in the air was fun to watch as it ultimately got us worn down and Campbell would be good in something like that. Not that he's a great deep ball thrower, but he's got a very nice intermediate game.

Now, like every fan of this team, I'm hopeful Campbell can put it all together with a little stability in the system. I'm hopeful he clicks in it and that the system itself is good enough to let him really hit the next level of player. But, your bias in Campbell's favor is frighteningly disconnected from reality.

Cutler was just in the Top 3 in the league in passing yards. He was seventh in touchdowns. The league clearly valued him at a very, very, very high amount. While we share hope Campbell has the same ceiling, Cutler has already shown the ability to do it. Not the potential to do it. The ability.

That is why everyone would reasonably judge Cutler more an established player than Campbell. Because he's actually proven he is. Campbell has not. When Campbell does, if it's for us, I'll be thrilled. But, let's not mistake our hope when clouding the reality of another.

Cutler has earned the nod in evaluating which player is superior. Cutler is. In performance for certain.

We have hope that won't always be the case. That's what we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come when Denver try trade Cutler, and he reacts, everyone call's him a "whinny ass" and worse, he should "grow up and be a man", and we shouldn't touch him with a barge pole. Yet when the 'Skins do the same, and try their hardest to replace Campbell, it's perceived we slighted Jason and owe him an apology.

How can it be one rule for one QB, and one rule for another?

I'll play dumb, pretend I never knew of the word "hypocrisy", and ask how this can be?

Just curious, shrugs.

Hail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true to say I think Campbell will never be great in Zorn's system because of how he plays. I believe he is still too slow in his drops and far too slow getting rid of the ball when he hits his step to be effective in that offense. At one point I thought Rock would be awesome as a lead runner in the Spurrier offense. Straight line speed, small, strong, good draw runner, etc.

I thought Ramsey would not be good in Spurrier's system, but would be great in Norv's. I think Campbell would actually do a nice job in Norv's or even in Baltimore's. That game where of their first 8 passes seven were over 20 yards in the air was fun to watch as it ultimately got us worn down and Campbell would be good in something like that. Not that he's a great deep ball thrower, but he's got a very nice intermediate game.

Now, like every fan of this team, I'm hopeful Campbell can put it all together with a little stability in the system. I'm hopeful he clicks in it and that the system itself is good enough to let him really hit the next level of player. But, your bias in Campbell's favor is frighteningly disconnected from reality.

Cutler was just in the Top 3 in the league in passing yards. He was seventh in touchdowns. The league clearly valued him at a very, very, very high amount. While we share hope Campbell has the same ceiling, Cutler has already shown the ability to do it. Not the potential to do it. The ability.

That is why everyone would reasonably judge Cutler more an established player than Campbell. Because he's actually proven he is. Campbell has not. When Campbell does, if it's for us, I'll be thrilled. But, let's not mistake our hope when clouding the reality of another.

Cutler has earned the nod in evaluating which player is superior. Cutler is. In performance for certain.

We have hope that won't always be the case. That's what we have.

Very,very , very high amount? Cutler tossed more interceptions than Campbell and the difference between their Qb rating was 1.7 points

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh GREAT idea.

Listen, JC is a mature individual who I don't think this trade talk has affected that much. He knows its a business, and unlike Cutler, he isn't 12. However, I bet the one thing he dislikes is dishonesty. I know if I were in his position, the whole trade thing would not bother me as much as the lying about their commitment. You tried to trade him, you would have if the price was right, so then don't go back to the media and talk about how committed you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutler you mentioned his stats.How about Int's? Where did he rank? How many did he toss?

Something like 18. Second most in the league on the second most passing attempts. I'm reasonably certainly you'd take 25 TDs, 18 INTs, 4500 yards over 13 TDs, 6 INTs and 3200 yards.

I do not believe Cutler is an elite QB yet. No one claims the 25-year-old Cutler is a perfect player. But, he's been substantially superior to our 27-year-old Campbell on the football field. It strains credulity to not recognize this.

It'd be like saying Portis is better than Peterson. No one can believe this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh GREAT idea.

Listen, JC is a mature individual who I don't think this trade talk has affected that much. He knows its a business, and unlike Cutler, he isn't 12. However, I bet the one thing he dislikes is dishonesty. I know if I were in his position, the whole trade thing would not bother me as much as the lying about their commitment. You tried to trade him, you would have if the price was right, so then don't go back to the media and talk about how committed you are.

Uhh, isn't that exactly what happened to Jay Cutler?

They tried to trade him for Matt Cassell, and then they went to the media and talked about how committed they were to Jay Cutler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true to say I think Campbell will never be great in Zorn's system because of how he plays. I believe he is still too slow in his drops and far too slow getting rid of the ball when he hits his step to be effective in that offense. At one point I thought Rock would be awesome as a lead runner in the Spurrier offense. Straight line speed, small, strong, good draw runner, etc.

I thought Ramsey would not be good in Spurrier's system, but would be great in Norv's. I think Campbell would actually do a nice job in Norv's or even in Baltimore's. That game where of their first 8 passes seven were over 20 yards in the air was fun to watch as it ultimately got us worn down and Campbell would be good in something like that. Not that he's a great deep ball thrower, but he's got a very nice intermediate game.

Now, like every fan of this team, I'm hopeful Campbell can put it all together with a little stability in the system. I'm hopeful he clicks in it and that the system itself is good enough to let him really hit the next level of player. But, your bias in Campbell's favor is frighteningly disconnected from reality.

Cutler was just in the Top 3 in the league in passing yards. He was seventh in touchdowns. The league clearly valued him at a very, very, very high amount. While we share hope Campbell has the same ceiling, Cutler has already shown the ability to do it. Not the potential to do it. The ability.

That is why everyone would reasonably judge Cutler more an established player than Campbell. Because he's actually proven he is. Campbell has not. When Campbell does, if it's for us, I'll be thrilled. But, let's not mistake our hope when clouding the reality of another.

Cutler has earned the nod in evaluating which player is superior. Cutler is. In performance for certain.

We have hope that won't always be the case. That's what we have.

Again with the passing yards! Aaron Rodgers was fourth on that list; Cassel was 8th. Kitna made the top-10 passing yards list twice in the last three years, as did Pennington. So what?

Using yards to evaluate a QB suffers the same sorts of pitfalls as using INT's to evaluate CB play. Often with a QB it means that he's on a lousy team that plays from behind a lot and that therefore has to pass (Cutler was 2nd in pass attempts on a team with a lousy defense and horrendous injuries to its RB corps).

In short, this sort of response does not at all refute my observations about Cutler, as a developing NFL QB, having far more similarities to Campbell than differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember 2 plays in Dallas. Both to Santana Moss. Hail Mary's.

The rest of Mark Brunells history is forgettable INCLUDING the 33 yards passing against the Bucs in playoff game.

P.S. see an eye doctor.

I don't think you're giving Mark Brunell a fair assessment for that season. The other seasons? Sure, he played very poorly. But he was playing at a very high level in 2005 until his knee was injured, at which point he couldn't plant his feet and get any power into his throws. Our offense proceeded to fall apart after that. He had 23 touchdowns and just 10 interceptions. Many felt he should have been a Pro Bowler. If you feel otherwise, however, that's your prerogative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will reassure to Campbell that both of them have no idea what they are doing.

I hope JC has a monster year and put the FO through the ringer with a new contract.

If JC looks bad and somehow Colt finds his way onto the field then all this is a mute point and the FO looks like they actually can evaluate talent. I doubt this will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the problem is why draw the line at this year elkabong? i mean, weve seen 36 starting games, why not 52? why not 89? i personally feel weve seen enough, you on the other hand feel he needs one more year. thats fine, we disagree. but why is 2 years in the WCO needed? why not 3? why not 8? i guess my question is, when is enough enough?

Well all the West Coast Gurus say it takes 3 years to build a WC QB. Why get into mindly hyperbole by throwing out an unreasonable number like 89?

Classically Ive heard coaches and ex players that its 30 or so starts in one system to see what you have.

And really, towards the end of his time in the Saunders system, we saw some of Campbell's best performances.

6 TDs, 3INTs, 1080 yards, 61% completions over a his last 4 games. Thats a good 4 game stretch, of course that gets lost because of late game turnovers, but at 26, thats par for the course. And its not like it was just a hot streak and he came back to earth. That was him growing in the system as he was leaned on more. And that was in that debacle that was the Saunders "offense"

And he came out hot this year leading the team to 6-2 while posting good, but not fantastic numbers. If you dont credit him with 6-2 then we wont argue about that. We will have to agree to disagree. However, if you do choose to accept that Campbell did indeed contribute to 6-2 then you might be saying then its his fault we went 6-2. At that point we would have to again agree to disagree. I dont think you can blame a collapse like that on one player. A few losses? Sure, but anything more is just a refusal to acknowledge a 53 man team.

tavaris jackson has started 19 games. youd be hard pressed to find anyone on this board that thinks hes good. but thats only 19 games, does he need 45-50 like our QB does? why shouldnt jackson get his chance to start? the vikings already brought in sage rosenfels to compete with him. our guy doesnt even get competition, and gets an entire extra year to play, where jackson has only started 19 contests. in some eyes, that would be premature to have given up on him.

if jackson were our QB, would the thoughts be different? would he warrant more time?

I dont really feel comfortable talking about a QB I dont watch often. What the Vikes do, the Vikes do. I dont really care about what they do nor do I think they are indicative of how a franchise should be run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...