Califan007 The Constipated Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 I keep reading this statement again and again on threads...as well as this nugget of wisdom: "The only team in the NFL that wants Campbell is the Redskins." Why do people keep saying either of these things? As for the 1st statement: The only team we know of that did not want Campbell was the Broncos. But as Bang pointed out on another thread, they also didn't want Cutler lol. Does it mean anything that the Broncos didn't want Cutler, didn't want Campbell...but DID want Kyle Orton? I mean, how many of you would have gotten excited if you woke up yesterday morning and heard that Snyder and Vinny traded Campbell to the Bears and got Orton to replace him? And we wouldn't have received any extra draft picks because, you know, obviously Orton is a better QB than Campbell, right? Since the Broncos think so then "everyone in the NFL" must think this as well...in fact, we probably would have had to sweeten the deal and also give the Bears our 3rd round or 5th round draft pick, at minimum. Would that be cool with you? Of the other 30 teams in the league, the only other team that weighed in on the matter was the Cleveland Browns, who apparently did want Jason Campbell. So since when does "Broncos don't want Jason Campbell" = "Nobody in the NFL wants Jason Campbell"? As for the 2nd statement: So the Skins are the "only team in the league who wants Jason Campbell"?...Is that why the Skins were trying to get rid of him? lol Since when does "Trying to trade Jason Campbell away" = "Wanting to keep Jason Campbell as the QB"?...Doesn't that seem at least a little contradictory? If any of you have posted either of these comments, I'd love some clarity lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the12thSkin Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 their is a reason no one has responded, ill just leave it at that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 As more details come out, many of the trade scenarios written, are proving to have been more speculation than fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 yawn. one incontrovertible FACT is that trade talks were held. the other incontrovertible FACT is that JC has not been offered an extension to date. draw your own conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RED06 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 They won't respond to a thread that calls their Jason Campbell bashing, and whinning to task! LOL RED06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RED06 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 yawn.one incontrovertible FACT is that trade talks were held. the other incontrovertible FACT is that JC has not been offered an extension to date. draw your own conclusions. This only proved that you don't have an answer to the OP's statement! We also didn't offer D'Angelo Hall an extention until minutes before free agency started, so your point is what? RED06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted April 4, 2009 Author Share Posted April 4, 2009 yawn.one incontrovertible FACT is that trade talks were held. the other incontrovertible FACT is that JC has not been offered an extension to date. draw your own conclusions. Another incontrovertible FACT is that neither of those things has anything whatsoever to do with what I asked. One last incontrovertible FACT is that not really addressing the topic is usually par for the course with you lol :cool:... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mchoggs47 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 The best thing to come out of this may be that JC gets the picture that this is really his last chance to prove to not only the redskins, but the NFL that he's worthy of a starting position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972FAN Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 The best thing to come out of this may be that JC gets the picture that this is really his last chance to prove to not only the redskins, but the NFL that he's worthy of a starting position. Absolutely it's make or break time. The only thing I'll add is "IF" it goes bad I believe Zorn will packing as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudechain Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 I just don't understand why people get so up in arms at due diligence. Let's say your the CEO of a business, if you did not explore all options to improve your business, then you would not be performing your duties. It's the same for a football team. If a player becomes available, it's completely reasonable to explore the possibilities and how it could impact your organization. I am pretty sure more of these exploratory conversations go on than are reported, but it's still reasonable to assume these talks do go on. As for Jason and his status, it is make or break time. While he has shown consistent improvement in his game, I suspect Campbell 's incremental improvement expectations were less than expected. I do realize that it takes eleven guys performing as a unit to excel on the field. And they looked pretty good the first part of the season. However, injuries had something to do with the derailing of the offense last season. The team addressed this need in the form of Dockery during free agency, but I expect a draft pick along the offensive line. This team also had some issues at receiver, and it's imperative the young receivers step up their game too. I think they play a large part in Jason's success this upcoming season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Stupid Loser Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Absolutely it's make or break time. The only thing I'll add is "IF" it goes bad I believe Zorn will packing as well. Last year this time most were saying it was his make or break year. And some even the year before that. Guess we get to suffer through his 5th year of being a "young QB" with all the typical excuses rehashed. But at least we will win enough games again this year to prevent us from having a shot at the top QB next draft. Not good enough to win anything. Not bad enough to gain anything. Been a long 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 I keep reading this statement again and again on threads...as well as this nugget of wisdom: "The only team in the NFL that wants Campbell is the Redskins."Why do people keep saying either of these things? Where's the mystery? Posters have made dumb arguments on both sides of the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 It doesn't matter, its water under the bridge now, its time to lace up the cleats and get ready to go to war this year with our dissed QB who will light the NFC on fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 It doesn't matter, its water under the bridge now, its time to lace up the cleats and get ready to go to war this year with our dissed QB who will light the NFC on fire. yup, I think several posters have created a dystopian quarterback situation that just doesn't reflect reality. Campbell has one year to prove if he's our guy, but for that year he has my full support because he is one of our guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 I think its more like "no one wanted to give up a second rounder for Jason Campbell". I think thats probably fair enough at this point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdlives Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 I think its more like "no one wanted to give up a second rounder for Jason Campbell".I think thats probably fair enough at this point in time. There's actually no proof of that either. In all likelyhood, any trade of Campbell would have been contingent on us getting Cutler. The rest of it is sheer speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Cali, we constantly see people posting their opinions and biases and CALLING them facts. Either they are "bent" and can't tell the difference or they just don't care if they essentially vent and spew and lie like 4 yr olds having a tantrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomE Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 I agree with the sentiment that the Broncos "screwed the pooch" and lost their franchise quarterback due to the ineptness of their new regime. Because of this, I place little value on their feelings toward Campbell. As far as the “no one wants Campbell and any price” yapping by the usual suspects, I call BS. The most reasonable scenario I've read about involving the Skins was the Browns/ Quinn three way deal, it is now apparent that the Bears trumped that bid. It is doubtful that we’ll know for sure that the Skins shopped Campbell around just to get rid of him but I suspect that his departure would have been contingent upon the Skins getting Cutler and nothing less. This limits the trade parameters involving Campbell and team wanting Campbell may not have been able to package the bid for Cutler. In the end, all of this stuff just means that Campbell has been put on notice that his starting position and his tenure as a Skin depends on his performance this season. The Skins have expressed this and Campbell has accepted the challenge, good for him. If Campbell succeeds then he’ll get his rewards as a Skin or elsewhere. If nothing else, the Skins have allowed “potential” the opportunity to develop in a trial by fire of a different sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 There's actually no proof of that either. In all likelyhood, any trade of Campbell would have been contingent on us getting Cutler. The rest of it is sheer speculation. I suppose it is, It would have been hard to get any trade value for JC anyway if we had signed Cutler. Most teams would know he'd be heading out of the door soon after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoudMouth12thMan Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 I would put myself in the "Campbell supporter/hope he does well" category and I'm finding it hard to find more than three or four teams that would want him. Here's why: He hasn't proven that he is a winner. He hasn't made a lot of game winning plays or drives. He appears to be the quiet type and not the vocal leader that one might want at the position. Need I go on? I believe that he has "It" in him, but for whatever reason, there's no evidence that "It" exists. I'm just going on a hunch and the fact that he, sadly, is still learning. It's probably very true that "nobody" wants Campbell. From an executive standpoint or a coaching standpoint, I'm not sure that I see the value in trading to get Campbell. There is really no evidence of upside other than a game or two. That's the facts, Jack :whoknows: Again, I'm definitely pulling for J Cam in that I hope he does well this year, takes that next step, and gets a worthy contract, to boot, if he performs well. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Other teams knew that you can bend the Skins over in trades. If the Skins had gotten Cutler and Campbell wasn't part of that Original trade. Then another team could wait and get Campbell for next to nothing. That simple. Snyder and Vinny are AWFUL at this trade game and everybody knows it now. Its like a table of adults and one 6 year old playing poker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky52Mc Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 yawn.one incontrovertible FACT is that trade talks were held. the other incontrovertible FACT is that JC has not been offered an extension to date. draw your own conclusions. I think the problem here is the fact that these morons are drawing their on conclusions. I'd say it's a safe bet to say that Jason Campbell isn't signed to a long-term extension either for cap purposes or because they're not sold on him yet. Rodgers signed his extension last year and it was smart to hold off on Campbell. Nothing is going to change the fact that he's under contract one more year here unless our FO says so. Campbell isn't going to get up and leave and not play for us like a little kid. Jason Campbell still has to prove he's got what it takes. Me being a Campbell supporter I think it's rather smart of the FO to hold off and not sign him yet. I know a lot of the Packers fans wish they didn't do the same to Rodgers as he began to sink into the season as well (they went 7-9 btw with a pick heavy defense.) It doesn't matter if these trade talks or no extension = Campbell upset/frustrated/nervous. Because honestly if your franchise QB can't withhold and control all these things, then he's not a franchise QB. Nothing can be answered as of now, we have to wait and see what rolls around in the season and see if he really does deserve it. Training camp won't prove it, these forums can't prove it, you can't prove it, pre-season can't prove it, no one can. Just let things happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Other teams knew that you can bend the Skins over in trades. If the Skins had gotten Cutler and Campbell wasn't part of that Original trade. Then another team could wait and get Campbell for next to nothing. That simple. Exactly right. Campbell held little 'value' to us in this trade scenario. Perhaps our lack of picks, in particular this years 2nd didn't help either. I'm sure we'd have thrown that in the deal somewhere.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSHRedskins3ATLBraves3 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 First, let me say I'm a JC supporter and I think he should get one more year to prove himself. However, the OP is wrong when he says the Broncos didn't want Jay Cutler. They tried to convince him to say, but you can't keep someone on your team who publicly blasts you and says he doesn't want to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 also, something else that Jason said about being the QB that Mr. Snyder wants. After a decade, I still think that most fans here understand the "football" side of things better than Mr. Snyder. The type of player he wants seems to always be the type he doesn't have. But he never seems to look at the people who acquire these players from the start. How is it Jason's fault and not Vinny? Or god forbid......Joe Gibbs who saw Jason as a player that could develop into a really good QB. Mr. Snyder needs to get out of the War Room and work on marketing the Skins in this area. I work downtown and see every other team in (including MLS) advertised all over the place. Especially the Caps and Bullets these days. If you didn't know Washington had a football team, you couldn't tell by being downtown. You have guys like Portis and Cooley who are very marketable guys. They should be selling Underarmour and stuff like that on the sides of metrobuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.