Newera Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Actually it really does not matter what we think. This will play out over the next six months. But let's read between the lines. Bubba, you obviously seem to be a stat guy. I will admit, I have not done my due diligence in regard to all of Jason's stats. However, I would be curious to know what his stats where when we went 2 - 6. I don't care about all the stats for the whole season. If anything, Jason has been inconsistent and average. I just want more from my quarterback. The Redskins have been in this funk for the last 17 years in regard to the quarterback position. Everyone clamored for Ramsey like this as well, and we see what has happened to his career. I put Jason in a comparable category. Average. In sports if I'm not mistaken, it's not how you start, but how you close the counts. You know, how do you perform when the chips are down. A-Rod is a stat machine, but has shown a history for choking during crunch time. Personally to me, a team that goes 6-2 the first half of the season and does not make the playoffs is a colosal collapse. Blame goes everywhere. There were no excuses for that. The good news is that we will find all our answers this year. However, it's quite obvious what the FO really think about Jason. They're not sure. You can't deny that. No extension. Look seriously at Cutler, Leftwrich and Sanchez. Then you add Denver had no "Real" interest and preferred Orten. Which all to me say's, they're (meaning the front office) is open to change -- if only for insurance. Also Jason is not Zorn's hand chosen like perhaps a Sanchez would be. Colt already is. Jason is under a lot of pressure this year. He's playing for his NFL starting career. We will see how he does. For his sake, I hope he proves me wrong like Rypien did in 92. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KokoMike Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I kind of agree with old school Greg Blache's view as stated here: statistics are for losers. Credit: Washington Post last year. "We don't worry about numbers here," he said. "Statistics are for losers. I'm not a stat guy. I'm not interested in them, because you can do anything you want with numbers, you can manipulate them, and work around with them. Look at all the financial [problems] we're having in Wall Street right now. That's all those guys lying and playing with numbers. And now all of us are suffering. So I don't believe in numbers, because any crook can play with numbers....It angers me. You know? That's the whole thing, people play with numbers." "When the game's over, I'll look at the flip sheet, the play-by-play," he said. "I want to see what the turnover ratio was, what we did on third downs, what we did in the red zone. But past that, we've got boards and boards up in our meeting room, I don't pay any attention to those statistics. If you won, what does it all mean? And if you lost, what does it all mean? "When you lose, you go to statistics, 'Well, we did this well.' You're making an excuse. I don't see the sense in it, and I cringe when I sit in a meeting and I hear coaches spouting off their statistics. To me, it doesn't make any sense. It's like they're grading themselves. Our job is to win and lose football games. And on Sunday, you either won it or you lost it. The rest of it's for you guys to write about. You know? For me, you either win or you lose; you don't get second place because you had great stats....I've been around a ton of guys that will just sit and spout their statistics. Drives me crazy. It's meaningless." The following is from me: Statistics are for losers, unless you win. Then, it is a lot of fun. Otherwise, it is a con. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Statistics are for losers, unless you win. Then, it is a lot of fun. Otherwise, it is a con. Stats are not an answer to everything, but used correctly can help breakdown a player's or team's abilities, or problem areas. They are an aid in any argument, and are great at proving wrong, unfounded bias criticisms Most people complain about stats, when the stats don't agree with their own perception or opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Bubba, you obviously seem to be a stat guy. I will admit, I have not done my due diligence in regard to all of Jason's stats. However, I would be curious to know what his stats where when we went 2 - 6. http://www.nfl.com/stats/player?seasonId=2008&seasonType=REG&Submit=Go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Personally I think Sanchez right now is a bigger risk than Colt was a year ago, and we snagged him in the 6th. I think Sanchez looks like he has the makup to eventually be a good QB in the league but it has to be a perfect situation for him, he just looks like a WCO type of QB, but tough to tell with the limited playing time he has had against some pretty bad teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Redskins Fan Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Personally I think Sanchez right now is a bigger risk than Colt was a year ago' date=' and we snagged him in the 6th.I think Sanchez looks like he has the makup to eventually be a good QB in the league but it has to be a perfect situation for him, he just looks like a WCO type of QB, but tough to tell with the limited playing time he has had against some pretty bad teams.[/quote'] and that is my assement of Mark Vincent Chase Sanchez as well and the redskijns are not a perfect situation... but this dumb front oofice will trade up if he is ther around eight so. i am praying he goes four and the end the damn thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWCREDSKINS Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Saves us another disaster. I'm releived because all signing Leftwich would've done is create more controversy. Jason Campbell basically has 2009 to prove himself or both he and Zorn will be gone and we'll likely have to trade for a QB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyfar Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Leftwich was trash anyway I wouldnt' neccessarily say that he's trash but I wouldn't want him to come in and bet the one who's competing for the job with Campbell. There was a reason that the Jags abruptly removed him from his role as the starter. Besides, with the way all of the Campbell naysayers ***** about his delivery and inability to move in the pocket, Leftwich would be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rk3025 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 We could not afford Leftwich so could not out bid Pittsburgh or Tampa Bay Bringing in Leftwich would have been a mistake. It would have created too much of a distraction for Campbell. Hopefully most people realize Brennan is not ready yet so while it could be a bit of a distraction, not as much of one as if Leftwich was waiting. Campbell needs another full year under center in the same system. It generally takes 3 years for a QB to grasp the NFL and prove if he has it or not. He has only played in one full season. Give the man some time and a fair chance to prove it. I dont get the Campbell haters, he hasnt even been given a fair chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.