Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 I thought it was his agent who made that statement. Doesn't the agent usually have a good sense of how the player feels before he opens up his mouth? I made that point earlier. It will be ignored. It's all about plausible denianility. Or good cop/bad cop. Or missionary/native girl. That last one might be something that may wife and I do on second thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Waterboy Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 It was all a smokescreen... I agree. Campbell was probably in on the misdirection. Sort of reminds me of the deception the Allies pulled off on D-Day getting the enemy to think that the actual invasion was going to happen up the coast. Pulling off a misdirection play can be a lot of fun and very rewarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Jason is an average to above average qb... No, he's not. He is below average to, at best, average. There is a reason that the Redskins have explored possibilities for upgrading the position and that his trade value is apparently not much more than a late round pick. Teams do not put a lot of effort in seeking to upgrade above average QBs. And, if they do, teams line up for the bidding to take him off your hands. The Redskins are trying to get superior performance from the QB position. There is nothing wrong, malicious, or inconsiderate in their attempt to do so. Honestly, I don't know how seeking to upgrade any position can ever be done in a gracious manner towards the incumbent. Campbell is not currently providing the level of desired play and it's his own performance that is at fault, not everyone else's. Everyone, including the FO, would love it if he stepped up and transformed himself into that sort of player. No one is rooting against him doing that. If it's Campbell that provides that level of performance, great. If he doesn't, though, bring someone else on. The last thing the team needs is a delicate flower at the QB position. That serves no purpose whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvtbred Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Maybe he did and this is damage control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THUNDERDOME Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 We were trying to trade up for Orakpo, but he fell to us. Not Sanchez. SMOKESCREEN. With the Jets trading up, they enabled someone to drop to us. Good thing it was the REAL guy we wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 I agree. Campbell was probably in on the misdirection. Sort of reminds me of the deception the Allies pulled off on D-Day getting the enemy to think that the actual invasion was going to happen up the coast.Pulling off a misdirection play can be a lot of fun and very rewarding. So...is his reward going to an extension? Or are you just talking out of your ass. Are we still misdirecting the league by saying that we looked into moving up to #4? What if Denver had called our bluff and accepted the trade for Cutler? Or were they in on the misdirection too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 No, he's not.He is below average to, at best, average. Jesus, man. You don't like Campbell. Got it. Everybody gets it. However, I don't think that there's a single person who's watched him who would say that he is "below average, average at best." That's just ridiculous. Some of you Campbell haters are just getting silly. There's a big difference between not liking his play and just bathing him in hyperbole. He's not Montana, but he's not Leaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvtbred Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 No, he's not.He is below average to, at best, average. There is a reason that the Redskins have explored possibilities for upgrading the position and that his trade value is apparently not much more than a late round pick. Teams do not put a lot of effort in seeking to upgrade above average QBs. And, if they do, teams line up for the bidding to take him off your hands. The Redskins are trying to get superior performance from the QB position. There is nothing wrong, malicious, or inconsiderate in their attempt to do so. Honestly, I don't know how seeking to upgrade any position can ever be done in a gracious manner towards the incumbent. Campbell is not currently providing the level of desired play and it's his own performance that is at fault, not everyone else's. Everyone, including the FO, would love it if he stepped up and transformed himself into that sort of player. No one is rooting against him doing that. If it's Campbell that provides that level of performance, great. If he doesn't, though, bring someone else on. The last thing the team needs is a delicate flower at the QB position. That serves no purpose whatsoever. Well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THUNDERDOME Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 What if Denver had called our bluff and accepted the trade for Cutler? Or were they in on the misdirection too? We could have easily turned it back down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvtbred Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Jesus, man. You don't like Campbell. Got it. Everybody gets it. However, I don't think that there's a single person who's watched him who would say that he is "below average, average at best." That's just ridiculous.Some of you Campbell haters are just getting silly. There's a big difference between not liking his play and just bathing him in hyperbole. He's not Montana, but he's not Leaf. Ah the "h" word again so predictable and your right he isn't Montana more like Dilfer or Boller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Ah the "h" word again so predictable and your right he isn't Montana more like Dilfer or Boller. As always with your posts, what the hell are you talking about with the "h" word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Excellent. I see some of the people who were berating Campbell over asking for a trade if we traded up and got Sanchez now refuse to admit they may have been wrong, instead using the "smokescreen, covering bases, whatever cliche" excuses, or just changing the subject to how "mediocre" Campbell is. Stay classy guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Jesus, man. You don't like Campbell. Got it. Everybody gets it. However, I don't think that there's a single person who's watched him who would say that he is "below average, average at best." That's just ridiculous. Jim Zorn seems to disagree as you don't desperately try to upgrade an above average position. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvtbred Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 As always with your posts, what the hell are you talking about with the "h" word? Hater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Jim Zorn seems to disagree as you don't desperately try to upgrade an above average position.Just sayin'. For Cutler? Yeah, I'd try to do a trade for someone who's viewed as highly as he is, too. He just seems to have "it." If you had Reggie White on the block three years ago, then wouldn't you still try to replace Daniels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Hater I can't express my pride for making that post based on a word that I used. Your brilliance is unparalleled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Ah the "h" word again so predictable and your right he isn't Montana more like Dilfer or Boller. When you take it to the levels you have, yes it is hating. As he pointed out, it's the same tired rhetoric with you. "JC is average at best," "he can't start anywhere else," "nobody will trade for him," etc. It's useless rhetoric devoid of any real analysis outside of your heavily biased and unrealistic opinion. You are presented with stats supporting an argument, "oh, those are just excuses, quit making excuses for Campbell," and "You are just a JC apologist." Your side does the label tossing and dismissing just as often, if not moreso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Hater apologist, JC lover, man crush, etc. Why don't you come down off that high horse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 And the starting QB.So' date=' despite Vinny admitting that they were interested in Cutler. And Vinny admitting that they looked into trading up for Sanchez but didn't have enough ammunition. Your position is still that the team never wanted to upgrade the QB spot. You really should make your tagline: "If it happened, that's the way it was supposed to happen."[/quote'] No, that isn't my position at all. My position is that the whole idea that trading up for Sanchez was mostly a smokescreen. I'm pretty convinced of that with the Rams rumor, considering what was rumored to be the offer was way low. If the Redskins were really serious about it, they would have offered future draft picks. It was something to sell the smokescreen. That's not to be mistaken that they had no interest in him or that they would have passed on him if he was there at #13, but all of this has been overblown in the media and I think the Skins have been partially responsible for it. It wouldn't be the first time the Skins used their reputation to their advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Honestly, there's a massive difference between the "apologists" and the "haters." The haters, honestly, just spew hate for Campbell. The apologists don't apologize for him, they just think that he's not the football reincarnation of Stalin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Vinny said that we were interested. After the draft.So' date=' Vinny is still apparently sending up a smokescreen. Also, the line is apparently fine.[/quote'] Jesus Christ.VINNY - perhaps you heard of him - linked us to Sanchez after the draft saying that we looked into trading him and decided against it. :doh: I tell you it was not a smoke screen. Were we interested? Yes lots of teams were interested, and Like most teams Vinny and the FO set down and decided how much they'd be willing to trade. I'm guessing it was no more than the first plus 2 lower picks, and that they were not interested in trading players. Knowing that, there is no way they were as enamored with Sanchez as the media has hyped or they would have made the trade. They didn't, that's the point. They looked into trading up for Orakpo for like five picks and everyone liked who they had. I'm telling you, yes we liked Sanchez, just like we worked out Russel a year ago or so, but under no circumstances were we ready to trade what it would have taken to beat out the jets at #5, no way. It also was not a smoke screen, the interest we had was geniuine. if Sanchez fell to the Jags, I think maybe we consider moving up, but even then it might have been too much, if he fell to #13 you can debate whether we take him if Orakpo is still on the board, but in truth it was the mediaots pumping the idea that Snyder had a crush on the guy and would give all to take him. The skins do not have a history of giving up large swaths of draft picks for anyone player. They didn't even give up that much for JC, so there is no precedent that we would do that. Plus if you factor in what we reportedly offered up in the Jay Cutler Sweepstakes, that even makes it less likely we were willing to trade up for Sanchez. It was all media hype, and Vinny and dan let them run with it, knowing that it would help Orakpo or someone else fall to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Lord I live for the day when people grow up and out of the need for needless and simplistic labels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Lord I live for the day when people grow up and out of the need for needless and simplistic labels. That's the attitude of a poophead. (See what I did there?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 :doh: I tell you it was not a smoke screen. Were we interested? Yes lots of teams were interested, and Like most teams Vinny and the FO set down and decided how much they'd be willing to trade. I'm guessing it was no more than the first plus 2 lower picks, and that they were not interested in trading players. Knowing that, there is no way they were as enamored with Sanchez as the media has hyped or they would have made the trade. They didn't, that's the point. They looked into trading up for Orakpo for like five picks and everyone liked who they had. I'm telling you, yes we liked Sanchez, just like we worked out Russel a year ago or so, but under no circumstances were we ready to trade what it would have taken to beat out the jets at #5, no way. It also was not a smoke screen, the interest we had was geniuine. if Sanchez fell to the Jags, I think maybe we consider moving up, but even then it might have been too much, if he fell to #13 you can debate whether we take him if Orakpo is still on the board, but in truth it was the mediaots pumping the idea that Snyder had a crush on the guy and would give all to take him. The skins do not have a history of giving up large swaths of draft picks for anyone player. They didn't even give up that much for JC, so there is no precedent that we would do that. It was all media hype, and Vinny and dan let them run with it, knowing that it would help Orakpo or someone else fall to us. You know, you can have an interest in a player and still have it be a smokescreen. It was amazing how much information came out about the Sanchez visit. Danny took him to a very high profile resturant where they seemed to know that they'd get media exposure for it. I still think all of that was done on purpose to generate media hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PROSCOUT Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Clearly a positive and optimistic thread that immediately has brought out the immature Jason Campbell haters once again. Seems like they can't let up for even one second. Seems like they simply cannot give up the hate or see anything but a dismall abyss ahead. Obviously from 8-8 their glass is half empty and draining quickly. I have no idea why they don't just trade themselves over to the Dallas board because whining and complaining is a way of life there. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.