mnb123 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 By the way, if we had stayed at 54% we would have been about the 15 best RZ team by efficiency. 15th best? There are only 32 teams in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianm23 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Hahahaha! You crack me up.So, just following your lead: It's NOT the quarterback's fault if a team fails. You heard it right here! Jason wouldn't have the numbers that he does if he played on a much worse team, so he'd have much better numbers on a much better team. Thanks for telling us what we already know. Not what I said, but you are more than welcome to read it how you want. Also, read my sig for further details. Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eljeasel Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 maybe they dont want him throwing because its not a good idea? dont you think if he was good in the redzone zorn would dial up more passing plays? think about that for a sec.either zorn is a moron and a horrid playcaller, or theres no confidence in campbell inside the 20s. I will think about it for a second. His RZ TD rate per pass is just about on with some of the best around the league. Yet hes throwing 20-25 passes less in the red zone. But we suck in the RZ. Perhaps the two are linked. If you (and Zorn) assume hes bad in the RZ, and if you dont let him throw, and the result is poor isnt your assumption wrong? I dont think anyones going to claim hes Peyton down there, but you have to attack regardless. And finally: either zorn is a moron and a horrid playcaller, or theres no confidence in campbell inside the 20s. Anyone here think Zorn brought great playcalling in the RZ? How about good? Satisfactory? Poor? Anybody think Zorn is brilliant? Competent? or as CP said "a genius"? You let him throw you could be talking about no change, you could be talking about 10 more TDs. Realistically you are looking at 4-5 more TDs and Im not sure that would be at the expense of rushing TDs (as alot of the rushing TDs arent off power, but draws) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Not what I said, but you are more than welcome to read it how you want. Also, read my sig for further details. Thanks in advance. Hahahha, okay man. Just keep twisting everything so that it fits your argument. Partly sunny when you want it to be, mostly cloudy when you don't. And your signature is, just like everything else you write, just cherry picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eljeasel Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 15th best?There are only 32 teams in the league. Im not sure I follow. Its an improvement of 9 places from 24th. If you lean on the passing game in the RZ maybe youre talking about improving more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPORTISFAN999 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 http://www.espnnewstoday.com/I know it's fake but it gave me a scare when I first saw it! Wait....is that story real? did we seriously trade Campbell,Santana and a 3rd rounder to the Jets for Sanchez? and if it's not true, why would espn lie about something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeroViper Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 The Campbell situation made me think back to Drew Brees's first few years in the league. His very average play led SD to draft Philip Rivers. It was only after Rivers drafted that Brees started to set the league on fire. You never know, this may be the catalyst to ignite JC's career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnb123 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Wait....is that story real? did we seriously trade Campbell,Santana and a 3rd rounder to the Jets for Sanchez? and if it's not true, why would espn lie about something like that? Look at the URL, and compare that to ESPN's real URL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Bob Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 PT Barnum was right................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPORTISFAN999 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Look at the URL, and compare that to ESPN's real URL. ESPN's url is www.espn.com right? Good. I'm happy that it's not true. I'm not happy that we DID sign Chase Daniel though. Hopefully Campbell doesn't request a trade now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Bob Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 The tough part about being optimistic about Campbell's situation is that the team has done little this off season to make Campbell more successful. OL - Not that much better unless Mike Williams make a miraculous change between now and Week 1 and plays even like the Indy version of Mandarich. WRs - They are hoping that Year 2 for Thomas and Kelly makes things easier. TEs & RBs - Status quo, which was expected. System - Status quo which is a good thing. Then they jerked with his head by flirting with getting Cutler and Sanchez.......... JC could come out and light it up. Or, he could just get killed as the OL gets beat up again and team double 'Tana......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeroViper Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Campbell is in no position to request/demand a trade. This isn't like the Cutler situation. JC's not a Pro Bowler. He's a mediocre NFL QB. And as illustrated recently he has little market value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPORTISFAN999 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Well i am really hoping for him to do a lot of good things next year for the team. I hope he succeeds in the NFL. If not here, then somewhere else if need be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Campbell is in no position to request/demand a trade. This isn't like the Cutler situation. JC's not a Pro Bowler. He's a mediocre NFL QB. And as illustrated recently he has little market value. It's still amazing to me how much one year going to the Pro Bowl (with your only stellar numbers being yards passing...yeah 25 TDs, but with the 18 INTs caveat) can change a QB's value. If, after the 07 season, the Broncos had tried to trade cutler they might have been able to get one 1st rounder for him. His numbers were "good" but nothing great. Then he throws for 4,500 yards (but with a lesser QB rating than 07), gets one Pro Bowl nod, and he is suddenly worth the insane amount the Bears paid for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I am being optimistic.. ...I'm still hoping that we either trade him for a sixth round pick (like someone would actually give such a high pick for him :doh) or that Danny tells Zorn that there will be a fair and open competition in camp, which means that Colt will get the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailSkinz1 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Being optimistic about JC at this point is akin to saying "I know Jansen really stunk it up last year, and well, he wasn't that great the year before either, but I'm really optimistic that he's going to be great this year." Usually, optimism is based on some sort of factual information. Blind faith is what you are requesting. As always, I will cheer for JC and the Redskins to win every game. But I also know, we will NEVER be a contender as long as JC is our QB. I like the kid a lot, but he's only an average QB and average QBs don't get it done year in and year out. Hail, H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I am being optimistic.....I'm still hoping that we either trade him for a sixth round pick (like someone would actually give such a high pick for him :doh) or that Danny tells Zorn that there will be a fair and open competition in camp, which means that Colt will get the job. I do have high hopes for him being able to take the backup spot from Collins, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeroViper Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Keep in mind Cutler averages almost a full yard more per completion than JC. That's pretty big. I'm not a Cutler fan, and I'm glad we didn't get him, but I can see why his value is substantially higher than JC's. JC at this point in his career is viewed as nothing more than an adequate game manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Keep in mind Cutler averages almost a full yard more per completion than JC. That's pretty big. I'm not a Cutler fan, and I'm glad we didn't get him, but I can see why his value is substantially higher than JC's. JC at this point in his career is viewed as nothing more than an adequate game manager. I think you are being generous with eht adequate remark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Not to rain on the parade but there is a poll on espn.com about which QB will have the better career: Campbell, Cutler, Sanchez, Stafford, or Quinn. Who do you think has the most and least votes? http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/poll/index Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Not to rain on the parade but there is a poll on espn.com about which QB will have the better career: Campbell, Cutler, Sanchez, Stafford, or Quinn. Who do you think has the most and least votes?http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/poll/index You tell'em. Because the general internet masses of the world have much better judgment than a GM... or HC... or even the gatorade guy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 JC will be just fine. And all the "haters" will be cheering for him right along side the "apologists". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 You tell'em. Because the general internet masses of the world have much better judgment than a GM... or HC... or even the gatorade guy... :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailSkinz1 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 You tell'em. Because the general internet masses of the world have much better judgment than a GM... or HC... or even the gatorade guy... Well, consider the fact that at least one GM already chose Kyle Orton over JC and from the sounds of things, no one has been knocking down our door when we opened the possibility of wanting a new QB. The interesting part about the poll is that right now JC is third in VA and MD and not even close to first. Hail, H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassSkinsFan Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Califan, Hail. Great post. Thanks for the optimism. Unlike some of the more shrill JC haters, I put the decline in his performance, and that of CP, down mostly to the OL problems in the second half of 2008. Also, people began to figure out Zorn's playcalling. That is not to say that JC played flawlessly - not at all. I just think that if our OL gets back to the level they achieved in 2008 H1, we have a much better chance of seeing JC deliver the way he did early last season. I have to say I was a bit baffled by our seeming lack of attention to OL in the draft, but my sense now is that the FO and coaches believe we can get the job done with the vets and youngsters we have. This could turn out to be a pleasant surprise to Skins fans. We'll see. Anyway, thanks for the positive post. HTTR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.