wvtbred Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 First you say JC made the o-line and rb's look bad and then you admit there were injuries to the o-line. That's been one of my biggest arguments. People act like the o-line of the second half of the season was the same as the first half. Anyone who's played a sport knows you don't play at the same level with two injuries that require surgery and we had two lineman who required two surgeries each in the off season. Plus a lineman who's knees wore down so badly that he couldn't even practice during the weak. Portis was also held out of practice several weeks in the second half of the season. At one time, he had three different injuries. But JC made him look bad and it had nothing to do with a hip injury, a knee injury and an ankle injury all at the same time. If not for JC, he could have played with all his injuries at the same level as the first part of the year with a banged up o-line in front of him. Being banged up late in a 16 game season is nothing new and we weren't the only team in that situation trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metskins Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Neither did Clinton Portis during the second half of the season. In the last 8 games CP had 2 TDs. In the first 8 he had 7. So did Portis just all of a sudden start sucking and forgetting where the end zone was in the second half of last season or is it possible that, like Campbell, the injuries and generally piss-poor OL play during that stretch greatly affected the offense's ability to move the ball? Way to parse my statement. The QBs got to put his team in position to score 6 points. It's hard to do that when he checks down on every pass play (thus a HUGE reason why his accuracy is so high) and holds the ball for an hour on every play in a timing based offense. I'm not a huge Clinton fan, but show me the stat that the team got into the Red Zone with some regularity during that time, and I'll concede that he didn't do his job. The problems with Clinton and Cambell don't mirror each other. One can play in this league, the other is still TBD and the results aren't very encouraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomE Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Wasn't Zorn hired as HC because he was the only one that would guarantee Jason as QB? I don't know, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketCitySkins Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Wasn't Zorn hired as HC because he was the only one that would guarantee Jason as QB? Only according to certain posters on this message board. I've yet to see one link provided that backs up this statement. If you've got one, I would love to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Take a look at the DC's late in the season and get back to me. Nice avoidance of my question :thumbsup: Plus Zorn was a new coach early in the year and no one really knew what he was going to do. The DC's saw the weakness in Jason and exploited the hell out of it. Orrrrr...the DC's saw the weakness in our O-Line and exploited the hell out of it. Nah, can't be that, can it. Samuels and others hurting as the season got long didn't help either "Didn't help" lol...understatement of the year, right there. :yes: but it was Jason in the end that they targeted. Wait, I thought it was Portis they targeted? lol You don't have to believe me but it was the truth. Why else try to replace him in the off season as much as they did? They tried to replace him because Cutler became available...that's like a once every two decades opportunity, getting a young QB with emmense promise right as he's entering his peak. Most franchises lock up a QB like Cutler, not start dangling him out as trade bait. Obviously the FO saw him as more of a guarantee than Campbell...and that's debatable, to be honest. Not to mention that Campbell hasn't established himself by any stretch of the imagination, so he's more than fair game for the FO to think about replacing... But NONE of that means that the offensive woes of the 2nd half of the season were due merely to DCs stacking the box in the 2nd half because they didn't "fear" Jason Campbell. Maybe they didn't "fear" our WRs? Didn't fear our O-Line? Didn't fear Zorn as a playcaller?...As the article hints at, it's way too simplistic to merely lay it all at the feet of Campbell and think that a new QB cures all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShepSkins Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 The Washington Redskins, last I checked, are running Jim Zorn's version of the west coast offense. Whenever he's been allowed to have a say, Zorn has repeatedly stated that he wants Campbell to be the quarterback of his version of the west coast offense. The problem is, Zorn has little to no say on personnel. So if The Danny and The Vinny decide it's time to play fantasy football, he sits quietly in the corner and waits to see which names are added/subtracted from his roster. None of this changes the fact that - whenever he's asked - Zorn continues to say that Campbell gives the Redskins the best chance to succeed in his version of the west coast offense. Don't you think that he would know better than anyone whether Campbell, Collins, Brennan or whoever is best suited to run his offense? You think Zorn would say anything else after the trade didnt happen? At this time he has to back Jason why on earth would he be saying anything else. I also dont buy that Zorn had no part in the Cutler deal but this is a whole other topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Wasn't Zorn hired as HC because he was the only one that would guarantee Jason as QB? What? lol...Where the hell did you hear THAT from? :rotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Only according to certain posters on this message board. I've yet to see one link provided that backs up this statement. If you've got one, I would love to read it. I can't believe anyone runs with that as if it were true lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 What? lol...Where the hell did you hear THAT from? :rotflmao: www.extremeskins.com Dude. It is their official message board. You really think people are going to just lie in it? You are so dense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurf Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 You think Zorn would say anything else after the trade didnt happen? At this time he has to back Jason why on earth would he be saying anything else.I also dont buy that Zorn had no part in the Cutler deal but this is a whole other topic. Dude, folks who know more than you or I on this subject swear that Zorn has never changed his stance. Whether he's in front of cameras or off-the-record and behind closed doors, Zorn has continually maintained he wants Campbell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulRebel Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Thanks for putting forth some great info Murf. It really shows JC doesn't deserve all the criticism thrown his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketCitySkins Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 You think Zorn would say anything else after the trade didnt happen? At this time he has to back Jason why on earth would he be saying anything else.I also dont buy that Zorn had no part in the Cutler deal but this is a whole other topic. This is what was reported on March 25th. I think Zorn did get involved closer to the actual trade but possibly because he had no other choice given the FO's stance. "In an interview with Washington Post reporter Mark Maske, Zorn again made his commitment to Jason Campbell known. But Zorn said he's made it clear to Campbell that the club is committed to him as its starter. "I was talking to him about the upcoming season," Zorn said. He further stated when asked if the Redskins were interested in Cutler . . . "No, I think that was somebody's blog. I didn't even read it. But somebody had created a scenario. I haven't been involved with that." If Vinny Cerrato and Dan Snyder came to you and asked if you were interested in pursuing Cutler, would you say yes? "First of all, Vinny and Dan wouldn't come to me. We would always be together on an issue. I think every coach in the National Football League would go, 'Man, what is this all about? What if Denver approached us?' But that conversation hasn't gone anywhere except 'Monday Morning Quarterback' talk." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvtbred Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 What? lol...Where the hell did you hear THAT from? :rotflmao: Posted MANY times here and it's not as far fetched as some of the other "opinions" :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 stop the excuses!!! oh wait..... these are facts never mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 What? lol...Where the hell did you hear THAT from? :rotflmao: the same place they heard JC was inaccurate, held the ball too long, couldn't read defenses, not intelligent, didn't have fire in his belly, and was a nazi spy during WWII..... the hater version of fantasyland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvtbred Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Nice avoidance of my question :thumbsup:Orrrrr...the DC's saw the weakness in our O-Line and exploited the hell out of it. Nah, can't be that, can it. "Didn't help" lol...understatement of the year, right there. :yes: Wait, I thought it was Portis they targeted? lol They tried to replace him because Cutler became available...that's like a once every two decades opportunity, getting a young QB with emmense promise right as he's entering his peak. Most franchises lock up a QB like Cutler, not start dangling him out as trade bait. Obviously the FO saw him as more of a guarantee than Campbell...and that's debatable, to be honest. Not to mention that Campbell hasn't established himself by any stretch of the imagination, so he's more than fair game for the FO to think about replacing... But NONE of that means that the offensive woes of the 2nd half of the season were due merely to DCs stacking the box in the 2nd half because they didn't "fear" Jason Campbell. Maybe they didn't "fear" our WRs? Didn't fear our O-Line? Didn't fear Zorn as a playcaller?...As the article hints at, it's way too simplistic to merely lay it all at the feet of Campbell and think that a new QB cures all. They target the "weak" first like any good hunter and CP was not the weak link even banged up. Are you saying CP is weaker then Jason in there said positions? You watch nothing will change with the Giants, they will go right after Jason if he is starting for us then. If I am wrong and Jason plays well then it's a win because the team does well which is all I care about. If he doesn't and gets benched then Todd will carry this team I have no doubt to the playoffs. Either way it's win win but what I worry about is just staying the course and letting Jason take the ship down with him just like last year. You are so funny, weak but funny. Cutler, Sanchez and offering up Jason league wide to see his value (which really hurt) was enough to tell you exactly what management thought. Yes it was done and once again I am not giving up my source especially here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShepSkins Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Dude, folks who know more than you or I on this subject swear that Zorn has never changed his stance. Whether he's in front of cameras or off-the-record and behind closed doors, Zorn has continually maintained he wants Campbell. Dude, I'm not saying I know more than you or the insiders I'm just a fan. Zorn knows that Jason gives us the best chance to win now since the Cutler trade didnt go down. If Zorn had no say in the Cutler situation as you said than it's no wonder why we have floundered. You don't consult the head coach when making a decision on the most important position on the team? All I'm saying is that Jim would have no reason not to back Jason until the time ever came that Jason was no longer a starter here, now what happens behind closed doors I'll leave that up to guys in the know like yourself. I asked why we tried to trade Jason if the stats showed so well in his favor, You answered my question that Zorn had no part in the Cutler for Cambell trade and has always wanted Jason as his starter. Thanks Murf I didn't realize Zorn was not on board with the trade. That does make me wonder though if JimZ was not wanting to make the trade and was happy with Jason why on earth would the GM and owner still want to make it and give away a first round pick on top of that..Does Zorn have any chance at all being successful here if his opinions are valued so little by management... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KokoMike Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 stop the excuses!!!oh wait..... these are facts never mind Bubba Bubba Bubba... We can all quote stats and facts that match our opinions. That is a fact. We play the Giants on Day 1. Something happened that first game last year which haunted us the entire year. Look at the end of every drive for the Redskins in the second half. The trend is obvious. Completions short of first downs. If we ignore that fact, Campbell's stats were tremendous. 3-8-WAS 35 (13:37) (Shotgun) 17-J.Campbell pass short left to 89-S.Moss to WAS 42 for 7 yards (23-C.Webster). 3-6-WAS 41 (8:45) (Shotgun) 17-J.Campbell pass short left to 11-D.Thomas to WAS 46 for 5 yards (21-K.Phillips). 3-5-WAS 41 (5:20) 17-J.Campbell pass short middle to 89-S.Moss to WAS 44 for 3 yards (20-M.Johnson, 58-A.Pierce). 3-15-WAS 17 (10:53) (Shotgun) 17-J.Campbell pass short right to 82-A.Randle El to WAS 26 for 9 yards (58-A.Pierce). 3-17-NYG 47 (2:20) (Shotgun) 17-J.Campbell pass short right to 89-S.Moss to NYG 43 for 4 yards (21-K.Phillips). Timeout #1 by WAS at 02:12. 4-13-NYG 43 (2:12) 17-J.Campbell pass short right to 46-L.Betts to NYG 32 for 11 yards (31-A.Ross, 35-K.Dockery). 3-10-NYG 32 (:07) (Shotgun) 17-J.Campbell pass short right to 46-L.Betts to NYG 11 for 21 yards (35-K.Dockery). PENALTY on WAS-60-C.Samuels, Offensive Holding, 0 yards, enforced at NYG 32 - No Play. There is only one fact i care about right now. We are tied for first place going into the season. We face the mighty Giants on Day 1. On the following Monday, I want it to be a fact that we are tied for first place, no excuses. That is a fact. September 13, 4:15PM, at the Giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Bubba Bubba Bubba...We can all quote stats and facts that match our opinions. That is a fact. no you can't because the JC detractors never post any real "facts" just bias opinion murph has provide real facts that debunks the myths passed off as "facts" here's another "fact" that seems to slip the JC detractors mind TEAMS win or lose ball games, not QB's or any other single player. as murph stats confirms. A QB is the most dependent position in all sports. No matter how well he preforms his skills, it's all for not if for others preforming theirs. receivers must get open and catch the ball Lineman must block to open lanes and provide time. RB must block, & pick up blitzers, Must catch passes, and run and complete fakes for play action. what murph's find proves is JC did what he needed to do, more often than not others failed on their end, that caused breakdowns for plays not to be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972FAN Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 A guy with 1972 in his user name and multiple photos of Ronald Reagan in his signature talking about dropping the past. Hmmm. Okay. Touchy aren't we , you must read every post, LOL, get a life, Whaaaaaaa!, lifes too short, he's a tissue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Touchy aren't we , you must read every post, get a life, Whaaaaaaa!, lifes too short, he's a tissue! Knock it off. If your 2 posts in this thread are the best you're going to do,then don't post in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metskins Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 no you can'tbecause the JC detractors never post any real "facts" just bias opinion murph has provide real facts that debunks the myths passed off as "facts" here's another "fact" that seems to slip the JC detractors mind TEAMS win or lose ball games, not QB's or any other single player. as murph stats confirms. A QB is the most dependent position in all sports. No matter how well he preforms his skills, it's all for not if for others preforming theirs. receivers must get open and catch the ball Lineman must block to open lanes and provide time. RB must block, & pick up blitzers, Must catch passes, and run and complete fakes for play action. what murph's find proves is JC did what he needed to do, more often than not others failed on their end, that caused breakdowns for plays not to be successful. YOU talking about facts?? Oh THAT is rich! The most important position in any team sport is.....? DING DING DING, the Quarterback Ladies and Gentlemen! He HAS to make plays. Ours does not, at least on a regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBush Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 TEAMS win or lose ball games, not QB's or any other single player. [sNIP] receivers must get open and catch the ball Lineman must block to open lanes and provide time. RB must block, & pick up blitzers, Must catch passes, and run and complete fakes for play action. Agreed, you put Adrian Peterson behind the line we had in the second half of 08 and you would get similar results as CP what murph's find proves is JC did what he needed to do, more often than not others failed on their end, that caused breakdowns for plays not to be successful. For the most part he did I think my problem with him is improving his reads and decision making of where he is going to put the ball. Im thinking that what has been said about the receivers running the right routes will improve the Redskins offensive production. If that doesn't happen someone else needs to be put in. Period. Another thing, All this talk of going back to Jason's second year, 2007, actually playing in the NFL and acting like he hasn't improved is ridiculous, In 2008 (the year of relevance) he played adequately up until a point where EVERYTHING shut down offensively. If you think a less mobile QB was what we needed behind the swiss cheese line you are smoking some good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Not exactly rocket science to many of us. I'm not about to say JC is perfect, or that he doesnt miss a bunch of throws, but the idea that he was the problem last year is absurd. Any year where you see a QB raise his rating by 7-8 points is a GOOD improvement. The entire offense collapsed the last half of last year, to blame it on JC is beyond naive. When both the passing game and running game collapses, it tells you its not the QB or RB's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Posted MANY times here and it's not as far fetched as some of the other "opinions" :evilg: So you heard it from other fans?? LoL...Oh, well, I'm sorry for doubting you, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.